Bob Dylan sued by the widow of Jacques Levy over the sale of his catalogue

By Emmanuel Legrand

Bob Dylan has been sued by the widow of songwriter, author and theatre director Jacques Levy, who co-authored with Dylan several songs that appeared in the singer's 1976 album 'Desire'. The suit is related to the news that Dylan, aka Robert Zimmerman, sold his catalogue to Universal Music Publishing (UMPG) for a reported $300 million and that a share of this transaction should have been paid to Plaintiffs.

  Also named in the suit are Dylan's New York-based trading entities Ram's Horn Music, Special Rider Music and Bob Dylan Music Co., as well as UMPG and Universal Music Group.

  The core of the lawsuit, according to a complaint filed by lawyer Richard Golub on behalf of Claudia Levy in New York's Supreme Court, is that Levy, who died in 2004, is entitled to a share of the transaction, based on the agreement that he had originally signed with Dylan. The suit states that circa 1975, Levy started working with Dylan on 10 original compositions: 'Romance In Durango', 'Catfish', 'Joey', 'Money Blues', Hurricane, 'Rita Mae', 'Mozambique', 'Oh Sister', 'Black Diamond Day, A Bedtime Story', and 'Isis', seven of which were featured in 'Desire'.

An atypical work-for-hire contract

  Although the agreement between Levy and Dylan was one of "work-for-hire", the suit describes it as "atypical" in that it was "bestowing on Plaintiffs considerable significant material rights and material benefits that are not customarily granted to to employees-for-hire and that the label work-for-hire is, in this instance, a misnomer."

  As per the agreement, Levy was granted a co-writer credit for the lyrics and was due to receive "35% of any and all income earned by the compositions and actually received from mechanical rights, electrical transcriptions, reproducing rights, motion picture synchronisation and television rights, and other rights therein."

  The suit points out that the payment also includes 35% "of the purchase price paid to the Dylan Defendants, John Does 1-10 or any other entity for the acquisition of rights to a composition acquired by a third party 'for use for the basis for a screenplay, teleplay or dramatic work'." For Plaintiffs, the term "income" is "unrestricted and unambiguous."

Breach of agreement

  It was also incumbent on Dylan Defendants to notify rights societies ASCAP and BMI that Levy received 35% of the writer's share on the songs, and that Levy's music publishing entity Jackelope was entitled to 35% of the publishers' share of the songs for performance income. Since the original agreement was signed, Dylan has moved his catalogue to SESAC for the administration of his performance rights.

  The suit states that the songs Levy contributed to were part of those sold in the transaction with UMPG and that the due diligence process had made aware Universal that "Plaintiffs are a third-party beneficiaries of the catalogue sale with the obligations, inter alia, to account and pay to Plaintiffs all funds due to Plaintiffs pursuant to the agreement as income or otherwise related to plaintiffs' compositions."

  It adds that the Dylan Defendants "refused to remit to Plaintiffs their rightful share of the revenue and/or income earned from the catalogue sale with respect to the compositions" and that Universal "wrongfully, intentionally and without justification induced the Dylan Defendants to breach the agreement with Plaintiffs by advising and/or instructing the Dylan Defendants not to render any revenue, income and/or payments to Plaintiffs in connection with the catalogue sale."

  This situation, the suit adds, is consistent with "Dylan's pattern of refusing to recognise Jacques Levy."

Seeking an award of $7.25 million

  Plaintiffs calculated that the sale price per song would be of approximately half a million dollars, so $5 million would the sale price for all 10 songs co-wrote by Levy. Applying a 35% share of the income and/or revenue derived from the catalogue sale, Plaintiffs estimated that the share of the income generated by the catalogue sale due to Levy was of $1.75 million, which should be paid to plaintiffs by the Dylan Defendants. In addition, Plaintiffs also ask for punitive damages in the amount of $2m "to deter similar conduct from happening in the future."

  In addition, they ask that Universal pay $1.75m as the prorated share of the income generated by the catalogue sale as well. A third cause for action calls for Universal to pay an additional $1.75m for advising and/or instructing the Dylan Defendants not to render any revenue, income or payments in connection with the sale. In total, Plaintiffs want the court to award them $7.25m.

A meritless case

  UMPG has yet to respond to the complaint filed January 20, 2021.

  A lawyer for Dylan, Orin Snyder, said in a statement: "This lawsuit is a sad attempt to unfairly profit off of the recent catalog sale. The plaintiffs have been paid everything they are owed. We are confident that we will prevail. And when we do, we will hold plaintiffs and their counsel responsible for bringing this meritless case."

 

 Follow-up:

At the end of March 2021, Bob Dylan has filed with a New York court a motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by the estate of Jacques Levy, who co-wrote with Dylan a series of songs that were included on his 1976 album 'Desire'. The lawsuit, brought by Levy's widow, follows the sale of Dylan's catalogue to Universal Music Publishing Group. In a suit filed in February 2021, Levy's estate claimed that a portion of the estimated $300 million sale should have been paid to the Levy Estate. 

In his motion, Dylan counters that Levy worked on a work-for-hire basis and was also entitled contractually to a share of the royalties from the use of the songs. However, the contract between the two sides did not include a clause making Levy a party to the sale of the songs. "Had the parties intended for Levy to share in the proceeds of a sale, they would have so provided in the Agreement," reads the filing. It adds that nothing in the contract "hints that Levy is so entitled." 

The contract confirms that the new owner of the copyrights is "subject to the continuing obligation to pay Levy his share of royalties." Levy's estate was seeking $7.25 million from the sale of the catalogue.