It is a fact that the estate of Bradley will now be involved in all types of issues concerning his works of arrangements, compositions and so on including as a mathematician, if he came up with any new mathematical laws. After all, all types of wealth in any form of Mr Bradley, now automatically passes to his estate. It is legally referred to as intestate. The natural heirs however with or without a clear will, can make claims and the courts must entertain such claims.

 

What I am suggesting is that three parties at least must be involved in making a decision for any further use of Mr Bradley’s musical arrangements and other music formats. His estate can go as far back when he played in Esquires combo back in the sixties once the present estate owners were part of him back then.  Despers is partially correct to say that they own the specific arrangements of music which were done to songs which also have their owners, for a specific event called panorama. If the band and the arranger had an agreement whether it was written down or not written down in contract form, there is sufficient evidence by the band to prove to a court of law that Mr Bradley acted as an independent contractor, and had agreed to get paid without a written agreement due to his and band’s own ignorance. Never the less the payment was for the sole purpose of a piece of music we call the arrangement.  Worse, if there is proof of a cheque voucher signed by Mr Bradley, either from Witco or Despers, that constitutes a written agreement if that voucher explained the reason for the payment. This is why in business there are cheque vouchers which must explain the reason for the payments and those who receive money must sign that voucher. That according to the law of contract is in fact a written agreement. Any court in T&T or outside in T&T would know this. Not everything in business has to be in a contract form, signed sealed and delivered. Of course it is best if that is there. Where there is no actual contract, once a cheque has been passed and goes through the banking system, that can constitute a written agreement in the absence of such agreement. If the payment is paid by cash and there is no cash voucher our any thing signed for it, a court or anyone else has no proof that Mr Bradley was actually paid at all and specifically paid to make a musical arrangement for Despers to play at Panorama show. But no Court in T&T will say that Despers do not own the arrangements they paid Mr Bradley for. Everyone knows to some extent that he would have been satisfied for that reason only. You see there is Law and there is practical application of that Law.  This is where Miss Demas differs from me as a music business consultant. She is a copyright specialist lawyer, but have very little experience in music business per se.

 

A music business consultant is more practical in applying the law for all the parties concerned. He/she is a specialist in that. His business experience tells him that it is not only the copyright law which is taken into account when there is a music business breakdown. The law of contracts also applies. Other business laws apply as well and along with the Copyright Laws.

 

Therefore, Despers is right when they say they own the Despers arrangement they paid Mr Bradley for. But Despers will be wrong if they think they can use those arrangements without informing the Estate owners of Mr Bradley. Because they did not pay Mr Bradley for 50 years of usage of those arrangements after his demise. They paid him for a few nights of panorama when it would have been played and of course the hard work he had done to get the arrangement in place. Certainly, fifty, sixty grand TT$ or even 100 grand TT$ cannot pay for 50 years usage. So the law of Copyrights exist where an arrangement is not completely transferred, the arranger continues to hold those transfer rights even 50 years after his death. That’s  where Mr Bradley’s estate comes into the claim now. So Despers must now deal with the estate of Mr Bradley as well as the original song writer or their estate or publishers. There three parties come into play. They all have something to get.

 

What Ms Demas is doing, is doing a very bad job of properly explaining the case from an objective and arbitrating point of view. She is just quoting the Copyrights Laws. To much Law and no practicality. She is mixing up the payment made by Despers, as if that payment was for transferring of Rights by Mr Bradley. The payment was not for that. It was for a piece of music –a professional job to have been done by the arranger.  No payments were made by Despers to transfer the arranger’s total rights to his arrangement. In other words a song writer can never really not own his arrangements or songs where there is no written agreement expressing such transfer of rights. However, he can be paid for his specific labor at the time to prepare Despers to enter a panorama competition, using, practicing and performing his specific arrangements. So really she has done a bad job in explaining it carefully so as not to cause further confusion. The same thing she did with the road march sample issue, which turned out not a sample at all. It is trying to show her knowledge of the Law without practical applications of such laws.

 

Steve Taylor

Music Business Consultant

MPC Ltd