Member Since: 3/2/2014
Posts: 4,837
|
THR: "What the "Free Kesha" movement is missing"
Quote:
[...] But Sony keeps insisting, it's not really free to free Kesha. As its attorney Scott Edelman told The New York Times, "Sony has made it possible for Kesha to record without any connection, involvement or interaction with Luke whatsoever, but Sony is not in a position to terminate the contractual relationship between Luke and Kesha.”
Here's the contractual relationship — which, bear with me, is a little complex. Kesha (real name Kesha Rose Sebert) signed a deal in 2005 with Dr. Luke's company Kasz Money, which itself agreed in 2009 to furnish Kesha's services to RCA/Jive, a Sony label. In 2011, Sony and Dr. Luke jointly created a new label call Kemosabe, which was then assigned rights under the 2009 agreement. Kesha assented to this.
[...]
Ultimately, thanks to these contracts, it's Dr. Luke that holds the cards on Kesha's fate. Don't take my word for it. Take Kesha's own. Here's what she says in her legal action against Dr. Luke:
"One fact cannot be ignored," states her counterclaims. "Dr. Luke is not just any high-level managerial employee. When it comes to Ms. Sebert, Dr. Luke, through his company, Kasz Money, is the decision maker vis a vis all of the entities."
[...]
As such, I wonder whether the whole "free Kesha" campaign, at least with respect to Sony, is misplaced. If Kesha alleges that Sony is placing female artists in "physical danger" by either ratifying Dr. Luke's conduct or turning a blind eye, shouldn't Kesha's fans really be advocating for Sony to cut Dr. Luke loose? Freeing Kesha, after all, benefits one individual. Dropping the Doctor arguably benefits many others.
[...]
This should make clear that regardless of a direct contractual relationship with Kesha, Sony has a stake in the outcome. Zucker adds, "Equally important, allowing Kesha to rebuke her obligations to Kemosabe Records also sends a message to Sony's other existing and potential artists that they may be able to disregard, at will, their contractual obligations."
[...]
Kesha made her deal with Dr. Luke in 2005. It's now 11 years later. California has a law that forbids personal services contracts beyond seven years from the beginning of the deal. When it comes to recording contracts, things can get a little complicated on the topic of undelivered albums (see Rita Ora's lawsuit against Roc Nation). Nevertheless, it's somewhat surprising that Kesha's lawyer Mark Geragos didn't attempt to exploit this seven-year rule when Kesha brought her original lawsuit in California. Even in New York, Kesha could have asked the judge to consider California's public policies because she and Dr. Luke were living there at the time the deal was made.
Instead, Geragos attempted to rescind a recording deal through an allegation of physical abuse — which he admitted would be a "first-of-its-kind case." Why? His legal strategy isn't yet convincing a judge. His PR strategy might be finding more favor. Then again, it bares consideration whether the whole "free Kesha" movement is missing the true pressure points.
|
Read the entire article here: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr...te-sony-869749
|
|
|
|
