Dr. Luke: "Kesha is free to record music without me"

[mmm 879]

11 minutes ago, Harry said:

This is just clever wording. He says she's free to "record". Nowhere does that say that Sony or Kemosabe will properly promote or even actually release any music made at all. As her label they can refuse certain material to be put out and can have her marketed however they like.

Plus the label funds the creation of an album, which includes paying producers to work for the artist. They could just refuse that. Hopefully Antonoff is willing to produce Kesha for free.

Honestly, I just think Luke and his lawyers are trying to make a further mockery out of Kesha's case to make it seem futile and small. I highly doubt she would go broke by taking him to court if it was pointless and she could just easily work with somebody else. It's obviously not that simple.

I think he is saying that he doesnt have a problem with Kesha recording or releasing music but sony does witch he has no role in.

[lego 44,165]

1 minute ago, pie-kun said:

The lawyer gives no evidence for that statement though. I have no idea why Sony would have a popular artist under their label release new music and not promote it.

They didn't say they would release it. Just that she's allowed to record.

 

http://www.nme.com/news/kesha/80611#BSgwYW2U6tUjUJ2f.99

 

[LoveandMagic 1,731]

9 minutes ago, Harry said:

This is just clever wording. He says she's free to "record". Nowhere does that say that Sony or Kemosabe will properly promote or even actually release any music made at all. As her label they can refuse certain material to be put out and can have her marketed however they like.

Plus the label funds the creation of an album, which includes paying producers to work for the artist. They could just refuse that. Hopefully Antonoff is willing to produce Kesha for free.

Honestly, I just think Luke and his lawyers are trying to make a further mockery out of Kesha's case to make it seem futile and small. I highly doubt she would go broke by taking him to court if it was pointless and she could just easily work with somebody else. It's obviously not that simple.

More and more we find out the risks she took to bring this lawsuit. It was a very bad situation with no easy way out. I'm curious though if she can't promote and release something by changing her professional name. She wouldn't make money off it, but if she is going to be stuck in a contract like this it may be the only way to get the music she wants made. Maybe she could do that in between the albums they force her to make. They only own the artist know as Kesha, not the artist known as K. Rose (or whatever pseudonym she wants) or Yeast Infection.

[What About Us 1,499]

7 minutes ago, Haroon said:

That was already the case wasn't it? Sony was like "you're free to record music if you want", but what's the point when promoting it isn't allowed  That'd land her and everyone involved in some serious debt, it's a lose-lose unless the contract's voided

I guess you have a point there.

[Levine 23,744]

2 minutes ago, pie-kun said:

The lawyer gives no evidence for that statement though. I have no idea why Sony would have a popular artist under their label release new music and not promote it.

Considering the fact that a) she's a flop (sorry, I love her but a label would be happy to release an artist who doesn't profit anymore) or b) she could slay with new material right now thanks to the exposure. 

I repeat: there is a lot of things that people don't know but still talk about this like they are kesha's best friends. 

[Harry 26,836]

2 minutes ago, faysalaaa1 said:

I think he is saying that he doesnt have a problem with Kesha recording or releasing music but sony does witch he has no role in.

Then why won't he let her leave the contract? He absolutely does have a role in her contract because she's signed to Kemosabe which is a subsidiary of Sony that he owns. To me, it sounds like he's saying "yeah go ahead and record new music, but good luck in getting released because I'm still in court fighting against you to keep you in this contract".

[Harry 26,836]

2 minutes ago, LoveandMagic said:

More and more we find out the risks she took to bring this lawsuit. It was a very bad situation with no easy way out. I'm curious though if she can't promote and release something by changing her professional name. She wouldn't make money off it, but if she is going to be stuck in a contract like this it may be the only way to get the music she wants made. Maybe she could do that in between the albums they force her to make. They only own the artist know as Kesha, not the artist known as K. Rose (or whatever pseudonym she wants) or Yeast Infection.

I don't think changing the name really makes a difference because legally it's still her. For example I don't think Gaga could go and release music with someone else (or independently) as Stefani Germanotta behind Interscope's back. The artist is essentially property of the label once they sign with them. Some artists get a lot more control over what they release, but unfortunately Kesha doesn't seem to be one of them.

[lego 44,165]

1 minute ago, Harry said:

Then why won't he let her leave the contract? He absolutely does have a role in her contract because she's signed to Kemosabe which is a subsidiary of Sony that he owns. To me, it sounds like he's saying "yeah go ahead and record new music, but good luck in getting released because I'm still in court fighting against you to keep you in this contract".

Also if there would be promo, wouldn't dr Luke profit from her new album even without being producer? 

Maybe she doesn't want that. 

[LoveandMagic 1,731]

3 minutes ago, Harry said:

I don't think changing the name really makes a difference because legally it's still her. For example I don't think Gaga could go and release music with someone else (or independently) as Stefani Germanotta behind Interscope's back. The artist is essentially property of the label once they sign with them. Some artists get a lot more control over what they release, but unfortunately Kesha doesn't seem to be one of them.

You're probably right. In any event I'm sure Sony and Luke did their homework and that contract is air tight.

[Harry 26,836]

5 minutes ago, VampireHeart said:

Also if there would be promo, wouldn't dr Luke profit from her new album even without being producer? 

Maybe she doesn't want that. 

Yes he would make money from any sales even if he wasn't directly involved in the production, because the music would be released under his company. So I agree with you, that is probably another reason she doesn't want to be in this contract anymore and a big part of why simply recording with other producers right now is not as easy as it might seem. But the way it's looking, it could be the only way

[Evan Peters 10,763]

37 minutes ago, pie-kun said:

What evidence is there of that?

the judge said that sony didn't have to promote her music but she could record things without dr. luke

[Evan Peters 10,763]

37 minutes ago, pie-kun said:

What evidence is there of that?

the judge said that sony didn't have to promote her music but she could record things without dr. luke

[Katharine Hepburn 4,607]

If he has any sense he should just void the contract and have her still signed to Sony but he has nothing to do with her.

[Pablo 7,990]

I think she wasn't allowed to make music because of the lawsuit. It would be a conflict of interest for her to release music during that time. Now that the decision has been made I guess she is free to make music again but is still with her original contract. I'm guessing she has to still use Dr. Luke though.

[Psychedelic 1,098]

Yes, but without promo. Probably after all the press the case is receiving, she won't need it! I still have faith this all will be worked out soon!