Get It In Writing - Owning The House That Ruth Built

George Herman Ruth, Jr. was better known as "The Babe" (or the Italian equivalent "The Bambino").  At the time of Ruth's trade from the Boston Red Sox to the New York Yankees for the 1920 season, the Bronx Bombers were playing home games in the Polo Grounds - a facility it shared with its owners - the New York Giants (oddly, the Giants organization owned the facility but not the land).  Ruth's career (and the Yankees success) soared immediately, to the consternation of the Giants' leadership.  After a little more than a season of seeing Ruth's popularity result in astronomical Yankee ticket sales, the Giants organization informed the Yankees that the team needed its own home.  The seed for what would become Yankee Stadium was planted. On opening day in 1923, Ruth fittingly hit a home run to christen the new stadium, inspiring New York Evening Telegram sportswriter Fred Lieb to affectionately name the facility "The House That Ruth Built".  Because Ruth's power hitting prowess, the consistent winning of the Yankees, the jealousy of the Giants organization, and Ruth's opening day bomb, Lieb's coined nickname for the new stadium was certainly rooted in accuracy.

On June 13, 1948, the Yankees were celebrating the 25th anniversary of Yankee Stadium and invited a sick and frail Babe for a curtain call.  Ruth stood just inside the left-field line near the infield circle and infield grass.  Facing fair territory, with his cap in his left-hand and a bat in his right-hand, a gaggle of photographers gathered along the right-field base line to snap a photo of the legendary Yankee.  One photographer - Nat Fien (New York Herald Tribune) - positioned himself behind the left-field base line and forever immortalized The Bambino in the stadium he helped facilitate.  This photo:


As has recently come to light, there was apparently a dispute (of sorts) between the estate of the photographer (Nat Fein) and the New York Times, Inc. regarding the ownership of this very famous photograph.  Because Fein was working for a newspaper company that eventually became part of the NTY corporation, the newspaper company believed it was the owner of this photograph (Fein as an employee would have no ownership interest in works he created as part of his employment).  However, the oft-invoked wrinkle rears its head here:  before the NY Herald Tribune ceased operation, the photo editor physically transferred possession of the negative of this photo (and many others) to Fein.

However, the parties deprived a gawking-public of a potentially interesting bit of litigation in determining which group has the rightful claim to the photo (and the copyrights associated with the photo).  Of several key pieces of missing (or omitted) information, it would be critical to know whether the NY Herald Tribune ceased operation prior to being acquired by the NYT (or alternatively, if the NYT acquired the Herald Tribune as it was closing shop, whether the acquisition agreement prohibited any transfer(s) of property without prior authorization, and if so, whether such authorization was secured).

Although the Herald-Tribune editor purportedly transferred the physical property (in the form of negatives) to Fein at some date in the past, the 1909 Copyright Act (as amended) would have controlled at whatever date this transfer occurred; and although less explicit than the language used in the 1976 Copyright Act, the 1909 Act does require a writing (with signature from the owner) to properly transfer ownership (under former section 28, and now embodied more explicitly in section 204 of the 1976 Act).

Another interesting aspect (that has a better chance of discovery, despite the oft-difficult search interface of the Copyright office's webpage and archives, is whether Fein, the NYT, or another entity renewed the copyright registration.  Under the 1909 Act, copyright was registered for an initial term of 28-years and subject to a second (and final) renewal of an additional 28-years.  Since the Fein photo was taken in 1948, the first 28-year  term would have expired in 1976 and would have been subject to the renewal rules of the 1909 Act (as the 1976 Act would not become effective until Jan. 1, 1978).  IF the renewal was not properly filed and/or granted, then the copyright in the photo would have expired and the photo would have become part of the public domain.

Perhaps this information was lost to history and necessitated the parties compromise and agree to this arrangement (with the NYT claiming ownership but with Fein's estate sharing in the revenue generated from sales of the famous photo).

Thus the advice:  get everything in writing to avoid such ambiguities and disputes.


McCartney's Second Bite at the (Recording Co.) Apple

In a previous post, discussing Paul McCartney's decades-long gripe regarding songwriting order attribution (to make-up a phrase), I made note of McCartney's net worth ($660 million) to anchor the essay in reality:  the world's most famous living songwriter (and the second wealthiest) still nursing a long-held grievance over when his name should lead and follow when referenced as a tandem with deceased Beatle John Lennon that is more ego and PR-driven than money-driven. Notably, from the source estimating McCartney's estimated net worth, the CNN Money author speculated that McCartney's new worth will climb higher than otherwise normal because we are entering a time-window where many performing artists are (attempting) to reclaim the copyright in the original sound recordings used on the Beatles, Wings, and McCartney solo albums.  The termination and reversion provisions in the 1976 Copyright Act have been subject to quality academic scholarship, and at the least, is worth noting here for (presumably) a predominantly lay audience.

As Congress and the various committee members worked for well-over a decade on what eventually became the 1976 Copyright Act, replacing the 1909 Copyright Act, the contractual sins committed in the popular music industry came home to roost (to a degree) - sins too numerous to recount.  Motivated in part by the inadvertent loss of copyright protection through renewal failure,[1] and the arguably unconscionable recording contracts utilized by record companies (many of which forced assignment of copyrights and the subsequent sound recordings resulting from studio session work), Congress inserted two termination and reversion provisions in the 1976 Copyright Act in an attempt to (partially) ameliorate these problems that often economically prejudiced the authors/creators of the original work(s).

The first termination/reversion provision appears at 17 USC Sect. 203, which allows an author to terminate grants of copyright assignments and licenses that were made on or after January 1, 1978, the termination being effective no sooner than 35 years measured from the date of grant (or publication). As is clear, that section of the Act addresses works created after Jan. 1, 1978, the effective date of the 1976 Copyright Act that carried with it changes in the term of the copyright (life of author + 50 years -- and which is now life + 70 years) and the removal of the renewal provision.

The second termination provision appears at 17 USC Sect. 304, setting forth the timing of a termination of a work so long as the underlying copyright was in its initial 28-year period or its renewal (final) 28-year period existing on the effective date of the 1976 Copyright Act (Jan. 1, 1978), so long as the work was not a "work made for hire" (WMFH).  The end-point of the assignment/licensing term is measured as 56 years from the original from the day copyright was secured (or Jan. 1, 1978, whichever is the latest in sequence.

The enforceability of either provision is subject to a pre-condition that the author meet several specified requirements in the request for termination.

For McCartney, and assuming proper notification is perfected, the likely sequence for McCartney's termination and re-capture rights under Sect. 203 (35 years) appears to be:

  • 2013 - songs from the 1978 studio LP London Town
  • 2013 - songs from the 1978 compilation LP Wings Greatest (including four new/previously unreleased tracks + "Live and Let Die" which had appeared only on the Bond film soundtrack of the same name)
  • 2014 - songs from the 1979 studio LP Back to the Egg
  • 2017 - songs from the 1982 studio LP Tug of War (featuring hit single duet with Stevie Wonder, "Ebony and Ivory")
  • 2018 - songs from the 1983 studio LP Pipes of Peace (featuring hit single duet with Michael Jackson "Say, Say, Say")

More importantly, if history is any indication, McCartney's termination and re-capture rights under Sect. 304 (56 years from original) for the original Beatles catalog (owned by Apple Records) begins in 2019, and continues sequentially thereafter for the next seven years into 2026.  Given the unprecedented singles-chart ubiquity that The Beatles enjoyed upon their early arrival in the U.S.,[2] corresponding to the enormous popularity of The Fab Four, when McCartney is able to get his paws on The Beatles catalog, I fully anticipate several packaging options (without the original album artwork, which is itself separately copyrighted, most likely by the record companies).  Thus, the firmly-rooted speculation by CNN that soon (very soon), McCartney will become even wealthier through the additional exploitation of the The Beatles back-catalog (subject to the accounting owed by McCartney to the other Beatles and/or their estates).


1. Under the 1909 Copyright Act (immediately prior to implementation of the 1976 Copyright Act), a copyright was initially registered for a 28-year term and subject to a final 28-year renewal term. However, more often than should have happened, the original registrant (not the creator) would allow the original term to expire without renewing the term and without notifying the creator of that decision, thereby effectively preventing the creator from capturing the final 28-year term for further exploitation. This problem became particularly acute with the development of home video market as a channel for sales of feature films and syndicated television shows and the media-technology-format changes in the music industry (from LP to cassette and 8-track and then CD). Without securing the final 28-year term, both the company and the artist lost out on revenue, and opportunistic media companies could capitalize by re-packaging material no longer blocked by copyright protection. 2. In the Billboard Magazine Hot 100 singles chart issued for April 4, 1964, The Beatles held all five positions atop the Hot 100 chart: No. 1 - "Can't Buy Me Love"; No. 2 - "Twist and Shout"; No. 3 - "She Loves You"; No. 4 - "I Want to Hold Your Hand"; and No. 5 - "Please Please Me".

Squabbles: Lennon/McCartney or McCartney/Lennon - And Does It Matter?

In the most recent edition of Esquire magazine, Sir Paul McCartney reflects on a long and storied career as a singer-songwriter and performer for The Beatles, with Wings, and as a solo artist.  Although McCartney is reportedly the second richest recording artist (and richest male), having a net worth estimated at $660 million, many may find it surprising that McCartney cares about the songwriting credit order attributed to The Beatles songs McCartney co-wrote with fellow Beatle John Lennon. In the two creative-creator centric intellectual property disciplines (copyrights and patents), the listed order of copyright owners or patentees is legally irrelevant concerning the separate rights of the owners/patentees.

For a copyright, the co-writers/co-owners individually enjoy all the rights set forth in 17 U.S.C. § 106, so that any, all, or a subset of all co-writers/co-owners may exploit the work by further reproductions, etc. Likewise, for a patent, each co-inventor may "practice" the invention (e.g., manufacture) or license the subject matter to another party.

However, the differences lie in what is owed to the co-creators upon successful exploitation.  For a copyright, each co-writer/co-owner owes the other co-writers/co-owners an accounting of the profits generated through the right(s) exploited (or be subject to litigation).  Conversely, for a patent, each co-inventor may separately make or license the subject matter without accounting for any profits to the other co-inventor(s).

So why the fuss from McCartney concerning whether a song is identified as a Lennon-McCartney work or a McCartney-Lennon work?  In the grand scheme, the publishing royalties will be no different - every penny will still be divided between McCartney and Lennon's estate.

As with many similar issues, there are multiple considerations at issue.  Ego is rather obvious - upon Lennon's murder, the other co-writer was no longer in the picture.  Yet, Lennon's estate (via Yoko Ono), and a rather divisive ego at that, blocked several attempts by McCartney to correct a perceived error in the attribution order.

As McCartney recalls, early on, The Beatles and management agreed that any song predominantly written by one and brought to the other for "polishing" or "completion" would be specifically attributed in the album liner notes as [predominant writer] hyphen [polisher].  However, this preferred nomenclature convention did not materialize, and rather the alphabetical Lennon-McCartney label was the go-to form of songwriting attribution.

Upon Lennon's death, and in subsequent years (e.g., The Beatles Anthology Series), McCartney tried to reclaim this preferred naming convention, only to be obstructed by Ono.  McCartney identified the hit single "Yesterday" as a good example, noting that Lennon had absolutely nothing to do with writing the song, yet, the song is attributed to Lennon-McCartney and not to (McCartney's preference) McCartney-Lennon.

Related to issues of ego is perception, such as the public's perception that attribution order has significance.  It is likely that is the reason the individual Beatles agreed to the songwriting naming convention identified above is because of their own naive (mis)conception of the significance of naming attribution order.

Like many of the songwriting tandems in popular music over the last 50 years, such as Jagger-Richards (The Rolling Stones), John-Taupin (Elton John), Simon-Garfunkel, Plant-Page (Led Zeppelin), Simmons-Stanley (KISS), and Bon Jovi-Sambora (Bon Jovi), the first mentioned person seems to capture much of the songwriting attention.  This is probably due to an issue not particularly noticed (the primacy effect) - the strongest impression made on the mind of a viewer/reader based on the first item listed.

However, most interestingly, McCartney points out a legitimate gripe regarding technology.  In particular, McCartney notes that when an individual downloads, streams, or a song selected from an existing digital library, often the display is too small to fully display multi-writer attribution (or does so intermittently).  Consequently, using The Beatles as an example, on a smartphone or iPad display, The Beatles song "Yesterday" may be attributable only to John Lennon or John Lennon (and perhaps) Paul McCartney a few seconds later. Thus, at least in McCartney's view, younger generations may be misinformed or misled as to the appropriate songwriting credits, or frustrated by the bounce between one co-writer and the other(s) co-writer(s).  Thus, younger generations may be deprived of some knowledge, history, and searchable keywords that could link-up Lennon-McCartney with other valuable or culturally significant songs.

As someone who enjoys trivia and completeness of information, I can sympathize with McCartney's lament as a threshold matter.  However, given the younger generations Internet acumen, it seems unlikely that a user would not have such information readily available in just a few clicks or taps.  Alternatively, younger generations may simply not care enough to want to know/learn about the artist, esp. in an age when popular music is more disposable than ever before.

While McCartney's concerns possess some merit, the degree of import seems rather low.  Publishing royalties remain unaffected by the naming order; and the fame of The Beatles nearly negates any inverted (or lack of) attribution, as many folks will supplement their listening experience by browsing for information abut the artist (e.g., via Wikipedia).  As with so many things surrounding the surviving members of The Beatles and managers of the Lennon and Harrison estates this really descends into a Paul v. Oko battle of wills, wits, and strong-willed personalities.

King of Pop - And The (Un)Credited

Over the course of the last week, many music and entertainment outlets briefly observed the sixth anniversary of Michael Jackson's death. Love him or despise him (because of his music or behavior), the majority of credit for the King of Pop's album "Thriller" was shared between Jackson and producer Quincy Jones. Being the shrewd businessmen that they were, esp. Jones, Jones-and-Jackson utilized many talented musicians and songwriters to craft what may be the "perfect" studio release in music history (and certainly the most-successful),[1] including the credited use of several members of the band Toto (Steve Lukather, David Paich, Steve & Jeff Porcaro), composer and producer David Foster, Paul McCartney, and Jackson's sisters LaToya and Janet. However, and arguably the most significant musical contribution was the uncredited writing, arrangement, and solo provided by Eddie Van Halen on the song/single "Beat It". As the story goes, Van Halen (the band) is on a brief recording/touring hiatus, with three-of-the-four band members scattered to the winds. Eddie Van Halen (EVH) is alone at his home recording studio (later dubbed "5150", which is the California criminal code for the criminally insane) and receives a telephone call. Immediately on pick-up, the connection is fuzzy and nearly inaudible. An unfamiliar voice asks "Is this Eddie?" After several unpleasant responses by EVH, the unfamiliar voices identifies himself as Quincy Jones, and asks if EVH would like to play a solo on one of Jackson's songs. With his brother, the lead singer, and the bassist unavailable for consultation, EVH agrees to contribute, figuring he will do it for free, uncredited, no messy royalties to discuss (or split), and no one would be the wiser. The wishiest of wishful thoughts.

As the third single from what was becoming a pop-cultural juggernaut (Thriller), "Beat It" strayed from the R&B and pop playbook Jackson had been so successful with as a member of the Jackson 5 and during the infancy of his solo career. With Toto's guitarist Steve Lukather providing a tasty lead riff and underlying rhythm guitar, EVH's "trademark" squeals and screeches from his striped Frankenstein "strat" provided one of the more memorable guitar solos on pop-radio in the 1980s. More importantly, it was the "sound" of 80s guitar-power included on a pop-single, and gave hard rock and album-oriented rock radio stations, as well as the caucasian-rock-band-centric MTV, permission to play a young black man's song as part of the rock rotation. "Beat It" help propel "Thriller" into the phenomenon that it became.

Notably, this would not be the last time that EVH contributed uncredited music to a pop-culture success. In 1985, EVH's guitar (sounds) found its way into the film "Back to the Future" as music used to scare George McFly into submitting to the suggestions of a "robot".[2] Unless EVH is (and has been) lying to fans for decades, his work on Jackson's "Beat It" and "Back to the Future" were not only uncredited but also uncompensated. The thought that EVH made nary a cent from either contribution is a bit mind-boggling, given the record sales and ticket/rental sales each has logged in the three-decades since each was released.

Jackson (and video director John Landis) would later pay a small (double) homage to EVH and "Back to the Future", having young Macaulay Culkin strap-on an Ernie Ball Music Man (EBMM) Wolfgang model guitar designed by and for EVH and hit a power chord akin to the one hit by Michael J. Fox in "BTTF" in the intro of the song/video "Black or White".

In the "small world" category, Jackson himself contributed uncredited backing vocals to the Doobie Brothers 1978 release Minute By Minute (on songs "What a Fool Believes", "Here to Love You", and "Minute By Minute"), working with future Van Halen collaborators producer Ted Templeman and Doobie Michael McDonald (sharing a co-writing credit on the 1984 Top 15 single "I'll Wait" from the album 1984). Later, Jackson would be credited with backing vocals on the #2 hit-single by Rockwell "Somebody's Watching Me".

Jackson and EVH's uncredited contributions are consistent with the occasional uncredited contributions of mega-popular artists, including Mick Jagger's famous uncredited backing vocals on Carly Simon's hit-single "You're So Vain".[3] Of course, when you are the type of recording stars that Jagger, EVH, and Jackson (at the time of working with the Doobies), getting another co-writing and publishing credit may be less of a reward than the work itself (maybe). OTOH, these guys passed up A LOT of money by not getting those credits.


1. According to the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), Jackson's "Thriller" is tied with The Eagles' "Their Greatest Hits, 1971-1975" with certified sales of 29 million copies. However, "Thriller" is an original studio release (1982), while "Their Greatest Hits" is a compilation of The Eagles biggest hits, thereby supporting the distinction as most-successful studio release. Also notable, "Thriller" has not been certified Aug. 2009, while "Their Greatest Hits" has not been certified since Jan. 2006. It is highly likely that each is now over 30 million in certified sales. 2. Back to the Future / EVH 3. You're So Vain

Swift v. The World (It Only Seems That Way)

So, last week, Taylor Swift was using her muscle to first call-out and then praise global-behemoth Apple Inc. once the Cupertino, CA company fell into line with her way of thinking (on royalty payments during the trial-period of Apple's new streaming service).  This week, Swift is on the outs with photographers (and photographers on the outs with her - I sense a song coming from this episode). Apparently, Swift and at least one photographer disagree on whether the photographer is wholly restricted or selectively restricted in using a photo more than once (taken during the "1989 World Tour").  The photographer claims that each photo can be used only once and that the copyright ownership is retained by Firefly Entertainment (Swift's label) presumptively under a "work made for hire" provision in the contract.  Conversely, Swift claims that while each photo may be used only once, additional uses may be provided by submission for approval to Firefly Entertainment, and that the copyright ownership is retained by the photographer (and no "work made for hire" situation ensues).  Obviously, without the executed agreement between the parties, it is difficult to guess which side has the best or better argument(s).  However, "work made for hire" (WMFH) situations are usually very clearly denoted in such agreements, using the specific language from the statute to make it clear that the photographer is being hired by the performing artist for a specific purpose, for a specific (enhanced) fee, and with copyright ownership clearly aligned into the portfolio of the performing artist.  The confusion of whether the photographer is or is not operating under the WMFH provision is, well, confusing.

What may not be readily apparent is that this is not really a fight over copyright issues (or, at the least, the copyright issues are secondary and subservient to a larger set of issues).  Consider: the images captured by the photographer are of Taylor Swift, not of the stage set-up, costumes, band and back-up singers, or the like.  All individuals, famous or not, have the common law right of publicity - the right to exploit his/her name, image, or likeness (aka, NIL rights), or prohibit exploitation by others.  It is a non-federalized form of intellectual property, but tends to be a companion to trademark litigation cases and/or other forms of unfair competition.  And despite these cases not generally grabbing the headlines the way a good patent, trademark, or copyright row grabs, these cases are often more interesting and fairly important (esp. for the entertainer or athlete involved).  In the case of someone as famous as Swift, the ability to exploit and protect against against undesirable (or perhaps over) exploitation makes this form of intellectual property particularly useful for individuals with an established and branded identity.

Right of publicity, and esp. the NIL issue, has grabbed headlines recently with the litigation spurred by former collegiate athletes Sam Keller (Arizona St. quarterback) and Ed O'Bannon (UCLA basketball center) and the class of current and former  collegiate athletes each represented in suing the NCAA and EA Sports.  Although the cases were different, each touched on the right of athletes to exploit their NIL rights.  In Keller et al., the plaintiffs successfully sued EA Sports, surviving an appeal, for its use of collegiate NIL in their popular (and realistic) collegiate video games.  After surviving the EA Sports appeal, the NCAA settled with the Keller plaintiffs for $20 million.  In O'Bannon et al., the plaintiffs successfully sued based on an anti-trust claim that collegiate athletes were not allowed by the NCAA and its member institutions to individually or collectively negotiate with EA Sports (the advantageous beneficiary of amateurism concepts) for pecuniary gain in the use of collegiate athletes' NIL.  Because EA Sports and the NCAA had negotiated the use of NILs of collegiate athletes for a sizeable licensing sum, there is established value in the NILs of the athletes.  By cutting out the athletes, and by denying the athletes a cut of the licensing fee royalty, the plaintiffs alleged that the actions of EA Sports and the NCAA were anti-competitive and a restraint on commercial trade.  This case was also sent up for appeal before the Ninth Circuit, with a decision looming.

Accordingly, rights of publicity and NIL issues are of considerable importance, esp. when the prospect of others free-riding and making a considerable profit.  While it may appear such celebs are on a power trip, protecting one's valuable NIL in the age of electronic media is a harrowing but necessary proposition.

Former Van Halen Vocalist: VH Brothers Trying to Stop Hagar from Performing VH Songs

As readers will (hopefully) come to learn, Van Halen (all eras) is my favorite band, for a laundry list of reasons that I won't bother to list in this post.  However, as a fan of the band, one has to either ignore or accept the juvenile passive-aggressive non-sense that passes from the mouths of present and former members.[1] It is futile trying to really understand why this group of people, comprising mostly 60+ year-olds, cannot simply move-on from decades-long disagreements, arguments, grudges, and feuds.  It defies reason. The latest:  on Eddie Trunk's podcast this week (approx. 31:00), former Van Halen vocalist Sammy Hagar alleged that Edward and Alex Van Halen have tried to stop him from performing Van Halen songs written and recorded during the Hagar-era of the band.  As an example, Hagar was scheduled to record an episode of "Live from Daryl's House" (Daryl Hall of Hall & Oates fame).  Hall wanted to duet with Hagar on VH Top 40 hits "Why Can't This Be Love"[2] and "Finish What Ya Started"[3] .  Apparently, this required some type of licensing approval, and the Van Halen Brothers denied the request and blocked any attempts to perform the songs. Show producers did not want to try and fight this issue with a recording-deadline looming, so the songs went untouched during the recording. ** SIGH **

Assuming this version of events and facts as true, it is bad enough that the brothers are that petulant to try and block Hagar's Daryl Hall performance, but the fact that Hagar publicized this example knowing that the Van Halens could not legitimately block him (or any other performer(s)) from performing these songs live is similarly silly and unnecessary.

Most issues addressed in the Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. et seq.) are default positions. In other words, absent a contract addressing a particular issue, the parties resort to the Copyright Act for determining unassigned or non-transferred rights. For example, in most cases, co-writers of a song (including music and lyrics) each own an equal share of the song, unless there is a contract to the contrary.

Accordingly, unless there is a contract between the Van Halens and Hagar that has changed the songwriting shares, or otherwise restricts/prohibits performances in some way, Hagar as a co-writer has the rights accorded by the Copyright Act, owning an equal share of the credits with the Van Halens and former bassist Michael Anthony. One of those rights includes the right to publicly perform such compositions subject to the reporting required of the host-venue to the appropriate performing rights organizations (PRO, such as ASCAP or BMI).[4] Similarly, co-writers also have the right to record/distribute sound recordings subject to accounting to the other co-writers.

Of course, the public is hearing only one-side (Hagar's) of these issues at the moment. Perhaps the Van Halens have legitimate reasons for pursuing the courses they have pursued thus far, given the acrimonious and distrustful state of affairs between the brothers and Hagar (and Anthony).

It is odd (if not notable) that Hagar did not make specific mention of the brothers trying to stop the release of Hagar's "The Circle" live recording entitled "At Your Service" containing seven songs co-written by Hagar and the Van Halens, but did mention the block of two songs from "Live at Daryl's House". Does Eddie Van Halen have a burr in his backside over Daryl Hall's public comments that Van Halen's keyboard parts in "Jump" were inspired by the piano riff in Hall & Oates mega-hit "Kiss On My List"?[5] As noted in the current Billboard Magazine cover article, Eddie Van Halen does not appear to hate anyone, but his grudges run long and deep.[6]

Or, on the other hand, did the Van Halens bully the last-minute production of Daryl Hall's television show based on opportunism while avoiding "The Circle" live disc because it knew the futility of doing so? More than likely, because the acrimony and overall distrust between Hagar and the Van Halens, this is little more than power trips and egos at play. But, there may also be some underlying accounting issues that have been bubbling that the public is not aware of.

Hagar and the Van Halens squabbling over music is hardly surprising. The strong egos of those involved make future disagreement(s) inevitable. Just another sad episode in the Van Halen melodrama.


1. Despite the high-drama, Van Halen still has a fairly strong and devoted following, as exemplified by the robust fan-site VH Links. 2. "Why Can't This Be Love" was the lead-single from Hagar's debut with Van Halen, the 5x platinum 5150 released in April 1986. "Why Can't This Be Love" peaked at #3 on Billboard's Hot 100 Singles Chart in May 1986; 5150 debuted at #13 on Billboard's Top 200 Album Chart, peaked at #1 for a three-week run, and spent more than one-year on the chart. Additional information may be found at 5150 Info. 3. "Finish What Ya Started" was the third single from Van Halen's May 1988 release OU812. The song was a departure for Van Halen, blending rock, country, and an exotic drum sound and beat, sounding as much like a Rolling Stones song as a Van Halen tune. "Finish What Ya Started" peaked at #13 on Billboard's Hot 100 chart; OU812 debuted at #1 on Billboard's Top 200 Album Chart and spent four-consecutive weeks in the top spot. 4. ASCAP and/or BMI distribute royalties to songwriters and publishers based on frequency of play from reports by terrestrial and satellite radio, Internet streaming services, concert venues, and the like. 5. 5 Things About Jump 6. Billboard - EVH on Addiction, Roth, Touring