Former Ozzy Osbourne bassist Bob Daisley’s lawsuit against the vocalist has been dismissed by a US district judge.
Daisley launched a lawsuit against Ozzy and his firm Blizzard Music Limited last year, claiming he was owed $2 million in unpaid royalties connected with Ozzy’s first two albums, Blizzard Of Ozz and Diary Of A Madman, recorded in 1980, which featured the bassist’s songwriting and bass playing.
Daily also told journalist Joel Gausten last year that while he has received performance and publishing royalties for the songs, he has not received his share of what are known as synchronization fees, or “sync fees,” which writers earn from the use of a song in an ad, TV show, movie, video game or other such media.
But, according to the Courthouse News Service, US District Judge Christina Snyder has dismissed the case and concluded that Daisley’s claims that Osbourne used a sham company to withhold royalty income from him stem from songwriter agreements that now require arbitration.
The lawsuit was filed on August 9th, 2016, at the District Court of Douglas County, Nevada, but the case was then transferred to federal court.
Representatives of the Osbournes responded to the lawsuit last year saying that previous legal action brought by Daisley had failed and that multiple audits of Blizzard Music Limited had resulted in no discoveries of non-payment, adding: “after 36 years, this is tantamount to harassment.”
Daily responded, “I wouldn’t care if I had $50 trillion. If somebody’s taking advantage of me, I want to put a stop to it. I wish Ozzy every success. I just have a problem with not getting paid properly.”
source: Classic Rock via teamrock.com
8 Responses
It seems Sharon gave Bob a contract that was akin to a gun to the head; a take it or leave it contract, where a provision in the contract that says all disagreements must be handled through arbitration; to prohibit lawsuits. If Bob had any kind of leverage, which he didn’t and Sharon knew it…I mean no one in their right mind would agree to something like that.
Unfortunately for Bob, you are probably right. But, he is an adult, and is fully culpable for his decision to sign the contract. Like her or not, Sharon is a shrewd business woman. Bob had every right to hire is own legal representation to protect his interests. In the end, contract law is not about what is right. It is about who can negotiate the best deal for themselves. In this case, Sharon clearly was the winner.
True, but courts look down on contracts where one party uses their sophistication as a way to take advantage of a less sophisticated party. Here, Bob also had limited options for work. This has all the characteristics of an adhesion contract. Courts will also sometimes not honor arbitration agreements in these types of contracts because they favor the drafting party unjustly. (As consumers, we enter into these all the time without realizing it). However, here, the judge agreed with Sharon. She has deep pockets and is not the type to settle cases.