|
October 30 / 2002
Chuckie and Johnnie
Riverfront Times http://www.riverfronttimes.com Oct 30th / 2002 By René Spencer Saller On October 21, U.S. District Judge Donald Stohr dismissed piano legend Johnnie Johnson's lawsuit against Chuck Berry, almost exactly two years after the claim -- in which Johnson argued that he deserves co-writing credit for at least 30 of Berry's songs -- was filed. Lawyers for Berry's longtime sideman argued that although the statute of limitations for royalty claims is only three years and the songs in question were written approximately 45 years ago, the statute should be waived because Johnson is borderline mentally defective. The judge didn't buy that argument; in his order, he wrote that the 77-year-old appeared competent to recognize his rights. Unless Johnson's lawyers appeal, this sad chapter of rock & roll history is officially closed. The suit might be settled, but that doesn't mean both sides are ecstatic or that the real question of authorship is conclusively resolved. The judge took the simplest route possible, an outcome that's highly unsatisfying to anyone with an emotional hankering for the Ultimate Truth. The opposing lawyers both believe they could have won their cases before a jury. Says Joe Jacobson, Berry's lawyer: "Let's say the copyright act had no statute of limitations at all. We'd still win because I think we could prove pretty persuasively that Johnnie Johnson was not a co-author and really made very few contributions to the songs, other than his actual performance." Counters Mitch Margo, Johnson's lawyer: "If we'd have gone to trial, we'd have won. I believe it from the depositions we took, the mediation we had." Margo says he had lined up witnesses who could testify in Johnson's favor but declines to identify them in case his client appeals. The lawyers agree on one thing: The case was complicated. One reason, Jacobson says, is that Johnson's lawyers changed their strategy. Initially they argued that the statute of limitations didn't apply because Berry purposely misled or took advantage of Johnson; later they argued that Johnson's judgment was impaired because he was an alcoholic and also mentally defective. But in a deposition, Johnson claimed that he was never incapacitated by his drinking and that the only reason he didn't bring a suit against Berry earlier was that he didn't think he could afford a lawyer. [This changed when Johnson met Texan multimillionaire, George Turek, who encouraged Johnson to take legal action and then paid his legal bills.] Niggling questions remain: If Johnson is as mentally defective as his own lawyers argue he is, how can he be considered a credible witness about events that took place more than 40 years ago? If he's highly "subject to suggestion," as the plaintiff's psychologist attests, who's to say he isn't merely repeating charges he's heard fans such as Keith Richards make over the years? Moreover, Johnson's never claimed to have written any of the lyrics, certainly the most characteristic aspect of Berry's songs, and most of the music in question is derived from standard blues-chord progressions. Asked how Johnson can claim credit for songs on which he didn't even play piano, Margo argues that the liner notes in the Chess boxed set are incorrect: "I can't tell you what songs they were, but certainly Johnnie Johnson can recognize his piano playing versus someone else's." But how to prove it, given that "mentally defective" Johnson is the only witness? "I would put him behind a piano and show you what he can do, and we'd compare it to what Chuck Berry can do," Margo replies. The musical-proficiency argument doesn't hold water. Johnson might be a better musician than Berry from a technical standpoint, but that doesn't mean he wrote the songs. Country-soul great Arthur Alexander (whose songs "Anna" and "You Better Move On" were famously covered by the Beatles and the Rolling Stones, respectively) didn't play an instrument at all and couldn't read music. He hummed the melodies to his backing bands until they worked out the arrangements he wanted, and Alexander received the full songwriting credit. Because no one was rolling tape during Berry's and Johnson's jam sessions, it's one man's word against another's. Interestingly enough, the two principals seem to be the least acrimonious people in Johnson v. Berry. During the proceedings, Johnson and Berry chatted about old times and seemed downright friendly. Berry didn't blame Johnson for the lawsuit. In an interview with Radar Station last year, he said, "It's not Johnnie that's doing this. I've known him 40 years. Someone inspired him to go along with him and seek their desire to try for an easy dollar." Source: Riverfront Times October 23 / 2002
Chuck Berry wins suit
St. Louis Post-Dispatch http://home.post-dispatch.com Oct 23th / 2002 By Peter Shinkle Rock'n'roll legend Chuck Berry has won his court dispute with piano player Johnnie Johnson, who claimed he helped write such classics as "Roll Over Beethoven" and deserved a share of the royalties. U.S. District Judge Donald Stohr on Monday dismissed Johnson's suit in St. Louis on the grounds that too many years had passed since the more than 30 songs in dispute were written, between 1955 and 1966. There was no question that the men had played together for years, but Berry simply asserted that he alone authored the songs. Martin Green, attorney for Berry, said that the superstar, who is now 76 and lives in Ladue, has no hard feelings for Johnson, 77. "He likes him very much, considers him a friend, and expects to play with him in the future", Green said. "He doesn't blame Johnnie for the lawsuit. He blames some of Johnnie's advisers", Green added. Specifically, Green said, Keith Richards of the Rolling Stones and bluesman Bo Diddley recommended that Johnson pursue the case. Mitch Margo, attorney for Johnson, said his client had not decided yet whether to appeal. The songs under dispute include such classics as "Rock and Roll Music" and "Sweet Little Sixteen". Normally, the statute of limitations to seek royalty claims under the federal Copyright Act is three years. But in the suit, Margo claimed that Johnson was so addled by excessive alcohol abuse and a low IQ that he was incapable of understanding that he had a right to royalties that Berry collected for decades after the songs were written. Johnson claimed in a deposition during the case that he gave up drinking after a 1989 incident in which he drank excessively during a concert with Eric Clapton in London. He got a nosebleed that lasted all the way back to St. Louis. "Johnnie is a man who is a genius at the piano but has trouble doing other things", Margo said Tuesday. In his 19-page order dismissing the case, Judge Stohr said that "during his 70+ years, Mr. Johnson has lived independently and been generally competent to manage his affairs unassisted". The judge noted that Johnson bought cars, rented apartments, read the newspaper and managed his own finances. In the end, the judge said he was "unpersuaded" that Johnson was not competent to recognize his rights. In dismissing the case, he also threw out Berry's own challenge to Johnson's trademark of the phrase "The Father of Rock and Roll". Berry failed to pursue the claim in court, the judge said. Source: www.chuckberry.de |