not logged in
| re: Meat writing Bat 1+2 claim evidence | |
Posted by:  |
Pudding 08:01 am UTC 10/09/08 |
| In reply to: | re: Meat writing Bat 1+2 claim evidence - AndrewG 07:51 am UTC 10/09/08 |
| Point 12 definitely is plausible and could have some merit to it. But yeah, 13 and 17 are total bollocks. > Point 12 I can understand and basing on that Meat may have > had a (slight if any) claim on the Bat trademark or at > least using it for Bat 3 only if he wished imo. > > However points 13 and 17 are mostly a load of shit. > > > Following on from a conversation below and just to prove > > Smeg (the bastard) right...yet again(curse him) this is > > Meats writing claim for Bat1 and Bat 2. > > > > Click link below for full court papers and it's on page 10 > > of 17. > > > > The Plaintiff being Meat Loaf and the Defendant being Jim > > > > 12. The concept of the Bat Out Of Hell album resulted from > > a joint creative effort between Plaintiff and Defendant > > Steinman. > > > > 13. Plaintiff was the artist, singer and Performer for Bat > > Out Of Hell. His role included providing portions of the > > lyrics, as well as developing the overall presentation of > > the songs. Plaintiff performed all the songs on the album, > > and was and is the sole user of the BAT OUT OF HELL mark. > > > > 17. Following the success of Bat Out Of Hell 1, a Bat Out > > Of Hell 2 album was released in September 1993. Defendant > > Steinman wrote the songs and produced the album. Plaintiff > > provided most of the lyrics, singing, performing and > > developing the overall presentation of the songs. | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: Meat writing Bat 1+2 claim evidence - AndrewG 07:51 am UTC 10/09/08 |
| Next: | re: Meat writing Bat 1+2 claim evidence - Smeghead 01:52 am UTC 10/10/08 |
| Thread: |
|