Ray Charles Foundation sues singer's son over book

The Ray Charles Foundation on Wednesday filed suit in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles against Ray Charles Robinson Jr., the singer's son, for copyright infringement over a photo and lyrics in his book "You Don't Know Me: Reflections of My Father, Ray Charles."

Publisher Crown, parent company Random House and coauthor Mary Jane Ross were also named as defendants.

Pop & Hiss, The Times' music blog, reported:

The Foundation, which Charles assigned as the owner of his copyrights and intellectual property rights upon his death in 2004, alleges that Robinson's book used a copyrighted photo, the titles and lyrics of four of his songs without permission.

Those songs are among Charles' best-known, including "I Got a Woman," "Hallelujah I Love Her So" and "What Kind of Man Are You?"

It seems ridiculous for the foundation representing the father's legacy to sue his eldest son over use of a photograph and lyrics. But the action stems from longstanding tensions between the foundation and those who survived Ray Charles, including a dozen children.

In 2008, The Times' Michael Hiltzik reported on the disputes over Charles' estate, then estimated at $50 million in securities and other assets, plus $25 million for his original masters. 

Charles exercised iron control over his music and recordings, but his legacy is in disarray, knotted up in legal disputes between the estate's management and his family members, according to interviews, court documents and correspondence from the California attorney general's office.

At the time, Robinson said, "My father told me, 'You have my name, and you'll be able to use it.'"

Given the tensions, it's surprising that Crown didn't have complete clearance for the songs and photograph in dispute. Perhaps the publisher thought it did -- it has not yet commented on the suit.

-- Carolyn Kellogg

 

Comments

[Frankincarson]

As an African American it pains me to see another occurrence of the legacy of African American individuals passed on to strangers, while leaving the children (and rightful heirs) out "in-the-cold". Many millions of dollars or royalties have been "stolen" from the heirs of Black people. He La Cells, which were stolen from the corpse of a black woman with cancer have produced hundreds of millions of dollars for the Doctors who stole her tissue samples, while the donor's (Henrieta Lacks) descendants received little or nothing! Black labor was stolen in the slave era, Black property was stolen during the Jim Crow era, and Black royalties stolen now! We are forever exploited by whites.

[Joyce M. Simmerman]

It seems that however much Son used excerpts, etc. from Dad's work to illustrate, comment on, and educate others regarding their relationship, that it could fairly be construed by a court to be a "fair use" exception to whatever other copyright laws would otherwise control.

[Patrick]

Frankincarson, please go check out who is on the board of directors and who the president is of The Ray Charles Foundation before placing blame.

[Mike Peterson]

I've needed clearance to use pictures in a project and it can be both expensive and prickly, even when you're going to say wonderful things on the topic. I've also talked to professional photographers about their seeing one of their pictures used without permission. It's a little unusual for it to actually come to a lawsuit, but the person in the wrong usually knuckles under and pays up before it comes to that. If he feels he's entitled, he might be refusing to respond. Just guessing, of course.

A few lines of a song might well be fair use, a picture probably wouldn't be, but that's why we have lawyers, and, again, this isn't unusual.

As for the legacy of African-Americans, there's a huge difference between what happened to people like Big Joe Turner and a son arguing over his father's estate. I think the King family has pretty well proven that behaving badly over intellectual property and historical legacy is an equal-opportunity offense these days.

[Rockwell]

Frank: Awesome Comment. Patrick: (You're probably a board member) The board of directors are exactly that. Strangers. Not ONE drop of Ray Charles' blood runs through the veins of any of those people on the board. Just because the "President" worked for Ray over the years doesn't mean they're honest. Do your research. They have purposely alienated those kids from day one. Not one of Ray's children sit on that board. Not one. Why not? What are those wonderful board members hiding, I ask? That family has been shunned, shut out, disrespected, and consistently screwed up and over since their father took ill and died. Those "board members" pretend to be honest and upstanding people but they are far from it. But to sue his son for photographs is pretty horrible and frankly sick in my opinion. I'm actually glad they filed a suit against his son - it proves exactly who these wonderful board members truly are.

[Jane]

I do have to say something about the comment below. (Frankincarson's comment) Regarding the last sentence of it.... ALL of the Board Members are African American (except for one.)