| re: Meat Loaf's 'other half' | |
|
Posted by: |
steven_stuart 08:03 pm UTC 12/29/09 |
| In reply to: | re: Meat Loaf's 'other half' - CultOfByron 06:48 pm UTC 12/29/09 |
| > At the risk of dredging up a three and a half year old (at > least) argument; Meat showed quite litigiously (sp?) that > he considered Bat out of Hell to be 'his'. So there is a > legal dimension to all this that must be observed lest all > the lawyers get their panties in a bunch and everyone ends > up sueing everyone else's Grandma... yawn. Yes. You are right to bring the court case up. Was it just Meat who considered BOOH to be his? Did Meat start the lawsuit? I can't remember the exact settlement but was it basically that Meat got the rights for concerts and albums and that Jim got the Grand Rights for costumed theatrical production? I wonder if there are still bad feelings between them because of the lawsuit. Probably Bat 3 just rubbed salt into the wounds. > But from a > creative point of view; we all know how big Meat's ego is, > for better or for worse, so for the show's independence > and Jim's reputation it'd be a good idea to keep Meat's > involvement to a minimum, perhaps endorsing from afar or > 'bigging up' Jim. This is the dilema the producers have to face. As Scaramouche says, they would love to involve Meat because he will help to sell tickets but as you say, too much Meat involvement will be bad for the show's independence and Jim's reputation. | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: More points - steven_stuart 03:40 pm UTC 12/31/09 |
| Next: | re: Meat Loaf's 'other half' - Scaramouche 07:14 pm UTC 12/29/09 |
| Thread: | |