Legally - band splits, continue use of the NAME - Harmony Central Musician Community Forums

tinker925 · 11-05-2009, 11:47 AM

How does this work?

A band starts - three original members - they name the band and then a few months into it they ADD TWO STRONG LEAD people (lead singer and exceptional lead guitarist - who catapults the band from a livingroom to a gigging band with a fan base and a reputation as serious rock guitars and vocals)....

One of the original band members gets jealous and fires the two LEADs but wants to continue on with the name with her taking over the lead vocals and guitar - BASED ON THE MOMENTUM and reputation that we started. The NAME really isn't the issue - its the continuing on with the momentum WE AS THE LEADS BUILT.... that I have a problem with.

(Apparently the rest of the band is going to do BOTH projects...)

ermghoti II · 11-05-2009, 12:20 PM

A three piece added and then fired two pieces. Sounds like one band. If the band got better and worse in the middle, it doesn't affect the entity's continuity. IMO.

Dthraco · 11-06-2009, 04:19 PM

People aren't stupid. If the two catapulting members are not there for the next show, they won't return. And they will tarnish their own names in the process.

I say grab some

and enjoy the show.

AluminumNeck · 11-06-2009, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tinker925

How does this work?

A band starts - three original members - they name the band and then a few months into it they ADD TWO STRONG LEAD people (lead singer and exceptional lead guitarist - who catapults the band from a livingroom to a gigging band with a fan base and a reputation as serious rock guitars and vocals)....

One of the original band members gets jealous and fires the two LEADs but wants to continue on with the name with her taking over the lead vocals and guitar - BASED ON THE MOMENTUM and reputation that we started. The NAME really isn't the issue - its the continuing on with the momentum WE AS THE LEADS BUILT.... that I have a problem with.

(Apparently the rest of the band is going to do BOTH projects...)

well. If they own the copyright and your no longer having your services utilized. Sounds like your SOL.

BlueStrat · 11-06-2009, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AluminumNeck

well. If they own the copyright and your no longer having your services utilized. Sounds like your SOL.

You can't copyright a band name.

mmmiddle · 11-06-2009, 05:20 PM

The way I understand it if there is no contract specifying any of this stuff it falls under the state's laws for a 'general partnership' and I'm pretty sure that this means that even if just one person is left they can continue to use the name.

ido1957 · 11-06-2009, 05:59 PM

Right - you need to trademark the name...

daddymack · 11-06-2009, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tinker925

How does this work?

A band starts - three original members - they name the band and then a few months into it they ADD TWO STRONG LEAD people (lead singer and exceptional lead guitarist - who catapults the band from a livingroom to a gigging band with a fan base and a reputation as serious rock guitars and vocals)....

One of the original band members gets jealous and fires the two LEADs but wants to continue on with the name with her taking over the lead vocals and guitar - BASED ON THE MOMENTUM and reputation that we started. The NAME really isn't the issue - its the continuing on with the momentum WE AS THE LEADS BUILT.... that I have a problem with.

(Apparently the rest of the band is going to do BOTH projects...)

Both projects?
Frankly, when it comes right down to it, what's in a name? (thank you Mr. Shakespeare).
The music will get the real following, the name will just maybe bring people to one show...when the show is not what the name implies, they won't be back. In the meantime, the new project should be avidly booking into the same venues under a new name, with NO MENTION of the previous project (why advertise what you are not?) and rebuild their following and momentum. If the following was really there, they will find you again.
Does this work? Well, it did for our band ten years ago when we 'lost' our 'frontman'...

boxorox · 11-08-2009, 09:42 AM

If the band wasn't gigging, I'd suppose you have as much right to the name as anyone, but why would you want it? It's not worth fighting over if you don't have album sales, songwriting royalties, etc. If they don't have the stuff to keep up the momentum gigging it'll look good on their tombstone. Get rid of the fence sitters as soon as you can. They may cause some identity confusion with folks that hire you. The quislings will have to make a choice sometime in the future, and someone's gonna get screwed. Avoid hassle, replace them. I agree you should not use the other band as a referance. If you truly were the source of their talent and success, they are on the skids. Don't associate your new band with losers.

tinker925 · 11-09-2009, 02:00 PM

Thanks Everyone!

RickGoetz · 11-09-2009, 02:19 PM

Did anyone trademark the name prior to the split? Did you put together a corporation around yourselves or were you just a bunch of dudes?

R

tinker925 · 11-09-2009, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RickGoetz

Did anyone trademark the name prior to the split? Did you put together a corporation around yourselves or were you just a bunch of dudes?

R

No, no Trademark..

RickGoetz · 11-09-2009, 04:52 PM

If you want to use the name and think the project will be around for a while I'd spend the money on getting a trademark. Read this - it discusses music copyright and trademarking

slight-return · 11-09-2009, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tinker925

No, no Trademark..

quick point here - when people say "Trademark" (and "copyright" for that matter) often they mean "register" [with the USPTO in the case of trademarks]
and while registration has a bunch of advantages, it isnt in-an-of-itself a trademark.

A trademark can be established through legit use (you can use "TM" superscript to designate a claim to trademark without registration, where 'circle R' is for registered).

Registration MAY (just "may", not "is") not even be the biggest issue here as we aren't talking about multiple origins (such as a different band in a different market coincidentally...or not

...using the same mark) -- rather we're talking division ownership of claim to the IP that both camps recognize

What state you in? -- the reason I ask is some states have "lawyers for the arts" organizations. So you may be able to get some pro bono advice on this
(those programs aren't RUN by the states, just an organizational thing as far as how legal practice is certified and all)

FrankW · 11-11-2009, 09:02 AM

Let me see if I got this right...

-The 3 originals hire the 2 leads

-1 of the originals fires the 2 leads

-The other 2 originals continue with both the 2 lead and the other original

In fact, you now have 4 out of 5 members in your band (including the 2 leads)
The way I see it, the girl left the band and now fronts a new band that also includes the other 2 originals from your band.

So you have 2 out of the 3 originals + the 2 leads, in my view you are a continuation of that band and should keep the name.

boxorox · 11-21-2009, 08:31 AM

We don't think of theses things when we start a band. It's all gonna be butterflies and puppydog farts, the music will see us through! Unless the name has some cache in/re significant recognition, gigs, sales, and other income, it's more trouble to fight for it than to keep it. If the only prize is the principle of the thing, showing who's boss, or some kind of honor, drop it. I think the basic principle here is who had it first. Whether your band splitting up or some out of state guys you weren't even aware of. If you joined a band that already had a name, if you weren't in the room when it was named, forget about it. Don't waste your energy on a pointless bitter feud. Instead get a solid unit together and get out there and sieze your share of the market. Life is short but fullof potential. Litigation is long and often pointless. I guess I'm asking "Do you want to fight or play?"

11-05-2009, 11:47 AM	#1
tinker925 Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 91	Legally - band splits, continue use of the NAME How does this work? A band starts - three original members - they name the band and then a few months into it they ADD TWO STRONG LEAD people (lead singer and exceptional lead guitarist - who catapults the band from a livingroom to a gigging band with a fan base and a reputation as serious rock guitars and vocals).... One of the original band members gets jealous and fires the two LEADs but wants to continue on with the name with her taking over the lead vocals and guitar - BASED ON THE MOMENTUM and reputation that we started. The NAME really isn't the issue - its the continuing on with the momentum WE AS THE LEADS BUILT.... that I have a problem with. (Apparently the rest of the band is going to do BOTH projects...)

11-06-2009, 05:20 PM	#6
mmmiddle Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Seattle Posts: 664	The way I understand it if there is no contract specifying any of this stuff it falls under the state's laws for a 'general partnership' and I'm pretty sure that this means that even if just one person is left they can continue to use the name. __________________ www.miraclemaxmusic.com

11-06-2009, 05:59 PM	#7
ido1957 Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 1,159	Right - you need to trademark the name... __________________ My Songs are here

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

11-06-2009, 04:19 PM	#3
Dthraco Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Rainland, WA Posts: 1,553	People aren't stupid. If the two catapulting members are not there for the next show, they won't return. And they will tarnish their own names in the process. I say grab some and enjoy the show.

11-08-2009, 09:42 AM	#9
boxorox Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: The Great State of Wilkes Posts: 2,146	If the band wasn't gigging, I'd suppose you have as much right to the name as anyone, but why would you want it? It's not worth fighting over if you don't have album sales, songwriting royalties, etc. If they don't have the stuff to keep up the momentum gigging it'll look good on their tombstone. Get rid of the fence sitters as soon as you can. They may cause some identity confusion with folks that hire you. The quislings will have to make a choice sometime in the future, and someone's gonna get screwed. Avoid hassle, replace them. I agree you should not use the other band as a referance. If you truly were the source of their talent and success, they are on the skids. Don't associate your new band with losers.

11-09-2009, 02:00 PM	#10
tinker925 Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 91	Thanks Everyone!

11-09-2009, 02:19 PM	#11
RickGoetz Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: New York, NY Posts: 49	Did anyone trademark the name prior to the split? Did you put together a corporation around yourselves or were you just a bunch of dudes? R

11-09-2009, 04:52 PM	#13
RickGoetz Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: New York, NY Posts: 49	If you want to use the name and think the project will be around for a while I'd spend the money on getting a trademark. Read this - it discusses music copyright and trademarking

11-11-2009, 09:02 AM	#15
FrankW Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 22	Let me see if I got this right... -The 3 originals hire the 2 leads -1 of the originals fires the 2 leads -The other 2 originals continue with both the 2 lead and the other original In fact, you now have 4 out of 5 members in your band (including the 2 leads) The way I see it, the girl left the band and now fronts a new band that also includes the other 2 originals from your band. So you have 2 out of the 3 originals + the 2 leads, in my view you are a continuation of that band and should keep the name.

11-21-2009, 08:31 AM	#16
boxorox Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: The Great State of Wilkes Posts: 2,146	We don't think of theses things when we start a band. It's all gonna be butterflies and puppydog farts, the music will see us through! Unless the name has some cache in/re significant recognition, gigs, sales, and other income, it's more trouble to fight for it than to keep it. If the only prize is the principle of the thing, showing who's boss, or some kind of honor, drop it. I think the basic principle here is who had it first. Whether your band splitting up or some out of state guys you weren't even aware of. If you joined a band that already had a name, if you weren't in the room when it was named, forget about it. Don't waste your energy on a pointless bitter feud. Instead get a solid unit together and get out there and sieze your share of the market. Life is short but fullof potential. Litigation is long and often pointless. I guess I'm asking "Do you want to fight or play?"