From during the height of the Guns N' Roses brouhaha:
Charles Manson
February 19, 1994
Dear Charlie,
I know that you may have been preoccupied for the last 25 years but I'm sure you recall that I acted as producer for your recordings which became the "Lie" album (such "producing" consisting of setting up a brief, one-off recording session. I never had the album actually produced or promoted when you were still a free man and it might have done you some good.). The album was financed by various people, none of whom have been compensated for this endeavor (and who have thus suffered hardships that you can't imagine). Indeed, persons later described as your "followers" came to my house (from the house next door, which I arranged for them to stay in) and took most of the 20 or so copies of the album that were initially produced. (I called the cops on them.) There has never been any money made from this album (by me, that is, because it has been pointless for me to pursue the innumerable shadowy individuals who have been selling and presumably profiting from sales of bootlegged albums and CDs of the music for at least the last 20 years).
But you -- I know who you are and where you are. And now I'm telling you that our agreement was that I received full rights to this music in exchange for producing 20 copies of the album (after you were imprisoned on charges of mass murder). Now that the music has received renewed interest (with a big money trail that can be traced), I ask that you acknowledge our agreement so that the original investors, who believed and trusted in you at the time of investing (but whose belief and trust has been noticeably scarce since your arrest and conviction), can be duly paid back.
I hope that you will honor the aforementioned agreement so that I can in turn repay some of the people that invested in (and hoped to profit from) your notoriety years ago.
You can reach me through blah, blah, blah….
Yours,
Phil Kaufman
(signed)
(Letter annotated by "Unknown" -- G.S.)
54 comments:
Charlie should've wiped his ass with that letter and C.O.D'ed it back to Phil.
GEORGE: Maybe you can explain exactly what Kaufman did to "produce" the LIE album. The "music" was already recorded and the quality was good.
At the time, music like "To know him is to love him" - Phil Spector - was recorded in the kitchen of a Hollywood resturant. AND the 1970 Family Jams (new music)was recorded in the Spahn Ranch saloon with Clem on lead guitar -for the movie MANSON.
Supposedly Kaufman made a couple thousand copies - who got or sold those?
Interesting that HE mentions giving the Family a place to stay (it's true, I was there) because that is exactly what many "muic producers" did and still do today. In copyright law it is considered a part of the facilitation of the "work" BUT in this case, I think the "work" was already recorded.
What was Kaufman's REAL music background that Manson wanted to deal with him, at all, regarding the music?
"GEORGE: Maybe you can explain exactly what Kaufman did to "produce" the LIE album."
Phil would be in a better position to answer that than I.
On Wikipedia, it says he pressed $2,000 copies and it cost $3,000. Apparently, only 300 copies were sold.
I would like to have one of the original first pressings (it came with a poster). I have an 80's pressing that is considered an official release and not a bootleg. He had to make something with the distribution deal with ESP-Disk, which was before the hoopla with the son of Frykowski.
The Family Jams recording is a masterpiece. Were those songs intented to be on the "Family Jams" album that Melcher was supposedly interested in recording? Or were some written for those rumored, "lost" album that Dennis Wilson supposedly destroyed?
Just made ME think: Manson's "music" made before the Tate / LaBianca murders becomes subject to the State of California's later law concerning "wrongful profits" IE: Frycowski's heir gets Manson's money, BUT the heir must pay California a portion of the "money" in taxea.
So then California uses some of that money to pay school teachers, cops, politicians, prosecutors, etc.
IF you don't SEE where this is ALL going, at least, understand that "crime" is "big busines." AND someday you may actually hear more aware people saying: "Thank you for YOUR service Charlie."
It's kind'a like criminal "prostitutes" are supposed to pay TAXES also.
Of course, you don't need to thank THEM - just PAY them.
Charlie must have agreed because Kaufman is listed as the person who owns all publishing on the songs- no doubt got paid for that Aquarius shit
Phil is on Facebook and recently had a bad accident. He is still convalescing. Patty gets the feeling he is not doing very well financially these days
Charlie didn't agree to that letter, that's for sure.
If you do a BMI and ASCAP search for the music publishing it goes to Phil Kaufman
I didn't say that Phil didn't figure out a way to do it, but there was no agreement based on that letter.
Yeah. You are stating facts and I am stating facts. They don't necessarily disagree. It is the age old dance of the fireflies. Except Matt will fuck it up somehow he always does
Please Guys explain something for me here..... Lie was made before TLB. But the money goes to Victims relatives... So EVERYTHING Phil SPECTOR produced,aranged,and more....Before he murdered the Woman, and all that income goes to Victim relatives... ?? Guns ,N Roses did have to pay too, (Frykowski) So Tina Turner, has to pay , I mean she did i.e. Nutbush City Limit,wich is produced by Spector...a Murderer for years and years on her own without Ike. And there are more excamples, Ronettes, Beach Boys and so on Maybe all somewhat outa topic, just wondered
It's a good question, HellzBellz, I'm not sure I understand it fully but believe it is called the Son of Sam Law.
No it isn't anything to do with Son Of Sam
Sigh
The Col Will Explain it for you Wholesale
Bartek Frykowski got a judgement against Manson et al for the murder of his Father
Kinda of like Goldmans with OJ
By the time of this Axel shit that judgement was, with interest, over a half million dollars
The royalties due to Charlie as songwriter for Look at Your Game Girl was a lot of money, but less than 500k
Patti, the designated rep of the Tate Family, not Orca, showed up and shamed the Geffen Record execs as in "what the fuck are you clowns doing."
They looked for a way out and were like- oh snap, Charlie owes this judgement let's give to him
So it is possible that if that judgement is ever paid off future revenues will go to Charlie.
NOTHING to do with SON OF SAM LAWS which say you may not profit off you crimes
The COL says you are Welcome
col thanks for posting,,since your blog is a ghostown nice to see your chubby ass still follows mansonblog
hugs❤
Thanks Col! I think I understand it better now. Do you know what the deal is with the Aquarius program since they used Charlie's music? Did they do what Geffen was shamed into doing?
OH, OH, the Col's back and I'm gonna be in trouble, do run de run run run.
HELLS BELLS: Makes you realize why the VICTIMS want so badly for a conviction - especially in a SPECTOR type siutation.
FRED Goldman knew how to handle a bad situation and NOW his daughter has a book out relevant to the OJ case. So again we have the State of California out to make even MORE $$$ off of CRIME.
How about that 13 year old girl Polanski raped - apparently SHE could be living mighty fine off HIS movies. So how did SHE "blow" the deal ?
Possibly of interest, the Frykowski claim includes Kasabian as owing, which may explain why no book.
I suppose Manson could challenge the publishing rights. The Velvet Underground back in the 1990s got added on to some credits that Lou Reed had claimed as his own.
Col, I was under the impression the Frykowski claim had lapsed because the son had died and no-one had refiled it?
Allow me to mention that the Federal Courts are NOW beginning to recognize that some older judges are actually experiencing "cognitive decline" (a polite expression for demintia.)
The fact is "incompetant" judical orders have been issued probably ever since "law and Order" was invented, BUT the system itself is considered like a GOD and shall not be dissed upon.
One VERY significant "Decision" that has had a profound effect on the entire internet and our society as a whole is the "First Impression" Federal Decision made in the Hendrickson vs eBay DMCA Copyright Case.
I know, you're thinking Hendrickson is just complaining, BUT the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals later realized the elder District Court's ERROR in granding eBay a Summary Judgement, WITHOUT first finding that there was an actual "infringement" upon which to even decide whether eBay was entitled to "safe harbor" protection under the DMCA.
BUT that incorrect "decision" is still being taught in collages and USED in courtrooms all over America. Nobody seems to know or even care that it is an incorrect PATH to legal disaster.
Because it grants internet service providers with a license to advertise for sale absolutely any kind of "counterfeit" goods, even "bathtub" medicines (drugs) and liquer are flooding the world via the web.
AND where will historians later FIND the origin of America's DECLINE into a drug infested criminal empire ? YEP - In one word - "MANSON."
@Robert Hendrickson -
Why didn't YOU sue BLOCKBUSTER for allowing PEOPLE to WATCH a COPY of MANSON without paying YOU anything? I think I paid about $3 to a BLOCKBUSTER store to WATCH it in 1992 and YOU probably didn't see a dime of it. Think of all the MILLIONS of PEOPLE who did the same thing. If we had paid YOU the full price of the video, YOU would be a BILLIONAIRE.
PS - I also copied it too. Best $3 I ever spent. :)
But I still want a refund for "Close Shave". :(
Robert- stupid thing to say, Goldman has collected very little of the judgement, people want justice for their loved ones. How does the State profit from Kim Goldman's book? You make less and less sense every day. Samantha Geimer made a cash settlement with Roman years ago. Why should it be an ongoing payment? MAKE SENSE>!
Butche- Kasabian would fall under Son of Sam. And besides, her story is shit not heroic. "Hi I went to the houses where 7 people were murdered and did nothing till I snitched on everyone to save my own ass?" F that. Charlie could in fact challenge the publishing deal but good luck with that. Also, a judgement doesn't have to be refiled it just IS. It exists until satisfied, ask you friend at IRS.
Candy- I lost 55 pounds in the last two years so my ass is less chubby but you remain an Ass.
Debbie- I do not know but they either pay Bartek's estate or Kaufman
Ziggy- He STILL has never authorized a release, The amount of money left on the table....
OK Col: I'll try and make this uncomplicated. KIM Goldman puts out a book and the "BOOK" shows a PROFIT - so SHE must pay $$ "Income tax" $$ to the State of California.
It's confusing because in the future new "ZiggyWorld," the Goldman's will only receive "praise" for a book project, but NO money. And Mel Brooks will ONLY get laughs for HIS new "CommieTime for Hitlery" opera.
SEE - EVERYTHING makes cents after all.
Robert- remains a retarded thing to say. You sell a dvd and pay a tax to California are they profiting off of crime? and Ziggy never said any such thing.
I found a 1993 NY Times article about Geffen paying Bartek Frykowski money from the sale of the Spaghetti Incident album. Briefly, it says the original judgment was for $500,000. and granted in 1971. The money from Geffen was the first Bartek had received since being awarded the judgment. It goes on to say that the judgment is good for 10 years at which time it needs to be renewed. It had been renewed twice since the time it was awarded up to when Geffen coughed up the funds.
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/12/26/us/victim-s-son-gets-manson-royalties.html
Interest is accrued on the principle amount of the award plus costs, both pre and post judgment. That interest rate now is at 10% per annum.
no doubt that is what it says (Deb knows her shits). Seems unlikely to me as a defrocked priest or disbarred lawyer that it needs to be renewed, but maybe. Bartek is deaded so he didn't renew it unless his estate did.
Deb, I notice the article had Geffen requesting to be served, I take it to avoid paying Manson. So Bartek Frykowski didnt serve it on them. I guess he was back in Poland during that time.
He died around 1999 so unless it got renewed around 2001 it may have expired.
Published authors Tex and Atkins were also named, have they ever been served?
Hey guys, let's set "crazy" aside for bit and maybe someone can esplain to me why a guy who created the most successful movie fanchise in motion picture history NEEDS to diss on a DVD loser like Robert Hendrickson ?
AND "Ziggy" - so you screwed me out of $3 - and I screwed you out of a
5 hour mini-series. Seems to me you could have made a lot more $$$ with bootlegging that.
Maybe YOU guys could try and help ME understand how the world REALLY works. Cause I would greatly appreciate that.
"col" nice to know youre still very sensitive on comments about your weight, thought you were over that by now lmaoš
Patty is rubbing off on RH.....multiple use of third-partying in this thread!
"Third Party Robbie"
Haha Chats
Robert
I believe you know what happened motive wise. You may not KNOW that you know it but I feel you do.
Then you post these vague, LSD influenced posts that make you sound addled and confused.
Is it an act?
I don't DISS you, I want you to think back to those days and help us with our task.
I believe I reviewed your poorly titled INSIDE THE MANSON GANG and described it as MAGNIFICENT. It is.
I don't dislike you. I am so glad you are participating here. But instead of weird non sequiturs about LBJ's truss, how about you help figure out the goddamn real motive?
Thanks.
Christopher, I have heard, but don't know for sure if it's true, that Bartek's son is now the recipient of the judgment and has done whatever needs to be done to keep it alive. I'm not familiar with Polish law but assume that the judgment would become part of Bartek's estate, thus he could leave it to his heirs.
I have a copy of a document that was issued Aug. 29, 2000 that acknowledges Susan Atkins paid $1000 towards the judgment leaving a balance at that time of $2,300,326.68. I would love to find out who has paid what towards that judgment but haven't had any luck getting a straight answer out of the government office that handles judgments.
That's probably correct COL, BUT that's also what Bugliosi said about Paul Watkins: "He knew, but he didn't KNOW he knew."
Unfortunately, or otherwise I've gotten to the point (71 years) where I finally realize that EVERYTHING has a $$ value. And the combination of ALL the stuff I have regarding the MANSON case should be sold off in one big package for someone like a Ken Burns to do something like a 1960's American Revolution series.
I've already shut down my websites and it hurts like Hell.
HA!
I've been saying that (Ken Burns)
Criterion Box Set would fit the bill.
But in the real world, with no one coming to do the things on your wish list what WILL you actually do?
@ColScott -
He'll probably try to sell it on eBay with a starting bid of 100 gazillion dollars.
Ziggy- yeah that does seem to be the MO. Robert shoots his own foot quite regularly.
My belief is that he doesn't actually have the paperwork on the footage, the waivers and copyright notices and what have you. He lost them or something. Otherwise this would have been on legal DVDs back in 02 or some shit
@ColScott -
Would music licensing be an issue as well? I've wondered about Paul and Brooks' music and what agreement, if any, Merrick/Hendrickson had with them. Also, as you know, Charlie's music was heavily featured in "Inside The Manson Gang" and Clem talk-singing "Helter Skelter" was in both films. It would be ironic if such a staunch supporter of copyright law like Robert, wasn't playing by his own rules.
I also think that Robert wants to hold on to the footage at least until Charlie dies - the demand for his footage will be at it's highest then.
He isn't holding on to the footage for Manson to die. Over a decade ago he was ready to sell it all for a million bucks.
Yes music would be an issue, since Paul is dead and Brooks is in the wind.
I mean both films are pretty special and well made documentaries. A reasonable guess would be several hundred thousand dollars alone from Netflix. So why are they not on Netflix? Not because he is holding out for more money. He isn't has no clue what he is doing (and that could be remedied) or his chain of title is defective.
@ColScott -
It would be nice if he cut the shit for a second and tell us the reason/s and what price he wants for it. But I'm not holding my breath.
I asked him a while back a couple of questions about the legitimacy of the 3 former "cellmates" of Susan Atkin's that appeared in "Manson" and the inaccurate "Voice Of Charles Manson" subtitle when Steve Grogan was singing "Helter Skelter" and what I got back was a 10 paragraph response referencing Noah's Arch, Schindler's List, Hogan's Heroes, the U.S Constitution and Jesus. In other words - not a single answer to my questions. God bless him.
RH learned that from Charlie.
Yes, licensing would absolutely be an issue for any copyrighted music. Permission would not be needed for a mechanical license for audio (payment only), but sync rights for video is more complicated.
I'm sorry for HI-Jacking YOUR post George. The Kaufman LIE album is a BIG deal, especially IF he is NOT the legal Copyright owner. AND I may be the only one who REALLY appreciates the material you POST. It's obvious YOU got the goods.
BTW It wasn't just Bugliosi,who needed to create a GOD he could then destroy, the Judge(s) were religiously involved in opperating the railroad.
A little boy asked his father to help HIM with his MATH homework. His dad said sure and the boy layed out his school work on the kitchen table. Then HE added: "But dad, don't talk about that numbers stuff, I don't get it."
Robert- I count six questions on the thread, all for you, and they are not hard. We await your answers
@Jenn - Thank you for that response, Jenn.
You obviously have a great deal of knowledge on the subject, and I appreciate you sharing it with us. Much appreciated.
@ColScott - Something odd is definitely up. It makes no sense that a masterpiece like "Manson" has been sitting on the shelf all these years collecting dust, when it could be out there generating $ for Robert. The point that you made about Netflix is a good one. They would buy the streaming rights to Manson in a heartbeat. They'd even buy ITMG. They bought Linda and Abilene and that film is a total POS.
Thanks, Ziggy.
The process for copyright clearance in the video world is cumbersome. For audio (say someone wants to make a CD of Manson tunes), the process is painless. Permission is not needed. One simply pays a fee based on number of songs and number of units produced to, usually, the Harry Fox Agency, who distributes the money to the person who owns the publishing rights.
But for video, one needs to obtain a sync license, and this is NEGOTIABLE. Permission to publish and sell the video must be granted by the owner.
As an example, my friend Laurence Juber is a world-class acoustic solo guitarist. He was the last lead guitarist in McCartney's band Winds, and now plays mostly solo finger style acoustic, and he is state-of-the-art in the field. He has made two fabulous CDs of Lennon and McCartney tunes, often with instructional videos. George Harrison tunes are also recorded. But he has not made instructional videos of George Harrison tunes, because George's widow, who owns the rights, is very hesitant to grant permission and the fee is very high. The fact that LJ and George were close is irrelevant. It's business, and this is how Olivia makes her money. In the present case, they may not be able to successfully negotiate the video sync license, and this may be the hold up with Manson videos.
WINGS, that is, not Winds.
It seems to me that Netflix would be like the END game. Once the 1973 MANSON is totally out there, it's DONE and for a couple of bucks I would have to to be, at least, desparate. BUT I have thought about doing a "deal" wih Netflex or a venue like it to do a "thought-provoking" 1960's mini-series.
The reason you folks don't like all the shit being made (involving Manson Family exploits) is because the "government" has a big influence over ALL the "media" companys. AND everyone has THEIR opinion concerning the 1960's.
That's WHY "the LOVE and TERROR 'CULT'" is such an advertising dream. It sparks EVERYONE'S desire to WANT a piece of it. AND "wanting" it SELLS !
BUT unlike MUSIC that has "wear," moives "burn-up" very easily.
We discovered, at the more recent CineFamily theater showings, that MANSON can come BACK under the right circumstances.
Linsey Lohan just dressed up like Sharon Tate on Charlie Manson's birthday and that made National News. Remember "game-changers" ONLY come along ONCE in a great while. AND it's the "game-changers" who make History that lasts FOREVER. BUT even THEY and THEIR stories must be nurtured properly - other wise when they die they are DEAD and buried FOREVER.
@Robert Hendrickson - Netflix would only be buying the "streaming rights" to "Manson", not the entire film. People stream your movie illegally all over the net for free, but Netflix would be paying you for the right to stream it.
@Jenn - Hi Jenn. Thank you for another extremely informative post.
I've always been curious about this subject, mainly because I've noticed over the years how stingy some artists are in allowing their music to be used in film and television. Prince would be one example. Led Zeppelin would be another (equinox would have more info on this). There's probably more, even better examples of this that I'm less aware of.
I like hearing the stories of what it takes to get the artists permission. Some want to see the film first. IIRC, Jeff Lynne had to see "Boogie Nights" first, before he granted permission for "Living Thing" to be used at the end of it. Another story I remember, is of John Holmes' widow, I believe it was, writing a personal letter to Gordon Lightfoot asking for his permission (which he gave) to use his song "If You Could Read My Mind" in the film "Wonderland", because it was the song that John always sang to her.
There's also a few other examples that I can think of where it didn't work out so well, one being the film "Mask", where the director Peter Bogdanovich (I'm not sure of the spelling) wanted to use Springsteen music, but instead had to settle for Bob Seger. And the Michael Moore film, the title of which escapes me, that had the GW Bush mangled quote at the end "Fool me once...", after which Moore wanted The Who's "Won't Get Fooled Again", but couldn't get, so instead the movie ends with Neil Young's "Rockin In The Free World".
There's also an interesting clip that I stumbled upon one time on Youtube while watching the video of Jerry Cole of the Wrecking Crew talking about his encounter with Manson. It was Phil Spector talking about how pissed he was when he and John Lennon watched "Mean Streets" and saw that Scorsese had used "Be My Baby" without his permission, and how he (he thinks) he made the careers of both DeNiro and Scorsese, because he could have gotten an injunction and stopped the film from being released. He credits John Lennon with talking him out of doing that.
There's so much music in the "Manson" movie - I think Robert once described it as something like a "music video" before music videos were even made. A pretty ingenious concept. All the more reason for it to be preserved for posterity.
I have some great letters from him to, attempted contracts to be signed by Charlie, none of them are signed and some have his scribblings on the with his thoughts and comments. If anyone would like to see them please let me know how to post a photo,
Ben, there is no way for a photo to be posted in the comments. If you have ideas for posts just send them our way with instructions. We'll do what we can to accommodate.
Post a Comment