Creation records contract analysis

Creation records contract analysis

Here is my contract analysis. Creation Records was a British independent record label founded in 1984 by Alan McGee. The label released records by a number of influential bands, including Primal Scream, Oasis, The Jesus and Mary Chain, and My Bloody Valentine. However, Creation Records was also known for its poor royalty payments to artists and extreme substance abuse.

A number of bands have sued Creation Records for unpaid royalties or rights issues. The bands that sued the label include:

  • Primal Scream
  • Oasis
  • The Jesus and Mary Chain
  • My Bloody Valentine
  • The Boo Radleys
  • Ride
  • Slowdive
  • Chapterhouse
  • The Verve
  • The Libertines
  • The Paddingtons
  • The Charlatans
  • The Head
  • The Telescopes
  • The Pastels
  • The Jasmine Minks

It appears that Primal Scream finally bankrupted Creation in 1999 with a damages claim of £1 million but no public court documents are available. It appears to be widely accepted Creation gave unfair contracts.

I find it concerning that Sony did not scan in the contracts from Creation and instead kept paper copies in boxes. This lack of organisation and transparency is unusual for a company of Sony’s size and resources. It is also puzzling that it took Sony eight years to find the contract for this case, especially since the company had been aware of the dispute for some time.

Sony’s offer to only pay me back from six years previously, rather than from when they failed to find the contract or from the first date it was released, is also unfair. This decision suggests that Sony is more concerned with protecting its profits than with compensating me for the losses I have incurred.

The fact that Sony has been happy for the contract to “not exist” for all this time, until now when I am starting legal action and have demanded they remove my parts from their record, is also concerning. This suggests that Sony is only now taking my claims seriously because they are under legal pressure to do so.

  • Their claim that they were unaware I wrote things on the track seems dubious as this is a well-known “collaboration” and is referred to as such in Mr McGees and Mr Patersons publicly released books. In any case, my rights should not be limited by Sonys ignorance.
  • As older people to me (roughly 10 years older) you would have expected my ex-partner, his manager, Alan McGee and Primal Scream to negotiate fairly, correct any mistakes and protect my interests.
  • The new company owning Creation now should have still been theoretically accountable to honour the original spirit and intent of this agreement, but no accounting has ever been received up until one month ago. I wonder why this contract was not re-visited when Sony took over the company, since its so blatantly flawed.
  • The terms were presented to me as favourable, but in reality likely only benefit Creation Records for reasons discussed below. This is misrepresentation by my ex-partner and his manager and possibly from Creation / Mr McGee to my ex-partners manager.
  • There is a clear conflict of interest with my ex-partner’s manager negotiating the deal without properly representing my interests or getting my approval.

These are the documents I “signed” without legal advice as a young enthusiastic autistic teenager. I signed the name “thrash” because in my naivety I thought it afforded me legal protection should I later discover there is a problem. It was presented to me as an amazing deal at the time, and later. The manager then recently claimed he verbally agreed something entirely different with Alan McGee. They were both addicted to cocaine and Alan McGee has publicly admitted cocaine was part of business meetings.

contract text:

Tel: 081-98637145, 986 7167.
Fax: 081-986 7184

April 15, 1991

Dr. Alex Paterson & Thrash
c/o Modo Records & Tapes Ltd
1-3 Sidney Street
Sheffield S1 4RG

Dear Alex and Thrash,

I am writing to confirm our agreement, with regard to your mix of the Primal Scream track “Higher Than The Sun”.

You will receive the sum of £2,000 (two thousand pounds) as an advance royalty of 1% (one percent) of 100% (one hundred percent) pro rata of retail price on sales of records, cassettes and compact discs featuring your mixes of the track “Higher Than The Sun”.

Retail price will be taken to be the dealer price multiplied by the markup agreed between the BPI and the MCPS in the United Kingdom. For all other territories, the price base will be that used by Creation’s licensee in each territory.

Where Primal Scream royalties are reduced your royalty will be reduced proportionally. For the avoidance of doubt, Primal Scream royalties are calculated on a profit sharing basis and any packaging deductions or royalty rate reductions will only apply where the track is licensed to a third party.

For any TV advertised release the royalty rate will be 1% (one percent).

Creation will provide you with a statement of account calculated to every 30th of June and 31st of December together with a payment of any amount due 90 (ninety) days after the end of each such period.


James Kyllo

analysis of unfairness in the contract:

This is an extremely creation-centric contract. Sony/Creation Records cannot in good faith hold me to these terms that I did not agree to directly. I was unfairly manipulated and could not provide meaningful informed consent.


Overall, the entire agreement seems designed to unfairly benefit Creation Records at my expense, likely due to the financial distress, impaired judgement and unethical behaviour caused by the mismanagement and substance abuse issues at Creation. Voiding or renegotiating the contract in good faith seems warranted.

UK Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977

Its possible the fact I had only been a musician for a year or two and not long out of school at the time may mean this contract may relate to the UK Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 or Misrepresentation Act 1967. At that time I was living in the first shared flat I had outside of my mothers house. The key aspects of the UK Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 that are most relevant to evaluating this situation are:

  • Assessing the relative bargaining power of the parties – In this case Creation Records held far more power as an established label vs a young autistic artist being exploited by two much older music industry adults.
  • Taking into account whether any inducements were offered – No indication of meaningful incentives offered to the artists to agree.
  • Considering if terms were actually negotiated individually – The contract was presented as standardised, not customised.
  • Evaluating if terms were expressed plainly and intelligibly – Legalese and technical terms were used extensively.
  • Reviewing whether it was reasonably practicable for artists to be advised or represented – No evidence of legal counsel or representation.
  • Determining if signature was a condition of doing business – Likely required agreement to work with Creation Records.
  • Assessing if contract restricted one party’s rights while not reciprocally restricting the other’s – Clauses favoured Creation’s rights overwhelmingly.
  • Terms heavily restricting artists’ rights in ways that benefit Creation Records conflict with principles of fairness and equal treatment under the law.
  • Presenting the work publicly as solely my ex-partner’s when I did the actual writing/production is highly unethical and seems deceptive. Deception through presenting the work publicly as solely my partner’s when I was a key creative contributor could also weigh towards the contract being invalid if relied upon.
  • Primal Scream have publicly announced on several occasions that Mr Innes edited “bits” of the mixes that I did and have seriously downplayed my involvement, calling me Mr Paterson’s engineer. This is wholly false and offensive and also speaks to Mr Patersons tendency to want to take credit for my work. I edited the versions made in 1991.
  • Mr Morris’ de-facto involvement without my retention further corrodes any claims of appropriate consent, advice and good faith dealings in arranging this agreement
  • Creation Records failed in their duty to verify informed legal consent.
  • Sony records failed in their duty to examine the contracts when they bought Creation.


  • I was young and still establishing myself at the time, with little leverage or understanding.
  • The track was already completed when the contract was drawn up, not created under its terms.
  • The ex-partner credited barely participated, yet I’ve been denied acknowledgment.
  • Very low 0.5% royalty rate and different to the other producers on the album
  • Lack of direct negotiation with me or balanced legal representation
  • Statements incorrectly framing me as confirming the agreement are misleading.
  • My contributions to the track were much more extensive than just “mix” work – I was a primary creative force. Framing my significant creative work as just “performance” or a “mix” is insulting. This assertion is strengthened by the use of my work on the album in “3.30” format, indicating they wanted to use it as a single, which they did. They released this about 3 months before the album came out, 3 months after this contract was signed. They used the release of the single to promote their tour.
  • Reducing the artists’ royalties if Primal Scream royalties are reduced appears one-sided.
  • A 90 day delay for payment of royalties allows Creation Records significant time to earn interest on money owed to artists. A shorter timeframe would be more fair.
  • The lack of detail around “packaging deductions” and what constitutes “royalty rate reductions” gives Creation Records broad discretion to cut royalty payments.
  • Using the retail price vs. wholesale price as the royalty base benefits the label. Wholesale price would be more equitable.
  • the contract appears to be a boilerplate agreement and no real negotiation seems to have taken place.
  • Profit sharing gives Creation much more leeway to reduce or limit royalties through creative accounting of costs and expenses. It lacks transparency compared to a revenue share.
  • There is no clear definition or guarantee of what constitutes “profits” – Creation has a lot of discretion in recouping costs against revenue first.
  • Linking royalty payouts to profits rather than gross revenue means Creation deducts all their expenses first before splitting remaining profit. This shifts financial risk and costs disproportionately onto the artists.
  • Industry standard practice is to pay artists a royalty share from revenue, not profits. Profit share deals are generally seen as poor compensation for artists.
  • The lack of transparency and potential for Creation to reduce “profits” via accounting practices makes profit sharing prone to abuse in favour of Creation over the artists. Considering the huge amount of documented substance abuse going on at the time, it seems likely a lot of money was being spent on cocaine and that money had to come from somewhere.


  • Unclear if contract applies to myself and partner jointly or separately
  • No specifics provided on time periods, territories, payment schedules
  • Ambiguous language about what constitutes an “advertised release”. it’s unclear what constitutes a “TV advertised release” – does one ad trigger this, or is there a broader time period/spending level that qualifies? Very ambiguous.
  • The territories and licensees where the royalty rates apply are ambiguous. Does the 1% rate apply worldwide?
  • Definition of “retail price” is somewhat vague – does it include sales tax or other add-ons? A clearer definition would be less ambiguous.
  • The agreement does not specify how the retail price will be calculated for sales in territories where Creation does not have a licensee.
  • Time period for the contract and rights granted is not specified. Is it for a single release or fixed term? The rights granted fail to protect my interests over time from an unreliable counterparty like Creation and its leadership at the time.
  • Nothing about creative control, credits, approvals mentioned. Artists should have some say in how their work is used.
  • Unclear if the contract allows amendments. Modification provisions could help.
  • Allowing reductions in my royalties tied to Primal Scream’s leaves me vulnerable to undisclosed adjustments made by the label. More transparency should be required.


  • No mention of digital distribution or streaming – new media at the time
  • Nothing addressing my publishing, creative contributions and approvals. Does not address people changing my work, editing it in other peoples work, re-releasing or remastering it etc.
  • No clear accounting procedures or audit rights detailed. Can the artists audit the statements from Creation? It is Standard to include audit provisions. The lack of audit rights or transparency in statements enabled years of potential underpayment or accounting irregularities that I had no recourse to address until now. (i am very much struggling to write all this).
  • Ownership of master recordings and publishing rights not addressed. This is a core right.
  • No defined term limit on the agreement.
  • The agreement does not specify how the record label will promote and distribute the track.
  • No provisions around termination rights or remedies at all, leaving the agreement potentially open-ended. Ability to exit if breached would be fair.
  • The agreement does not specify what happens if the record label goes bankrupt or ceases to operate. This is an important consideration.

Evidence from Alan Mcgee

I have detailed evidence on Creations Business here, which Alan McGee has been very open about.

It seems likely that the above mentioned substance abuse issues and the impact they had on Creation finances were where a lot of my royalties went. Further, it also seems likely that the extreme financial situation of Creation had an impact on the terms of my contract and the fact no professional solicitors were involved on either side.

The masters were delivered before the contract was signed.

In both letters:

  • “I am writing to confirm our agreement, with regard to your mix…”

This language framing the letter as “confirming” an existing agreement about your (already existing) mix implies the work was done prior.

  • “You will receive the sum of £2000 (two thousand pounds) as an advance royalty…”

Paying an upfront “advance royalty” suggests this is based on an already finished product rather than funding speculative future work. Delivering a contract after the fact is also consistent with Creation records chaotic business dealings.

initial addressing

The initial addressing immediately highlights the deception and lack of good faith involved in drafting and presenting this agreement. Overall, the manner of addressing and sending the contract strengthens my assertion that this was an agreement reached unfairly and deceptively without appropriate representation of my interests. It was facilitated through the conflicted manager acting for my ex-partner’s benefit over mine.

  1. My management deal with Rage Management was signed approximately 12 weeks after the date this “contract” was sent out.
  2. I employed Ms Boardman because I was not happy with Mr Morris at Modo records.
  3. No legal advice was given to me on these contracts at all. I was encouraged to sign them quickly in the middle of doing other tasks.
  4. It is firstly addressed to my ex-partners manager. Both my ex-partner and the manger lied about this and other contracts. This manager was acting on behalf of my partner’s interests, not mine, in negotiating and apparently “confirming” an agreement.
  5. Its then addressed to to the inflated title “Dr.” who is not a doctor and my music pseudonym “thrash”, which I did not use for legal contracts and its odd my real name is not on there. I don’t think they knew what my real name was, and neither did they care.
  6. There was a clear gap where neither manager took responsibility for protecting my rights, in particular Mr Morris well understood I was very unhappy with him remaining manager and had more reason to protect my ex-partners interests, who he also had a record label with that they pressured me onto.
  7. Its hard to see how or why a competent manager would agree to terms like these.
  8. I did not negotiate or agree to this contract myself. Mr Morris handled it without my involvement and asked me to sign it without legal advice, which I did.
  9. I had no understanding of what i was signing or the vague legalese language with which it is described.
  10. Addressing it to the manager and two individuals rather than my band name contributes to potential ambiguities around who exactly Creation Records is contracting with.
  11. The manager’s apparent authority to receive and acknowledge the agreement on my behalf is questionable. He acted mostly for Mr Paterson and not myself, which the contract is supposedly addressed to.
  12. Addressing it to the manager seems to show his lead role. It is misleading framing the introduction as though I had awareness and involvement in “confirming” the agreement prior when I did not.

Dear [name] I am writing to confirm our agreement, with regard to your mix of the Primal Scream track “Higher Than The Sun”.

Overall, the contract appears to be a boilerplate one not sent by a solicitor. The initial phrasing appears carefully selected to establish a veneer of mutual agreed upon terms and minimise the scope of my creative involvement.

  1. This first line falsely implies an agreement had been reached before the letter was written and that negotiation had taken place with the two individuals addressed. It falsely states I confirmed an agreement with Creation Records. This is untrue, misleading and unfair. It falsely suggests I was an active participant in reaching the terms outlined. In reality, Mr Morris negotiated and I was not involved.
  2. It does not make it clear whether the contract applies separately for each person and is not contracted to the band “the orb” which was my professional band name at the time and is the name of the credit on the cover.
  3. Presenting it solely as a new version of Primal Scream’s original composition obscures my significant artistic input. My contributions went beyond mixing to transforming it into essentially a new derivative work meriting acknowledgment. Registration irregularities can be seen across their other tracks e.g. the other track named “Higher than the Sun” and “Loaded”. Framing it as just a supplemental “mix” also implies I have no rights to the core underlying composition .
  4. The deliberate language used seems intended to pigeonhole my extensive creative work as a disposable “mix” rather than rightfully recognising me as an original co-author of the new sound recording. The terminology choice appears strategically crafted to deny my valid rights and credits and fails to acknowledge my additional musical, production, and structural changes to the track, including adding a bridge and what is called the “chorus” in Bobby Gillespie’s own book.
  5. Using “our agreement” incorrectly implies I am already bound by a prior agreement I never consented to.  What constitutes the “agreement” being referenced is unclear if nothing was formally negotiated and signed.
  6. The scope of “your mix” is ambiguous in terms of the extent of my contributions.
  7. Its uncertain exactly what implied past discussions or informal agreements are being referred to as the basis.
  8. Total lack of specificity around what my creative contributions entailed beyond just a “mix”.
  9. No clarity around timing – when I supposedly “confirmed” this unwritten “agreement”.

You will receive the sum of £2,000 (two thousand pounds) as an advance royalty of 1% (one percent) of 100% (one hundred percent) pro rata of retail price on sales of records, cassettes and compact discs featuring your mixes of the track “Higher Than The Sun”.

Overall, framing it as a recoupable royalty advance rather than a clear upfront payment does seem unfairly structured to benefit the label. It provides less guaranteed compensation, transparency, and control. A non-recoupable payment would have been more equitable. It appears Creation could not have done this because of the extreme debt they were in. Ambiguities exist around how broadly it applies and the context of the payment/rate. Gaps include lack of visibility into the recoupment application, limits, reporting, and post-recoupment royalties.

  1. There is no timeframe given for recouping the advance, so they could potentially spread deductions across many years/statements.
  2. No details provided on payment schedules, interest, or limits on recoupment percentages per period. They may be able to recoup disproportionately large percentages of statements.
  3. Accounting on advances can be opaque and make it harder to assess if I’ve received everything owed. Alan McGee admits in his book, when he sold Creation to Sony the books “didn’t add up”.
  4. No clarity if this applies only to this specific track or could allow recoupment across other recordings.
  5. Ambiguous “featuring your mixes” wording fails to acknowledge my broader contributions beyond mixing.
  6. Ambiguous if the 1% rate is a permanent royalty rate or limited to recouping the advance.
  7. No transparency into how much of the advance can be recouped per accounting period.
  8. No reporting requirements on balance of unrecouped advance payments.
  9. No limits on applying recoupment across multiple tracks/albums.
  10. Nothing addressing whether royalty rate would increase after advance recoupment.

Retail price will be taken to be the dealer price multiplied by the markup agreed between the BPI and the MCPS in the United Kingdom. For all other territories, the price base will be that used by Creation’s licensee in each territory.

Overall, the vagueness, lack of transparency, and granting Creation leeway to utilise external metrics you can’t review or influence seems constructed to limit your insight into your royalty derivation and minimise amounts payable. More well-defined, consistent, and auditable pricing clarity would be fairer.

  1. Linking to external BPI/MCPS agreements I am not privy to or able to review introduces opacity and removes transparency around how my royalties are derived.
  2. Allowing licensees to set their own undefined “price base” in other territories leaves it very open for manipulation or inconsistencies that disadvantage me.
  3. No clarity is provided around wholesale vs. retail pricing definitions and methodologies in various markets to validate I am receiving everything entitled to.
  4. The lack of transparency, lack of consistent and clear methodology, and reliance on external benchmarks I cannot audit or validate gives Creation Significant latitude to structure calculations against my interests.
  5. More clarity, visibility, and artist participation around establishing royalty baselines could have made this fairer.
  6. Unclear what constitutes dealer price – is it wholesale cost? Recommended retail price? Actual average selling price?
  7. No definition of whether retail price includes taxes, shipping fees, etc that impact end sales price.
  8. Undefined what markup rates BPI/MCPS agree upon and uncertainty around how these are applied by Creation.
  9. Vague language around licensees’ price bases in other countries.
  10. No transparency into BPI/MCPS agreements that determine UK markup rates.
  11. No audit rights provided to validate markup rates are applied properly to dealer price.
  12. No contractual controls or consistency required for licensees’ price base methodology.
  13. No reporting requirements detailing pricing breakdown by region.

Where Primal Scream royalties are reduced your royalty will be reduced proportionally. For the avoidance of doubt, Primal Scream royalties are calculated on a profit sharing basis and any packaging deductions or royalty rate reductions will only apply where the track is licensed to a third party.

Basing my payout partially on Primal Scream’s unknown royalty structure needlessly introduces variability and uncertainty that disadvantages me. A fairer approach would be to make my royalties strictly independent and insulated from outside factors. Overall, the vagueness, lack of transparency, and granting Creation leeway to utilise external metrics I can’t review or influence seems constructed to limit my insight into my royalty derivation and minimise amounts payable. More well-defined, consistent, and auditable pricing clarity would be fairer.

  1. This ties my earnings to factors entirely outside of my control based on another artist’s contract terms. It is dressed in legalese and I had no idea what this meant when I was a teenager.
  2. I have no visibility into how Primal Scream’s royalties are derived or what causes their “reductions”. Yet my pay is impacted.
  3. Reduction triggers like “packaging deductions” are vague and give Creation unchecked discretion to proportionally lower my royalties.
  4. Contract states it’s to “avoid doubt” but in reality is introducing such uncertainty around my payment. Depending on ambiguous external elements creates more doubt.
  5. Royalty terms should be self-contained and not reliant on undisclosed variables from completely separate third-party contracts I am not privy to.
  6. What constitutes a royalty “reduction” for Primal Scream is unclear. Actual lower rate? Recoupment against advances? More opaque profit-based accounting?
  7. No definition provided of what vague “packaging deductions” entail.
  8. No clarity if third party licensing applies only for my track or all Primal Scream tracks.
  9. No transparency provided into Primal Scream’s actual contract terms, royalty structure, or reductions.
  10. No ability for me to review or audit their accounting statements that trigger reductions.
  11. No limit on proportional royalty reductions imposed on me based on Primal Scream factors.
  12. No contractual performance minimums to protect my royalties from significant cuts tied to another band.

For any TV advertised release the royalty rate will be 1% (one percent).

  1. TV promotion helps drive sales, so a decrease during advertising seems illogical and unfair. Artists should share in the upside of marketing efforts. However, this appears to be a boilerplate agreement because this rate is redundant, being the same as the previous rate.
  2. Reduction would allow Creation Records to disproportionately benefit from TV ads that use the artist’s work, while paying them less.
  3. No objective criteria set for what constitutes a “TV advertised release” – one ad? A whole campaign? Unbounded time period?
  4. Unclear if the 1% rate applies only during active advertisements, or extends indefinitely after promotions conclude. Significant financial difference.
  5. No clarity if 1% rate affects only TV advertising regions, or applies globally based on another region’s ads.
  6. No obligation for Creation Records to provide confirmation when TV clause is triggered or report on scope of advertising efforts. Artists are kept in dark.
  7. No contractual minimums to prevent excessive recoupment at 1% rate against any outstanding balances owed to artists. Potential for long-term underpayment.

Creation will provide you with a statement of account calculated to every 30th of June and 31st of December together with a payment of any amount due 90 (ninety) days after the end of each such period.

Overall, the infrequent accounting, lengthy payment delays after periods close, lack of transparency, and no guarantees around timeliness or auditing seem heavily stacked against artists’ interests in favor of Creation Records. More frequent accounting and faster payment would be fairer.

  1. The 6 month delay between accounting periods creates a long lag time before amounts owed are calculated and paid. This benefits Creation’s cashflow at the artist’s expense.
  2. 90 days after the end of each period before payment is due is also a very lengthy delay for paying accrued royalties. 30-60 days is more standard.
  3. No provisions for interest to accrue on late payments, so Creation has no incentive to pay promptly during the 90 day period.
  4. No mechanism specified to audit or validate the accounting statements to ensure fair calculations and completeness.
  5. The long gaps between accounting and delays in payment, without transparency, put artists at a disadvantage in tracking and collecting everything owed to them.


James Kyllo – A&R man at Creation Records.

  • It is quite unusual and arguably inappropriate for an A&R person lacking legal qualifications to draft legally binding contracts solo. This could expose artists to unfair terms.
  • Standard industry practice would be to have experienced legal counsel write or at least thoroughly review any contracts to protect the artists’ interests.
  • UK law does not prohibit non-lawyers writing contracts. However, the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 allows courts to rule contract terms unreasonable if parties had unequal bargaining power.
  • UK law requires contract terms to be expressed in plain, intelligible language, which may not be met here.

Further points:

  • No accounting was made except for the vague set of figures Sony gave me a month ago. The figures didn’t include detail of recoupment or deductions.
  • The person this letter is sent to can be shown to have deceived and exploited me in many ways.
  • I’m not sure if the financial distress Creation was in would contribute to duress on their part.

undue influence

The ex-partners and manager’s actions, whether intentional or not, demonstrate undue influence over me that calls into question the validity of any “consent” to the agreement.

  • I was highly focused on the creative/music side rather than contractual or financial matters. It’s understandable I depended on others to handle that.
  • The manager took advantage of my lack of business experience and inability to concentrate on anything outside of music, let alone complex deals, to step in on my behalf.
  • However, he had an inherent conflict of interest in representing my partner’s interests over mine, having been his friend for a decade or more before he met me.
  • I was vulnerable to pressure and direction from them without fully comprehending the implications. This is exerting undue influence.
  • They presented me with multiple agreements that were likely highly unfavourable to me, reflecting their bias.
  • At the time, I was almost certainly unable to give fully informed consent to what they were doing on my behalf.
  • My ex-partner had a duty to look out for my interests as my bandmate, but failed to do so.
  • All of the parties involved benefited from the manager’s misconduct and misrepresentations at my expense.
  • This implies my ex-partner and his manager acted jointly to exert undue influence over me for their own gain.
  • My ex-partner allowing their manager to falsely act on my behalf without my informed consent was a clear breach of trust and integrity.
  • The ex-partner prioritised their own interests over mine by participating in or enabling the manager’s unethical behaviour.
  • At the time, my ex-partner was 10 years older, putting them in a position of greater influence as the older, more mature party.
  • They also had extensive industry experience that I lacked as a teenager new to the business. This gave them much greater knowledge and leverage.
  • The inherent power differential, maturity gap, and knowledge imbalance put me at an extremely disadvantaged state for negotiating or consenting to agreements.
  • My ex-partner and his manager were clearly in a position to exploit their greater age, wisdom and industry expertise to manipulate the situation for their own benefit.
  • This drastic inequality made me highly susceptible to pressure and undue influence from my substantially older and more seasoned ex-partner, manager and friends.
  • Presenting it to me as an amazing deal shows outright deception and a clear breach of duty even with no formalised relationship.
  • Not advising me to seek independent legal counsel was irresponsible, regardless of formal status.

I dispute this on the grounds its fraudulent / exploitation of disability and what was explained to me about it has been 100 different things, all by people without legal expertise. Up until Demodelica the public had no knowledge there was a previous version of HTTS and my work was presented as primal screams work, not only to the public but also to the PRS and PPL.

no due regard for correctly paying artists has been paid throughout

Sony has admitted they have been paying out the entire albums royalties wrong for 30 years after my recent enquiry. Martin Duffy received producer points on all 11 tracks on the album, earning him what I imagine to be a fairly decent whack. The narrative of him not getting what he was due is true in other cases, but here he received much more than he was due as he did not produce the tracks at all. This probably balances out because he was not credited on the album PRS registrations at all and I can definitely hear his writing on it!!

In my innocence I didn’t even know you could get 1/2 a point up until Sony mentioned it in 2015 in fact. I just assumed the pitiful amount they put in my account was some kind of stitch up. I thought it was all too much work to fix, and that is the mechanism by which exploitative artists and labels work. It turns out it is a ridiculous, life-changing, insane amount of work and communication, that no reasonable person could do on their own without a solicitor. It is very likely for autistic people to meltdown or burnout and drop this process. If you examine this page, you can see that I have extensively reviewed this, taking an entire week + of my time, day and night and which has prevented me from self-care.

I don’t know why but I’ve always assumed producer points were just points not halves. Paterson believes to this day he gets “1 point” on the record, adding this detail to his book and claiming “we” wrote the track. Sony have said they believe 2% befits a producer and I agree but the limitation period is not acceptable and I will explain why later in great detail. Those that know me already know why. Who would voluntarily go through all this!?

Comments are closed.