In October, Cher sued Mary Bono, the fourth wife of Sonny Bono and trustee of the Bono Collection Trust, of alleged copyright termination notices. Now, the defendant has officially denied the “groundless” allegation.
Cher, 75, filed the initial lawsuit in a federal court in her hometown of California, reiterating at the outset in the lawsuit that she and Sonny “agreed to divide their community property equally.” ” after their 1975 divorce.
Then, August 1978 is said to have seen Sonny “irrevocably” grant Cher “as her sole and exclusive property worldwide and in perpetuity, 50% of the rights of them for music composition royalties, recording royalties and other assets” less management fees, according to the plaintiffs. But Cher still insists that September 2021 saw the Bono Collection Trust issue her own trust Section 304 (c) Termination notices regarding copyright – and in turn, a substantial portion of her royalties – were included in the 1978 agreement.
As mentioned at the outset, 60-year-old Mary Bono has now filed a motion dismissing “baseless” action from Cher, new legal documents reveal.
Cleveland native Mary Bono’s motion to remove pointed out that “Cher’s first claim for a disclaimer judgment made no claim, including because it was preceded by the federal Copyright Act,” while the “second claim about breach of contract is incomplete.”
Build on these brief points in a 23-page memo, Mary Bono and her attorney allege that “Plaintiff’s right to terminate certain benefits under the Copyright Act negates contractual claims under state law by Plaintiff” – or a contract relating to the divorce agreement mentioned above.
(Cher and her counsel stated in their application: “Sonny’s assignment to Plaintiff in the Matrimonial Settlement of undivided title to the Royalties is not a license to renew the copyright. rights or rights arising under the Copyright and Supplemental Reasons Act, not terminated § 304(c).”)
Even so, going back to Mary Bono’s rebuttal, “the plain language of Section 304 provides that the granting of an assignment or grant of ‘other than a will’ may be terminated by the surviving children. of the author and/or widow/widower,” proceeds of the memo, which argues in favor of removal having effect on copyright termination claims and not breach of contract claims .
“The right to terminate belongs to the statutory beneficiary, and the rights to terminate are returned only to the statutory beneficiary, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, including the MSA. [marriage-settlement agreement], ” Read Mary Bono’s motion.
“Sonny may grant Cher his present rights,” continued the defendant, “including 50% royalties on his copyright. However, Sonny cannot waive the right of future Inheritance to terminate the contract”.
The second statement is based on the idea that “Congress limits an author’s ability to sign off his or her right to terminate.”
“Cher notes that the MSA is binding on both Sonny and Cher’s respective heirs and assigns,” the memo states. “However, that only applies to property and claims that are the subject of an MSA and cannot bind an Inheritor with respect to matters and property outside the MSA, such as copyright, which are subject to notice of termination. stop.”
At the time of this piece’s publication, Cher did not appear to be directly referring to Mary Bono’s petition for annulment on social media. Earlier this year, Dwight Yoakam initiate legal action against Warner Music Group over the Big Three’s alleged failure to return its owners following the notice of copyright termination.
https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2021/12/10/mary-bono-cher-lawsuit-dismissal/ Mary Bono moves to dismiss Cher .’s ‘baseless’ $1 million lawsuit