March 25, 2008 - The Smashing Pumpkins file lawsuit against former label Virgin Records

"We fought hard for the right to be in control of how our music is used, to avoid situations like this kind of crass commercialism and exploitation. Labels like EMI are no longer running the show, and we won't be bullied by those in the 'old' music business who consider every artist to be easily expendable. Those days are over." - Billy Corgan

THE SMASHING PUMPKINS have filed a lawsuit this week against Virgin Records, their former record label, for the unauthorized exploitation of the band's musical works and image as well as for devaluing the market value of its music and deceiving its fans.

Filed in the Superior Court of the State of California in Los Angeles, the suit states that Virgin Records-without the band's knowledge or permission-endorsed and sponsored a worldwide promotional marketing campaign by Amazon.com and Pepsi for both companies to promote and sell Amazon and Pepsi products for financial profit.

The suit contends that the Pumpkins-one of alternative rock's most successful artists-have vigilantly overseen their music and likeness, which "convey a message of honesty, artistic integrity and alternative non-main stream culture" and that Virgin Records has "irreparably harmed the group, their reputation and goodwill with their fans."

The Pumpkins would never have granted such authority to Virgin, or any other entity, because they govern the use of its name, likeness, and musical works in conjunction with any commercial affiliation or sponsorship. Therefore, the suit indicates "Virgin has deceived and confused the public into believing that Plaintiff is affiliated with the promotion and/or that Plaintiff itself is participating in the promotion."

The Pumpkins are demanding, as the suit states, "a full and complete accounting of all funds received by Virgin pursuant to the Pepsi promotion" and the band is "entitled to an award of punitive damages against Virgin in an amount according to proof."

The suit maintains that "Virgin's action, unless and until enjoined and restrained by order of this Court, will cause great and irreparable injury to Plaintiff, as it continues to falsely attribute Plaintiff's sponsorship and/or affiliation with the promotion, and continues to provide Plaintiff's musical works at a price below the market value of the works, thereby damaging Plaintiff's reputation and reducing the market value of Plaintiff's musical works."

Says Billy Corgan: "'It's a frustrating situation honestly, to be treated so poorly by a label where we had so much success. Recently, they have ignored our pleas to give our fans special editions of our old albums, telling us they weren't interested. So there is a tremendous amount of hypocrisy involved with them turning around and using us like this."

"It's another desperate attempt," says Jimmy Chamberlin, "by an anachronistic business to generate revenue however they can, legal or illegal. They have neither the wisdom to accept their irrelevance, nor the intelligence to do something about it." He adds: "Just goes to show that they will do about anything for money. Seems they have long forgotten how to actually 'work' for a dollar."

The Pumpkins, who last year released the gold-certified Zeitgeist album on Martha's Music/Reprise, are currently on tour in Australia. The band has created one of the most acclaimed bodies of work in music history. Formed in Chicago in 1988, they released Gish, their influential (and platinum) debut in 1991, which was followed by more platinum and multi-platinum albums including the nine-times platinum Mellon Collie And The Infinite Sadness and the four-times platinum Siamese Dream. The pivotal group's many hits include "Disarm," "Today," "Cherub Rock," "1979," "Tonight, Tonight" and "Bullet With Butterfly Wings"-songs that defined the alternative music era and continue to resonate on modern rock radio, influencing a whole new generation.


  • Currently 4.91/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 4.9/5 (47 votes cast)

Sorry to piss on your parade, Pottsie
Tuesday, April 22, 2008 - 10:12 am - IWillEatYourSoul
But Virgin Records are *not* a part of the same group as the other Virgin companies you mentioned.

Virgin Records was sold to EMI in 1992.

meh
Friday, April 4, 2008 - 8:00 pm - kvn8r3k
Anyone else find it funny that Jimmy can say "Just goes to show that they will do about anything for money" when their case is all about how, as Billy put it, Virgin "continues to provide Plaintiff's musical works at a price below the market value of the works, thereby damaging Plaintiff's reputation and reducing the market value of Plaintiff's musical works????" Yeah, Jimmy, enjoy your race cars. I'll think fondly of you racing around in them while I'm riding the bus to work.

principles
Thursday, April 3, 2008 - 7:31 am - manikscribe
I just hope billy doesn't start spouting about integrity and selling out and blahblahblah, because he had his way and Doomsday Clock showed up in transformers, which was THE biggest piece of corporate moviemaking SHIT ever, and in a chevy commercial. And he released Zeitgeist 12 times. And the shit still didn't go platinum.

And yes, Virgin Airlines is doing well, but the record companies are dying. Pick up a copy of rolling stone, or variety or the wall street journal. Live Nation's new business model is looking to be the way of the future.



Virgin now obsolete?
Monday, March 31, 2008 - 9:41 am - Pottsie
"...at least we can take comfort in the fact that institutions like Virgin are already obselete and will soon fade into memory."

You're having a laugh... Virgin Atlantic (biggest grossing passenger airline over the last 4 years), Virgin Trains, Virgin Radio, Virgin TV, and now planning for passenger space flight with Virgin Galactic, and of course Virgin Music... Sorry Brundie, Virgin aren't going anywhere.

copy left!
Saturday, March 29, 2008 - 8:49 pm - chargel
free world... free of copyrights!

nham' ainda não intendi o babado...
Saturday, March 29, 2008 - 8:48 pm - chargel
devem ser minhas raaízes loiras insistentes.
tá, os pumpkins esão rpocessandoa virgin pq a virgin tá usando o nome deles numas negociações com o Amazon.com e a maligerada Pespi... bacana, mas alguém sabe que pessssttteee de negociações são essas? seriam comerciais, festival, material promocional esquisto estilo tampinha de tictac?

ennnfimmm

ssó sei que eles tocam no festival coca-zero no méxico...

em breve compre guaraná jesus (produto de coca cola company) ganhe gratis ua mp3 dos pumpkins... melhor refrigerante dolly, sabor cancer hepatico.



meu cú de ódio que num sai nada pra nos aqui em baixo... nem uma centelha de esperaça, a não ser a previsões de "Pai" Lucio Ribeiro... que... nem rpa prever show, nem pra trazer amor de volta... pelo menos me rendeu uma ótima entrevista ano passado.

caray
Saturday, March 29, 2008 - 1:26 am - pumpkinjuice
Me parece injusto por parte de virgyn rec. lo que estan asiendo a smashing pumpkins, ya que teniendo el poder de hacer las copias que ellos quieran de los album´s y asi poder explotar al maximo las ediciones limitadas se rebajen a exivir a los pumpkins como uno marca barata o mas bien como si fueran un calzon sucio realizando esas campañas con pepsi, los pumpkins, no son, un grupito de tontos, son lo mejor que pudo haber existido en los 90´s.
Pepsi, recuerda esto, los pumpkins no son michael jackson, ni brytney spears, y mas vale que se retracten con esas campañas de basura que solo afectan a la sociedad rocker.
Por eso tomo coca cola. jajajajaja.
smashing pumpkins los esperamos en guadalajara.

hmmm...
Thursday, March 27, 2008 - 5:11 pm - Glassperlen
...i hope i didn't confuse matters more

Anyway the general rule is:
- creator owns content, but has no right to publish/release in more than one label.
- label owns only the form-giving product and holds the right to publish/release according to 1. copyright law and 2. contract with the band.
- the label does NOT own any of the contents of the product at all.
- co-partnership is not equal to owning; is having co-rights on distribution of product, when and if both parts are in agreement.

is that better? well at least that is a general line...


Zephyr
Thursday, March 27, 2008 - 1:34 pm - Glassperlen
"Considering that (if I'm not mistaken) Virgin owns the rights to all of the Smashing Pumpkins music produced while they were on the label, it stands to reason that, legally speaking, Virgin can do pretty much whatever it wants with it."

From what i have been taught and have read myself, copyright is bounded to the actual artist him/herself and to noone else.
Considering for examble the contents of a book; all the written parts of the product called book is property of the one who created it and not the publisher. A publisher owns the right ONLY of publishing that particular book, however it holds totally NO rights on the contents of it. The same applies when the writer has a contract with a particular publishing label. The writer is then bound to publish future work to that particular label, however if the label for whatever reasons (usu for their own profit) uses contents of the published book without the permission or knowledge of the writer, then copyright has been infridged.

Now instead of a book we take the music produced by the pumpkins, like you mentioned. Virgin as a label has the right when in contract with a band or a musician to release albums, compilations, singles etc., in general the musical production of the creator, for as long the contract is active.
However, if this same lebel uses a song or songs (=musical contents) for whatever reason (even from those particular albums which the label has released) WITHOUT the permission of the musician or band, then the copyright has been infridged as well.

That's what i was trying to explain...not an easy task...lol

.....Virgin owns all rights?
Thursday, March 27, 2008 - 12:54 am - anil5618
"The problem is that according to the contract the Pumpkins renegotiated with Virgin in the late '90s, both parties are partners where the catalog is concerned" -Billboard

Corgan can veto any deal. "Legally", both parties need to agree before any action can be taken. So, Virgin can't do just whatever it wants.

[ next > ] [ last >> ] You must be logged in to post comments