Dylan rarely worked with other writers and Levy co-wrote in Wish it is arguably his most famous composition collaboration.
Considering that with typical co-composition arrangements, Levy would be entitled to part of the ownership of the songs, his agreement with Dylan was made as an employment contract that gave Dylan full ownership. Only it was not a typical rental job either. Instead, the deal gave Levy and his publisher 35% of the song’s revenue, paid for by Dylan or directly from a copyright organization. (The contract establishes ASCAP and BMI, but Dylan has been signed with SESAC since 1995.)
According to the lawsuit, Dylan was required to pay Levy “Thirty-five (35%) percent of any and all income earned by the Compositions and actually received by [the Dylan Defendants] from mechanical rights, electrical transcriptions, reproduction rights, film synchronization and television rights, and all other related rights ”- which Claudia Levy and her lawyer Richard Golub let’s say it should include a portion of the sale of Universal’s song catalog
That claim will be tested, however. Presumably, Levy will continue to be entitled to 35% of the revenue derived from the use of the songs (now to be paid by Universal), but since he never owned the songs, should he have the right to profit from selling the songs? Dylan and his team are likely to argue no, saying Levy was hired to help write the songs and then promised a portion of the royalties – and only the royalties.
“The term ‘income’, as set out in … in the Agreement, is unrestricted and unambiguous,” says the complaint, which was filed by Levy’s lawyer Richard Golub. He adds: “The terms of the Agreement make it clear that the Agreement is highly atypical of a rental labor contract, giving Claimants considerable material rights and material benefits that are not normally granted to contract employees and that the label works – for renting is, in this case, an inappropriate term. ”
Also included in the lawsuit is the allegation that Dylan and UMG declined Claudia Levy’s request for Levy’s “legitimate part” in the sale of the catalog in mid-December, about a week after the acquisition was announced.
In an attempt to establish that Levy’s contributions have been “diminished and hidden by Defendants Dylan” since they first collaborated, the complaint establishes a schedule of complaints. This includes the claim that Levy was never credited on posters or programs for Dylan’s 1975 tour of the Rolling Thunder Revue, despite having served as the show’s director. He also notes that Levy was never recognized in the 2019 documentary. Rolling Thunder Revue: a Bob Dylan story by Martin Scorsese – a complaint previously filed by Levy’s son, Julien Levy, in a 2019 article for Vice.
“This lawsuit is a sad attempt to profit unfairly from the recent catalog sale,” noted Dylan’s lawyer Orin Snyder in a statement emailed to Advertising panel. “The plaintiffs received everything that was due to them. We are confident that we will win. And when we do, we will hold the plaintiffs and their lawyers responsible for bringing this case without merit. “
Universal Music Group did not respond to Advertising panelrequest for comment at the time of publication.
Claudia Levy is asking for $ 7.25 million, including a total of $ 5.25 million in two counts of breach of contract and one charge of “unlawful interference with the contract” (all based on a $ 300 million valuation for the sale catalog), and $ 2 million in punitive damages, “in order to prevent similar conduct from happening in the future and to punish Defendants Dylan for their misconduct and contractual violations.”
The sale of Dylan’s catalog, announced on December 7, was estimated to be the largest ever for a single composer.