Dylan rarely collaborated with other writers and Levy co-wrote it Miss is probably his best known collaboration with songwriting.
While Levy would be entitled to a portion of the songs with typical co-writing arrangements, his agreement with Dylan is rather a work-for-hire service that gave Dylan full ownership. Only it was not a typical work-for-rent either. Instead, Levy and his publisher have the right to Levy and his publisher entitled to 35% of the songs’ revenue, paid for by Dylan or directly from an organization for performance. (The contract reads ASCAP and BMI, but Dylan has been signed with SESAC since 1995.)
According to the case, Dylan was obliged to pay Levy “Thirty-five (35%) percent of all income earned by the Compositions and what they actually received [the Dylan Defendants] of mechanical rights, electrical transcripts, reproduction rights, synchronization of films and television rights, and all other rights therein ”- what Claudia Levy and her lawyer Richard Golub ‘s name must include a portion of the Universal Catalog Sales.
This claim will be tested. Levy will presumably still be entitled to the 35% of the proceeds from the use of the songs (which must now be paid by Universal), but since he never owned the songs, he should be entitled to profits from the songs. selling the songs? Dylan and his team will probably argue no and say Levy was hired to help write the songs and then promise a cut of their royalties – and their royalties alone.
“The term ‘income’, as set out in … the agreement, is unlimited and unambiguous, ‘reads the complaint lodged by Levy’s lawyer. Richard Golub. It adds, ‘the terms of the agreement make it clear that the agreement is very typical of a work-for-hire agreement, which gives the plaintiffs substantial substantive rights and material benefits not normally granted to employees who hire hire. Is not and that the label work -hire is in this case a misnomer. ‘
The allegation also contains an allegation that Dylan and UMG denied Claudia Levy’s request for Levy’s “legitimate share” of the catalog sale in mid-December, about a week after the acquisition was announced.
In an attempt to establish that Levy’s contributions have been “reduced and concealed” by the Dylan defendants “since their collaboration, the complaint sets out a timeline for grievances, including an allegation that Levy never appeared on posters or programs were attributed to Dylan’s tour of the Rolling Thunder Revue in 1975, although he served as director of the program, and it is noted that Levy was never recognized in the 2019 documentary Rolling Thunder Revue: A Bob Dylan Story by Martin Scorsese – a charge previously laid by Levy’s son, Julien Levy, in a 2019 article for Under.
“This case is a sad attempt to unfairly exploit the recent catalog sale,” Dylan’s lawyer noted Orin Snyder in a statement by email to Billboard. “The plaintiffs paid everything they owed. We are confident that we will triumph. And if we do, we will hold the plaintiffs and their attorneys responsible for filing this case.
Universal Music Group did not respond to a request for comment. Billboard‘s request for comment during publication.
Claudia Levy is asking for $ 7.25 million, including a total of $ 5.25 million for two breaches of contract and a score of “unlawful interference with the contract” (all based on a valuation of $ 300 million for the catalog sale) , and $ 2 million in punitive damages “to prevent similar conduct in the future and to punish the Dylan defendants for their offenses and contractual offenses.”
The sale of Dylan’s catalog, announced on December 7, is estimated to be the largest ever for a single songwriter.