|
|
Post by AGD on Feb 7, 2019 9:13:14 GMT -5
Recently, I've noticed that posts elsewhere have been stating that Mike "owns" the BB name and that he "bought" the license... and that's simply not true.
Back in 1998, the corporate members of Brother Records Inc. - Brian, Mike, Alan & Carl's estate - voted 2-1 (Brian & Carl's estate in favour, Alan against, Mike abstained) to award Mike an exclusive license to tour (but only to tour) as "The Beach Boys". Mike didn't buy it: the terms of the license stipulated (back in 1998: the figures may be different now) that Mike pay BRI 20% from the first $1 million dollars of the concert grosses and 17.5% thereafter. That's annually.
|
|
|
|
Post by Emdeeh on Feb 7, 2019 9:23:54 GMT -5
It's a common error in news articles on the guys. I think it's lazy reporting.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Cap'n on Feb 7, 2019 9:28:15 GMT -5
Also common among fans, unfortunately. I don't think it's fair to expect everyone to be on top of these things, except when they use "facts" to make arguments. That's where it gets irksome.
|
|
|
|
Post by juicebrohnston on Feb 7, 2019 11:30:00 GMT -5
One thing I never full understood, is whether or not the license can be revoked by a vote? I'm leaning towards the idea that Mike can have this license for as long as he wants as long as he fulfills the obligations outlined. Is this accurate? And that if Al, Brian (or Al and Brian) wanted the same license they, in fact could get one as well?
|
|
|
|
Post by AGD on Feb 7, 2019 11:40:07 GMT -5
As far as I'm aware, as long as Mike fulfills the terms of the license and keeps paying BRI the stipulated share of the concert grosses, he keeps it.
As for it being revoked by a vote, I'm sure there's a contingency for that, but given no-one's invoked that these last 20-odd years should tell you how unhappy they are with it. Carl's estate in particular get something like $500,000 a year for doing precisely nothing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vale on Feb 7, 2019 11:40:44 GMT -5
One thing I never full understood, is whether or not the license can be revoked by a vote? I'm leaning towards the idea that Mike can have this license for as long as he wants as long as he fulfills the obligations outlined. Is this accurate? And that if Al, Brian (or Al and Brian) wanted the same license they, in fact could get one as well? I'm uninformed on this subject but I think there are penalties to pay... and eventually suing (one more time...). It's all about the money, as always. |
|
|
|
Post by craigslowinski on Feb 7, 2019 13:13:10 GMT -5
One thing I never full understood, is whether or not the license can be revoked by a vote? I'm leaning towards the idea that Mike can have this license for as long as he wants as long as he fulfills the obligations outlined. Is this accurate? And that if Al, Brian (or Al and Brian) wanted the same license they, in fact could get one as well? On the latter point, my understanding is that the license granted to Mike for use of the group name is "exclusive". Hence, when Al went out with his band as "Beach Boys Family & Friends", an injunction was granted, and he subsequently stopped using it. He can, however, refer to himself as a "founding Beach Boy". |
|
|
|
Post by Jason (The Real Beach Boy) on Feb 7, 2019 16:02:44 GMT -5
You mean Mike didn't greedily buy the license like some greedy capitalist? Gee, it's almost like a narrative is being pushed...
|
|
|
|
Post by filledeplage on Feb 7, 2019 16:08:15 GMT -5
You mean Mike didn't greedily buy the license like some greedy capitalist? Gee, it's almost like a narrative is being pushed...  |
|
|
|
Post by The Cap'n on Feb 7, 2019 16:15:20 GMT -5
Let the record show, I am open for negotiations to use my name on the road even if it means I'll be villified on message boards forever. PM me your offers.
|
|
