The contract was shared with Digital Music News early Friday morning, and is also being submitted as evidence in federal court by MegaUpload.
Just last week, will.i.am attorney Ken Hertz told the Hollywood Reporter that the 'MegaUpload Song' was totally unauthorized, and the reason for a YouTube takedown request by the artist. This contract suggests the complete opposite. It appears to give MegaUpload sweeping rights to capture any recording or interview involving will.i.am, and subsequently "copyright, record, broadcast, distribute, edit, publish, exhibit, disseminate, couple, and use in any way throughout the universe and in perpetuity..."
It also allows use throughout any "advertising, publicity, promotion, trade" material, and most importantly, waives any requirement for approval by the artist prior to dissemination. Take a look.
Comments Closed
@jscavo Friday, December 16, 2011
Dear Will, sadly I am not surprised.
@Bmac Friday, December 16, 2011
Brian McPherson
I guess Ken had an intern review that contract.
the odds Saturday, December 17, 2011
The MegaUpload owner has been convinced for related crimes in the past.
The artist's lawyer, on the other hand, has not...!
William Friday, December 16, 2011
Oh Kenneth! Why doth thy allow clientele to ink such wretched binding contracts!
PartlyCloudy Friday, December 16, 2011
Digital Music News!
You forgot Section 14, Clause B, Sub-paragraph 11:
"Mega Upload reserves the right to Will.i.am's first born, to be used in the Mega Upload traveling circus for perpetuity"
Ouch Friday, December 16, 2011
Ha! Another case of a manager looking at dollar signs instead of details.
Ouch Friday, December 16, 2011
By manager I meant lawyer.
Visitor Friday, December 16, 2011
There's an attorneys fee provision in there and, while it may be interpreted as applying to third party claims only, it could be used against Will himself for his own claims. Wouldn't that suck for Will.
Glad It's Not Me Friday, December 16, 2011
I thought this had been submitted earlier this week (it's been circulating for a few days)? Regardless, what's going to be interesting is when the indemnification is used to have will.i.am cover megaupload's legal fees for pursuing the lawsuit against Universal, since Universal challenged the authority under the agreement.
Obvious question: Friday, December 16, 2011
How do we know this is the artist's signature...?
Visitor Friday, December 16, 2011
Are you accusing ken of forgery? Hope ken got will enuf $$$ for the cheesy mega upload promo to cover their legal fees. Give with one hand, snatch it back with the other. Poor Will.
Excuse me? Saturday, December 17, 2011
How do *you* know this is the artist's signature?
billeeto Saturday, December 17, 2011
*I* don't know anything about this signature, but I've got plenty of popcorn. Go get 'em ken.
@TheReaLDeX Friday, December 16, 2011
Contracts don't lie Will.
You call this "free speech"? Saturday, December 17, 2011
Interesting how the Wikipedia entry for Megaupload so conviniently avoids to mention that its founder and owner, Kim Schmitz, has been convicted for credit card fraud, computer fraud, insider trading, and embezzlement in the past:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaupload
You have to know his name and search him in order to read it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Schmitz
@JustSherman Saturday, December 17, 2011
This is what you call a 'hang yourself in a noose' contract.
billeeto Saturday, December 17, 2011
this looks like a weird case ... with plenty of scamming going on ... I'd like to see how it turns out. From the MegaUpload complaint:
From on or about October 16, 2011 and October 21, 2011, MEGAUPLOAD had the sole use of [NEIL FINN'S] Roundhead Studios, a well-known recording studio in Auckland, primarily for the purpose of recoding a promotional song and video, referred to herein as the MEGAUPLOAD SONG VIDEO, produced by MEGAUPLOAD’s principal, Kim Dotcom and Printz Board of the Black Eyed Peas band, at a substantial expense to MEGAUPLOAD
DGF Saturday, December 17, 2011
Art thou look over contract?? Guess not.Will u gave them the right to do anything w/ur music thru out the universe an perpetuity. Lawd !!you might as well gave up your first born child if u had one. One lives and learns.
Know him personally? Sunday, December 18, 2011
Quite an assumption you are making here. How can you possible know that the artist has in fact signed the contract?
You don't understand that his signature has to be confirmed, or what?
MUSICSERVICES4LESS Monday, December 19, 2011
If you read the complaint, I find it interesting that nowhere is there a claim that Megaupload owns the Song and/or owns the copyright to the Megaupload Song. Now I'm no attorney and I don't know if that is an essential element that must be pleaded in this type of action (DMCA) as opposed to a copyright infringement action but common sense tells me you would want to at least allege that Megaupload owns the Song. I'm no attorney but I'm just sayin'.
MarvinB Monday, December 19, 2011
Without seeing the contract Will signed with UMG, I'm fairly certain it contained language to the effect of:
"You hereby represent, warrant and agree that during the term of this agreement, you will render your exclusive recording services to Company in the Territory as provided herein."
That being said, the contract with MegaUpload signed over rights Will no longer had full control over, i.e. his recording services. As earlier discussed in the comments, the MU agreements seems overly broad, and any attorney worth his weight would have suggested that, to participate in a recorded jingle, Will would have needed permission from his label (if still under contract as a solo artist).
@helienne Monday, December 19, 2011
I'd love to hear will.i.am comment on this himself.
@johnharleybreen Monday, December 19, 2011
Wow. I wonder if he read any of it himself.
Jimmy "I"+"I" Monday, December 19, 2011
Sloppy lawyering by that lawyer, heard lots of bad stuff bout him. Didn't they claim he tried to steal money with Beyonce's father from Live Nation or something like that? Ken Hertz. That's why she fired both of them last year.
Concerned Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Do you know any more information about Ken and Matthew
Knowles allegedly trying to steal money from Beyonce and Live Nation?
If it's true, undoubtedly Ken Hertz was rightly fired by Beyonce.
Kathryn Colburn Monday, December 19, 2011
the lawyer ken hertz is just desperate for attention, made it all up to get his name in the media...see, now dmn is doing it too! Ken Hertz stole IP and valuable business concepts from people I know in New York. And he tried many times to burn people off deals THEY BROUGHT TO HIM TO REPRESENT, then went after the deals himself. KEN HERTZ = BAD GUY. Will.i.am gets what he deserves. What was that silly TV special "Rock nRoll is Science"? Puh-leeze!. talk about dumb. both of them. Unethical Attorney, lame artist in my opin. Remember MC Hammer? That's William in two years...haaaaaaha. He'll go out of fashion very very quickly.
interesting observation Tuesday, December 20, 2011
That sucks stealing from anyone. Bad Karma. Let's see if the MC Hammer comes true.... would not surprise me.
billeeto Tuesday, December 20, 2011
don't disagree with any of this and thanks for posting it ... but when you say ken "made it all up" what do you mean? he told hollywood reporter that will didn't grant any rights to mega, then the release appears on DMN and finally ken or a litigator (because ken wouldn't know where the court is located) will prove its a forgery? is that the play, you think? it all seems kind of a weird way to get your name out there... no? but i'm keeping tuned to this station to find out about that release. if its will's signature, ken looks like a bozo shooting his mouth off. if its not will's signature someone is going to jail, and it seems that those mega people have been there before. not sure who i'm betting on yet.
OUR SPONSORS
© 2011 All Rights Reserved
Follow Us