MIKE ON KCRW: "Blurred Lines" and Brian Williams

On last Thursday's Hollywood Breakdown, Matt Belloni and I talked all about the Tom Rothman era at Sony:

The trial over the song "Blurred Lines" is moving towards closing arguments. The issue at hand is whether the biggest hit song of 2013, created by Robin Thicke, Pharell Williams and T.I., is a copyright infringement on the Marvin Gaye song "Got to Give It Up." One thing the trial has revealed is just how much of a financial success "Blurred Lines" was. The song made more than $16 million in profits, which was given to the song's creators and record companies. The overhead costs of creating the song were said to be $6.9 million. Gaye's family is also after money made from performing "Blurred Lines" on tour. The family's lawyer says the alleged total damages add up to about $40 million.

Listen below:





On Monday's Press Play with Madeleine Brand, Buzzfeed's Kate Aurthur and I discussed the New York mag story about Brian Williams' fall from grace, and more:

New details came out today in New York Magazine about how the Brian Williams situation exploded at NBC. According to the magazine, when Williams’ stories about being shot down in Iraq were proven to be fabricated, they also exposed a news operation that was already in crisis mode. Plus, our critics’ first impressions of new network shows American Crime and CSI: Cyber in our weekly TV roundup.

Listen below:

The Story Behind Why DJ Jazzy Jeff & The Fresh Prince's "A Nightmare On My Street" Almost Disappeared

In 1988, DJ Jazzy Jeff & the Fresh Prince released "A Nightmare on My Street" as the second track off their album "He's the DJ, I'm The Rapper." The song climbed to No. 15 on the Billboard Hot 100, but then it virtually disappeared. Turns out the duo had created the song for inclusion in "A Nightmare On Elm Street 4," but New Line passed on the song -- going with a track by the Fat Boys instead. But Jazzy Jeff & the Fresh Prince (you now know him, of course, as Will Smith) went ahead and released the song anyway, and even created a music video for it. That's when an unhappy New Line stepped in and put a stop to it. The music video was destroyed; here's a fan-created one that I found on YouTube:



Leagle.com has an interesting roundup of what happened -- starting with the little tidbit that New Line was interested in finding a rap song for the movie because "40% of the 'Nightmare' series audience was Black":

During the latter part of 1987 and early 1988, in anticipation of the release of Nightmare IV in late summer, New Line decided to authorize the production of a music video based on the Nightmare series. The video was to be released in conjunction with the release of the fourth movie. New Line wished to use the music video as a marketing tool to promote the newest movie. It had used a music video to promote the Nightmare series previously because such videos are a common way to enhance penetration of the 15-24 year age market.

New Line decided that because 40 percent of the Nightmare series audience was Black, it would be giving something back to this audience by producing a Rap music video.

As early as October 1987, New Line began looking for an appropriate rap group to appear in the video. New Line communicated with a number of rap groups independently as well as a rap group agency. In December of 1987, New Line began negotiating with the manager of the Fat Boys, a popular rap group. The negotiations led to a proposed written agreement, which was neither signed nor finalized, by early March of 1988.

Meanwhile, in January of 1988, Barry Weiss, vice president of marketing/operations of Jive Records (which is affiliated with Zomba), contacted New Line to discuss the possibility of D.J. Jazzy Jeff and the Fresh Prince ("D.J. Jazzy Jeff"), a popular rap group, doing a video based on the Nightmare series, which would be jointly marketed with the movie. The music for the proposed video featured a song written by D.J. Jazzy Jeff entitled "A Nightmare on My Street," which was recorded in the winter of 1987.

In March of 1988, Weiss met with Kevin Benson, New Line's director of licensing and director of music, to discuss the music video proposal. At this meeting, Benson informed Weiss that New Line was also negotiating with the Fat Boys to do a song about the fourth Nightmare series movie. Benson, however, continued to express interest in Weiss's proposal and suggested Weiss inform others at New Line about the potential benefits of using D.J. Jazzy Jeff. Accordingly, Weiss sent letters to a number of New Line employees, describing his ideas for the project.

On March 30, 1988, Weiss and Benson discussed further the business aspects of the proposal. Weiss reduced his proposal to writing on April 4, 1988. Benson orally responded to the proposal by informing Weiss that the proposal was financially unacceptable to New Line. Weiss indicated that he would not improve the proposal.

On April 5, 1988, Zomba released the album "He's the DJ, I'm the Rapper," which contained the song "A Nightmare on My Street." The album became an immediate hit. Concerned about possible copyright infringement, New Line solicited an opinion of counsel.

Subsequently, New Line finalized the agreement with the Fat Boys. When Weiss contacted Benson on May 18, 1988, Benson informed him that the Fat Boys had been selected to produce the music video.

On July 18, 1988, Weiss received a letter from Seth Willinson, senior vice-president of New Line, informing him that New Line believed that "A Nightmare on My Street" infringed New Line's copyright. Willinson demanded that Zomba cease producing records containing the song and withdraw existing records from the market place.

On July 25, 1988, New Line commenced the instant action against Zomba asserting copyright infringement pursuant to the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. ("the Copyright Act" or "the Act"); false designation of origin, unfair competition, injury to reputation, and dilution and appropriation of property rights pursuant to the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); and unfair competition pursuant to § 368-d of New York General Business Law. In this action, New Line seeks both monetary damages and equitable relief.

On July 26, 1988, Zomba, while not admitting liability, proposed to add a disclaimer sticker to the packaging of their compact disks, cassette, albums and singles containing "A Nightmare on My Street." New Line informed Zomba that it was not interested in working with Zomba to develop a disclaimer.

In the first week of August, New Line learned that Zomba had produced and was seeking to broadcast a rap music video of "A Nightmare on My Street." Unbeknownst to New Line, this video had been produced on July 25 and 26, even though the negotiations between New Line and Zomba had fallen through and even though Zomba was fully aware of New Line's agreement to produce an authorized rap video with the Fat Boys.

Believing that the unauthorized music video infringed its copyright and would create confusion, especially due to the impending release of Nightmare IV and the authorized Fat Boys video entitled "Are You Ready for Freddy?" ("Fat Boys video"), New Line on August 12, 1988 moved by order to show cause for a preliminary injunction and sought a temporary restraining order to enjoin the release and broadcast of the unauthorized video. On August 22, 1988, the Court granted a temporary restraining order which was to be followed by a decision on the motion within ten days.

The parties eventually came to a settlement: The music video was destroyed, and the duo added a disclaimer to the album.

But here's an interesting twist, via Comic Book Resources: Apparently New Line offered an alternate settlement:

DJ Jazzy Jeff and the Fresh Prince were given the option of doing two movies for the studio. If they chose to do the films, their salaries would come out of the settlement money, so they could theoretically get away without having to pay out of pocket over the lawsuit. Or they could choose to turn down both scripts and pay the original settlement fee. DJ Jazzy Jeff and the Fresh Prince planned on just turning down both scripts out of hand. The first script they were offered, as it turns out, was House Party.

DJ Jazzy Jeff and the Fresh Prince turned them down -- which is why Kid & Play ended up starring in the "House Party" franchise.

Cloudy With a Chance of Another Lawsuit

Deja vu? From the Hollywood Reporter, 8/15/13:

A veteran meteorologist has filed a discrimination lawsuit against KABC-TV, alleging the Los Angeles TV station did not consider him for a position because it wanted to hire a young, attractive woman for the job.

According to a lawsuit Kyle Hunter filed Wednesday, Aug. 14, in Los Angeles Superior Court, Hunter applied for the job of weekend meteorologist in June 2011, but was never interviewed for the job. He alleges "multiple qualified persons age 40 and over" applied for the position, but they were also not interviewed.

The suit describes Hunter as a meteorologist with 25 years of experience, with both a bachelor's and master's degree in meteorology, and a third bachelor's degree in political science with an emphasis on earth and space sciences from UCLA. It says he worked as a broadcaster in Los Angeles and San Diego.

From the Hollywood Reporter, 3/15/12:

A Los Angeles weatherman has filed a lawsuit claiming he was passed over for jobs at two prominent stations because he wasn't a young, good-looking woman.

Kyle Hunter, who has worked as a meteorologist in various southern California markets during a 23-year career, filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against CBS Broadcasting and its owned-and-operated Los Angeles stations KCBS and KCAL on Thursday. He's represented by Gloria Allred.

Hunter alleges "that within the past few years, KCAL and KCBS decided to hire young attractive women as weathercasters in prime time rather than men in order to induce more men to watch their prime time newscasts," according to the suit. That means there was no place for Hunter, an over-40 male meteorologist with impeccable credentials, he says.

Hunter seems perfectly fine in his demo reel, but no better or worse than hundreds of other meteorologists across the country. L.A. is a competitive market. I'm surprised he'd be so willing to torch his chances in the No. 2 market by filing these lawsuits. (By the way, I'm a bit taken aback by his headshot. Is it photoshopped? Sure seems that way.)

Mike on Radio: Discussing "The Glass House" vs. "Big Brother" Lawsuit on KCRW

I joined Kim Masters in the studio of KCRW yesterday to fill in for John Horn on the banter portion of "The Business" (airing Monday at 2:30 p.m.) as well as the "Hollywood Breakdown" segment that aired Thursday afternoon at 4:44 p.m. If you missed it, here's the audio of me and Kim talking about CBS' lawsuit against ABC over new reality series "The Glass House."



Thanks to Darby at KCRW for the invite; that's me, overdressed (I had an event to attend that evening) in the KCRW offices.

You Knew This Was Coming: The 99 Cents Only Store Gets Hit By a Frivolous Lawsuit

Remember when the 99 Cents Only Stores increased its prices to 99.99 cents?

It was well covered by the media. But just in case you missed it, the 99 Cents Only store plastered signs everywhere, explaining the price increase -- its first since opening in 1982. Every item now says 99.99 cents -- *every* one.

Given the dramatic increase in the price of merchandise since then, the measly penny increase was seen as a pretty good deal. And for the 99 Cents Only store, the small .0099 addition meant that it could keep hawking the idea of "99 Cents," even if technically everything was now a dollar.

But no surprise here: Some enterprising hucksters and their out-for-a-buck lawyers still saw an opportunity to sue the chain. The L.A. Times writes:

The move seems to be riling some customers who say they weren't aware of the nearly one-cent increase and felt duped into believing they were still paying 99 cents "only." Because U.S. currency makes it impossible to pay 99.99 cents for an item, shoppers are essentially paying $1 plus tax at the cash register.

Now the company faces two class-action lawsuits that were filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court this month. The complaints allege unfair and deceptive business practices and misleading advertising.

"If they call themselves 99 Cents Only, it should be 99 cents," said Dan Callahan, an Orange County lawyer. "We had a survey done before we filed the lawsuit to see how many people thought they were paying 99 cents, and it was just about unanimous that nobody realized that they were paying more than 99 cents. The people who go to that store are typically lower income or seniors, so the people they're taking advantage of are the ones least able to discern the difference and least able to afford it."

The lawsuits are asking for unspecified monetary compensation and contend that 99 Cents Only should have been more clear in its advertising. A judge will decide whether the cases can proceed as class-action suits.

The Most Amusing Passage in Andres Martinez's Lawsuit

Andres Martinez was the editorial page editor of the Los Angeles Times last year when he came up with the idea of bringing in producer Brian Grazer as a guest editor one week.

Uninspired, rather cliche idea, sure. But that's not what got him in water with the Times: Turns out Martinez was dating publicist Kelly Mullens... who happened to also do PR for Grazer. In the ensuing brouhaha, Martinez was ousted from the paper. (Again, I always thought his bigger crime was simply coming up with a hack idea. But I digress.)

Now, Martinez is suing Mullens (love on the rocks, apparently), arguing that Mullens broke her promise not to help promote Grazer's guest editorship. In response, Mullens' attorney says the lawsuit is bitter grapes, and comes out of a restraining order Mullens filed against Martinez earlier this year.

Juicy! See, this is what will sell papers, Sam Zell. Rehire Martinez pronto!

Anyway, I glanced at Martinez's lawsuit, and given the current sorry state of affairs at the Times, got a kick out of the passing line above: "then one of the most coveted jobs in American journalism." Now, in the Zell Tribune era? Not so much.