Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Who owns the Black Sabbath trademark?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • OzzyIsDio
    replied
    Originally posted by BACK TO EDEN View Post

    After checking with "my" people and thangs .... my *SIDENOTE* above may be a little misleading - not intentional - everything else above seems to be pretty accurate , my memory served me well ...

    Ok , for those who care , HEAVEN N HELL the band -

    Dio Years plus the 3 extra tracks - 100% Iommi ,, only Dio's estate gets something still outside of Iommi in regards to the 3 extra tracks.

    ** Remember Geezer always does well ,, more to every story than what meets the eye.

    Ok , the band made a conscious effort with Live At Radio City , TDYK and Neon Nights Live 30 Years Of HNH to be an equal split entity - hence the billing of Dio Iommi Butler Appice in big "lights" on the cover of every album and on stage at every concert ..... but the split was more than 80% Iommi Butler Dio , and less than 20% Appice (but not by a big amount) and Appice still did extremely well .... remember all 4 of these albums sold relatively well , and the tours were an absolute crushing success.


    God Bless
    I'm happy they included Vinny, he deserved it.

    Leave a comment:


  • BACK TO EDEN
    replied
    Originally posted by BACK TO EDEN View Post




    Sharon is out of her mind , the Black Sabbath "name" and Black Sabbath "trademark" are marketed under 2 different set of rules - and NEW , not already existing material , must fall under the "trademark" rules , giving Sharon a "quasi" piece of the pie ... and limiting Iommi on how he can market NON Ozzy Era Sabbath - but can easily still be done.

    Going with blindfolds here from what I remember from the final papers - The Sabbath "name" is 75% Iommi , 25% Ozzy ,, Non Oz era 100% Iommi , yet somehow Geezer , Ward , Dio , Martin (TYR only?) and Powell still get some kind of royalties from the "name" ,, sidenote 'Heaven n Hell' , the band , if I remember correctly is 20% Vinny (great score!) 80% split evenly between Iommi , Geezer , Dio ,, Oz era "trademark" 50% Iommi (actually a tad higher based on Sabbath "name" past Oz era merchandising) , 50% Ozzy (but more control on how future Oz era material is marketed) - Geezer and Ward still somehow get some kind of certain royalties based on the situation from the Sabbath "name" ,, Geezer also gets 33% of concert "merchandise" and what we call 'pay and play' - is more than you might think (Geezer does very well).

    From my understanding , Sharon is a tad high on herself and a bit full of sh*t.
    After checking with "my" people and thangs .... my *SIDENOTE* above may be a little misleading - not intentional - everything else above seems to be pretty accurate , my memory served me well ...

    Ok , for those who care , HEAVEN N HELL the band -

    Dio Years plus the 3 extra tracks - 100% Iommi ,, only Dio's estate gets something still outside of Iommi in regards to the 3 extra tracks.

    ** Remember Geezer always does well ,, more to every story than what meets the eye.

    Ok , the band made a conscious effort with Live At Radio City , TDYK and Neon Nights Live 30 Years Of HNH to be an equal split entity - hence the billing of Dio Iommi Butler Appice in big "lights" on the cover of every album and on stage at every concert ..... but the split was more than 80% Iommi Butler Dio , and less than 20% Appice (but not by a big amount) and Appice still did extremely well .... remember all 4 of these albums sold relatively well , and the tours were an absolute crushing success.


    God Bless

    Leave a comment:


  • Wicked Cricket
    replied
    [QUOTE=BACK TO EDEN;n647220]
    Originally posted by Wicked Cricket View Post




    Sharon is out of her mind , the Black Sabbath "name" and Black Sabbath "trademark" are marketed under 2 different set of rules - and NEW , not already existing material , must fall under the "trademark" rules , giving Sharon a "quasi" piece of the pie ... and limiting Iommi on how he can market NON Ozzy Era Sabbath - but can easily still be done.

    Going with blindfolds here from what I remember from the final papers - The Sabbath "name" is 75% Iommi , 25% Ozzy ,, Non Oz era 100% Iommi , yet somehow Geezer , Ward , Dio , Martin (TYR only?) and Powell still get some kind of royalties from the "name" ,, sidenote 'Heaven n Hell' , the band , if I remember correctly is 20% Vinny (great score!) 80% split evenly between Iommi , Geezer , Dio ,, Oz era "trademark" 50% Iommi (actually a tad higher based on Sabbath "name" past Oz era merchandising) , 50% Ozzy (but more control on how future Oz era material is marketed) - Geezer and Ward still somehow get some kind of certain royalties based on the situation from the Sabbath "name" ,, Geezer also gets 33% of concert "merchandise" and what we call 'pay and play' - is more than you might think (Geezer does very well).

    From my understanding , Sharon is a tad high on herself and a bit full of sh*t.
    hahahha

    Leave a comment:


  • A Sabbath Historian
    replied
    Originally posted by Wicked Cricket View Post

    He did win it was split 50/50 Ozzy Tony .. funny Ozzy wanted to split 4 ways EQUALLY when Tony had 100% to himself.
    ... fair point Wicked. That "feeling" on Ozzy's part didn't last long!

    Leave a comment:


  • A Sabbath Historian
    replied
    Originally posted by black zeppelin View Post
    It's hard to believe , because it is incorrect .....

    Back To Eden, if it's not 50%. Do you know what it is?

    Unfortunately BZ, nobody here knows the exact percentage because the case was settled out of court. In other words, it never went to trial. Hence, the terms (of their "agreement") were never made public.

    Rightly or wrongly, that seems to be the norm with most of these types of lawsuits that countless musicians file (for the most part).

    That said, Ozzy was clearly satisfied with the outcome. Otherwise, 13 and the tour to support it would've never happened. My opinion, mind you. 😑













    Leave a comment:


  • BACK TO EDEN
    replied
    [QUOTE=Wicked Cricket;n647216]
    Originally posted by BACK TO EDEN View Post

    It's hard to believe , because it is incorrect .....


    BTE whats incorrect? It's what Sharon revealed on Aug 10th on a recent episode of Steve-O's Wild Ride podcast with the TV personality and Jackass co-star.





    Originally posted by black zeppelin View Post
    It's hard to believe , because it is incorrect .....

    Back To Eden, if it's not 50%. Do you know what it is?

    Sharon is out of her mind , the Black Sabbath "name" and Black Sabbath "trademark" are marketed under 2 different set of rules - and NEW , not already existing material , must fall under the "trademark" rules , giving Sharon a "quasi" piece of the pie ... and limiting Iommi on how he can market NON Ozzy Era Sabbath - but can easily still be done.

    Going with blindfolds here from what I remember from the final papers - The Sabbath "name" is 75% Iommi , 25% Ozzy ,, Non Oz era 100% Iommi , yet somehow Geezer , Ward , Dio , Martin (TYR only?) and Powell still get some kind of royalties from the "name" ,, sidenote 'Heaven n Hell' , the band , if I remember correctly is 20% Vinny (great score!) 80% split evenly between Iommi , Geezer , Dio ,, Oz era "trademark" 50% Iommi (actually a tad higher based on Sabbath "name" past Oz era merchandising) , 50% Ozzy (but more control on how future Oz era material is marketed) - Geezer and Ward still somehow get some kind of certain royalties based on the situation from the Sabbath "name" ,, Geezer also gets 33% of concert "merchandise" and what we call 'pay and play' - is more than you might think (Geezer does very well).

    From my understanding , Sharon is a tad high on herself and a bit full of sh*t.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wicked Cricket
    replied
    [QUOTE=BACK TO EDEN;n647136]

    It's hard to believe , because it is incorrect .....


    BTE whats incorrect? It's what Sharon revealed on Aug 10th on a recent episode of Steve-O's Wild Ride podcast with the TV personality and Jackass co-star.






    Leave a comment:


  • black zeppelin
    replied
    It's hard to believe , because it is incorrect .....

    Back To Eden, if it's not 50%. Do you know what it is?

    Leave a comment:


  • OzzyIsDio
    replied
    Originally posted by Wicked Cricket View Post

    He did win it was split 50/50 Ozzy Tony .. funny Ozzy wanted to split 4 ways EQUALLY when Tony had 100% to himself.
    Yes that is funny that he wanted that, he could’ve given Bill and Geezer their percentage out of the goodness of his heart, which I believe is good.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wicked Cricket
    replied
    Originally posted by OzzyIsDio View Post
    I think it's absurd to think of Bill and Geezer pay as they play musicians.

    So according to the Rolling Stone article, which I've read before, states that Ozzy felt that all four founding members should get equal ownership of the name, which I agree to, then it says Iommi reclaimed sole ownership of the Black Sabbath name.

    So which one is it, I thought Ozzy won and it had to be divided?
    He did win it was split 50/50 Ozzy Tony .. funny Ozzy wanted to split 4 ways EQUALLY when Tony had 100% to himself.
    Last edited by Wicked Cricket; 08-17-2020, 05:32 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dehumanizer3000
    replied
    looking on the official website for Black Sabbath, it only lists the Ozzy albums and Bill is not in any pictures, this is also from the site "Black Sabbath persevered through a succession of lineup changes that sometimes did and sometimes didn’t include Butler and Ward. Several of Black Sabbath’s post-Osbourne albums - especially Heaven and Hell (1980), Mob Rules (1981) and Headless Cross (1989) - are highly regarded by hardcore fans. But when all was said and done, the classic lineup could not be bested."

    I think this shows where the rights lay


    Leave a comment:


  • sellingmysoul
    replied
    Originally posted by A Sabbath Historian View Post


    Like Ala stated earlier, Geezer isn't a "partner" in Sabbath--- on paper that is. Hence, the "pay-for-play" comment.

    I do understand that context, however, I agree $haron is indeed a piece of shit!

    That said, "partner" or not, Geezer's contributions to the band remain intact. No contract can ever change that.

    As for new music, the four original members should be involved at this juncture if any future projects materialize. Black Sabbath marketed as a trio just doesn't cut it with me.


    Good point A Sabbath Historian.

    Leave a comment:


  • OzzyIsDio
    replied
    I think it's absurd to think of Bill and Geezer pay as they play musicians.

    So according to the Rolling Stone article, which I've read before, states that Ozzy felt that all four founding members should get equal ownership of the name, which I agree to, then it says Iommi reclaimed sole ownership of the Black Sabbath name.

    So which one is it, I thought Ozzy won and it had to be divided?

    Leave a comment:


  • Wicked Cricket
    replied
    https://www.rollingstone.com/music/m...h-suit-188750/

    Leave a comment:


  • BACK TO EDEN
    replied
    Originally posted by black zeppelin View Post
    Hard to believe that Tony only ended with 50%
    It's hard to believe , because it is incorrect .....



    Originally posted by A Sabbath Historian View Post

    That said, "partner" or not, Geezer's contributions to the band remain intact. No contract can ever change that.

    ​​​​​​​Well stated ....

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X