do you have a ******* clue cause i don't,by all respects surely krist novoselic,dave grohl and chad channing should get an equal share in the rights to NIRVANA,just bescause courtney was married to kurt dont mean she should be the soul benificary(spelling?),am i right?
2006-11-21 20:57:28 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Music
**** im gonna marry amy lee,**** shes hot plus when she dies i get all her money and rights to evanesance,two can play at that game courtney
p.s yoko is sweet,unlike courtney whos a ******* whore sleeping with steve coogan and russel brand
2006-11-21 21:06:51 · update #1
she sold 25% of the rights to her new manager Peter Asher,im pretty sure she owns about 95%
2006-11-21 21:20:56 · update #2
Because before Kurt died, Courtney convinced him to demand a higher percentage of Nirvana royalties. Whatever Kurt had went to Courtney and Francis after his death. Now Courtney has the majority power over Nirvana's music. As ridiculous and unjust as that is, that is how the legal system works. Recently Dave and Krist went to court over the issue when releasing the boxset. They received more authority, but Courtney still has the majority rule.
2006-11-23 14:09:52 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It all depends on the deal at the time. You can own your music and get a share of the royalties. You can be a 9 - 5 musician and just be paid for turning up and playing. Most musicians come somewhere in between.
If the deal was that Kurt got 95% of the royalties, then his widow would normally expect to inherit them. I'm sure the others have done OK out of it.
2006-11-22 05:04:04 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's like Yoko Ono owning John Lennons share of the Beatles.
Courtney Love will have Kurts share of Nirvana because she married him.
Is it really as high as 95% though?
And 'beneficiary' is the correct spelling, and she would be the 'sole' beneficiary (not 'soul')
2006-11-22 05:07:06 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Its better than Michael Jackson owning the rights to the Beatles songs, or the old Blues artists selling the rights to their songs for a few dollars, or artists like Elvis insisting on being included as a co-writer before he would record the song.
The ownership of publishing rights is a particularly murky business, as is most things that have to do with large companies and artists who dont know their rights.
2006-11-22 05:30:13 · answer #4 · answered by Jim T 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It's no different to Yoko owning the rights to John's music now he's dead - or even George Harrison's widow to his... property passes to a spouse on death - and musical rights are no different
2006-11-22 04:59:59 · answer #5 · answered by big pup in a small bath 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Jon B - did she really have him murdered? That's the first I've heard of that! How awful. I've never liked the talentless woman - she has about as much use as Heather "I'm not a gold-digger" Mills - a waste of skin.
2006-11-22 05:02:26 · answer #6 · answered by Roxy 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
even though yoko owns john lennon's music (solo music) and his share of the beatles at least the other three beatles HAVE rights to it as well..not like in courtney's case she has ALL of it thats not fair... haha i hope she's being a good mom to francis bean she looks crazy
2006-11-22 07:44:41 · answer #7 · answered by sparkplug 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Technically, and as much as I hate to admit it, being married to someone legally carries more weight than just being a member to the band.
2006-11-22 05:05:19 · answer #8 · answered by BAnne 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Doesn't Michael Jackson own a lot of the Beatles songs?
2006-11-22 05:18:06 · answer #9 · answered by FUGAZI 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
She probably had everything sown up before she (allegedly) had him murdered.
2006-11-22 05:00:00 · answer #10 · answered by Jon B 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋