Crush 40 is known for their involvement in composing iconic and beloved vocal soundtracks for the Sonic franchise--especially so for Sonic Adventure 2. However, according to a recent legal filing, it looks like Sega of America has potentially missed out on paying royalties to Crush 40 for using their music. The lead vocalist of the band, Jonny Gioeli, is taking Sega to court, seeking compensation and to definitively rule who has ownership over Sonic Adventure 2's title song, Live and Learn.

Gioeli claims that he created the song in 2001, arranging, performing, recording, and producing it, in accordance to a contract he signed with Sega. Since then, Sega has used the song in countless events, spinoff games, and other media, including the upcoming release of the film Sonic the Hedgehog 3. He owns the copyright to the song, as well as the master recording of it, and has even kept up the song's registration with a music licensing agency. The dispute stems from Sega using the song without ever having paid out the licensing costs to Gioeli, which he hopes to be compensated for.

In an interview with Polygon, Gioeli stated, “I have no comment other than my desire to maintain the preservation of a long standing beautiful relationship with Sega. I do not want fans to draw conclusions or be disrupted from the beautiful memories we have made collectively with this music. I believe and hope we will come to a peaceful settlement that will be fair and just.”

Source

 

[Marusu]

Well damn. Definitely didn’t expect this…

 

[x65943]

"[I desire to maintain] preservation of a long standing beautiful relationship with Sega"

Ah who doesn't love to be sued

I am sure this bodes well for future crush 40 songs in sonic titles

 

[4d1xlaan]

sega does what nintendon't

 

[x65943]

sega does what nintendon't

Nintendo also doesn't like to pay royalties

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_City_Studios,_Inc._v._Nintendo_Co.,_Ltd.

 

[4d1xlaan]

Nintendo also doesn't like to pay royalties

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_City_Studios,_Inc._v._Nintendo_Co.,_Ltd.

sega does what nintendoes

 

[Ryab]

Nintendo also doesn't like to pay royalties

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_City_Studios,_Inc._v._Nintendo_Co.,_Ltd.

This had nothing to do with royalties though...

 

[Xdqwerty]

I mean, they somewhat deserved it for not paying royalties

 

[CORE]

Trust yor Feelings , and Live and Learn.

 

[x65943]

This had nothing to do with royalties though...

Did you read it at all???

"
On May 5, Greenberg agreed to pay Universal royalties of 3% of Donkey Kong's net sale price, amounting to six million units and worth about $4.6 million.[5] A week later, he signed an agreement that stated that Universal would not sue Coleco as long as Coleco paid royalties.

In private, Greenberg tried to persuade Nintendo to sign a licensing agreement; he had not told them that he had already done so.

By the end of the meeting, Hadl agreed to send a chain of title to Nintendo regarding Universal's ownership of the King Kong name. When this failed to materialize in the next few weeks, Lincoln prodded Universal again. They responded with more demands for royalties.
"

Universal felt they were owed royalties for the Donkey Kong name and even got royalties for the name from Coleco - Coleco then tried to convince Nintendo to pay royalties as well

Since Nintendo wouldn't pay royalties, it went to court, and ultimately the judge ruled in Nintendo's favor

But it has EVERYTHING to do with royalties

 

[Ryab]

Did you read it at all???

"
On May 5, Greenberg agreed to pay Universal royalties of 3% of Donkey Kong's net sale price, amounting to six million units and worth about $4.6 million.[5] A week later, he signed an agreement that stated that Universal would not sue Coleco as long as Coleco paid royalties.

In private, Greenberg tried to persuade Nintendo to sign a licensing agreement; he had not told them that he had already done so.

By the end of the meeting, Hadl agreed to send a chain of title to Nintendo regarding Universal's ownership of the King Kong name. When this failed to materialize in the next few weeks, Lincoln prodded Universal again. They responded with more demands for royalties.
"

Universal felt they were owed royalties for the Donkey Kong name and even got royalties for the name from Coleco - Coleco then tried to convince Nintendo to pay royalties as well

Since Nintendo wouldn't pay royalties, it went to court, and ultimately the judge ruled in Nintendo's favor

But it has EVERYTHING to do with royalties

This wasn't relating to royalties from the start I meant. There was never any intention to infringe or use the copyright of King Kong. In fact the character wasn't even original named "Kong." This was very much 2 similar concepts and Universal wasn't exactly happy with the similarities. What I was saying was with Sega this was literally something they agreed on from the start and have suddenly decided to start going against. The Nintendo case led to royalties due to Universals complaints.

 

[MadMakuFuuma]

i dont understand why some people are thinking Gioeli is wrong. if the music are to be used on sad2, ad sega used it on other things without paying... besided, sue not necessary means "we are enemies from now on", just means that one of the parts wants things right.

i hope sega sit down with crush 40 and talk it over.

 

[Xzi]

Just pay the man.

 

[Lostbhoy]

It depends on how the song was used. If it was used in marketing for a sonic event then I would suggest Sega had every right to use it and possibly covered themselves there also but if they were just using everywhere and no sonic in sight he's onto a winner!

 

[ChronosNotashi]

Oh my g- It's just video game-related lawsuits all over the place this year.

That said, I'm curious how well this will go, considering that Sega is very lax in its protection of the Sonic IP (to the point that they lost almost all of the characters in the Archie Sonic comics to one guy).

 

[GengarsGhostlyGiggles]

damn i was just listening to their shadow theme song

 

[Bladexdsl]

where is the money? why don't you have the money? why aren't you getting the money now?

 

[jesus96]

I really hope this doesn't mean that sonic adventure 2 would be banned from future releases like sonic 3 for a looooooooooong time until they changed the ost for a shitty one,SA2 needs this song whatever they want to admit it or not

Also as far as I know the one used in the movie it's a different rendition but I could be wrong as I haven't watched it

 

[whitesword7]

"[I desire to maintain] preservation of a long standing beautiful relationship with Sega"

Ah who doesn't love to be sued

I am sure this bodes well for future crush 40 songs in sonic titles

yep, I can see his music getting removed if there’s ever a sonic adventure 2 remaster

also why the need for suing? can’t he talk things out with sega privately or something? suing is just gonna cost more money for both parties.

 

[tech3475]

It depends on how the song was used. If it was used in marketing for a sonic event then I would suggest Sega had every right to use it and possibly covered themselves there also but if they were just using everywhere and no sonic in sight he's onto a winner!

The article says he owns the copyright, as such it likely depends on the contract that was signed.

That said, I find it weird it's taken this long for the lawsuit to happen, especially when he himself has performed it for them.

Given the timing, it may be the film is the real catalyst for this.