“The band cannot invoke Brent’s identity when it is commercially useful, while denying the continuing relevance of his contributions”: Brent Hinds’ estate makes statement amid ongoing Mastodon lawsuit
Earlier this month, it was revealed that the estate of late Mastodon guitarist Brent Hinds was suing his former bandmates.
Their claim revolved around the assertion that Hinds’ commercial interests in the band had not been officially separated from its remaining members prior to his tragic death in August last year, just months after he had exited the group. It also mentioned the use of Hinds’ likeness on the cover of their latest studio album, Marrow Deep.
Shortly afterwards, Mastodon issued a public statement in response to the lawsuit, writing: “We will vigorously defend what we believe is a meritless lawsuit,” before vowing to do so in private, so as not to taint “Brent’s memory or the legacy of his musical gifts”.
READ MORE: Fake blood stains, body glitter and chainmail rash: Castle Rat’s Riley Pinkerton shows off her Gibson SGs
Now, Hinds’ estate has given a followup statement clarifying its position and why it chose to file the lawsuit in the first place.
“Unfortunately , public discussion has largely focused on Mastodon’s inclusion of Brent’s image in artwork for a new album and has sometimes portrayed the lawsuit as an effort by his family to obtain a windfall,” the statement reads [via Guitar World]. “That is not what the case is about.”
It continues: “After Brent was excluded from Mastodon, he sought an accounting, valuation, and orderly separation of interests he held in entities owned by the founding members. He passed away before that process was finished… Brent had not yet received any compensation for any of his interests.”
While Hinds’ estate highlights that much of the online discourse surrounding the lawsuit pertains to the use of his image on the cover of the band’s new album, it clarifies that this is just a small part of its claim. The estate says it “illustrates a broader commercial issue related to merchandising revenues”, adding: “Specifically, it relates to whether Brent’s exclusion from the band discontinued his, and now his Estate’s entitlement to share in Mastodon’s merchandising revenue.”
“The remaining members maintain that Brent did not participate in Mastodon’s new album, yet the band chose to use a recognisable image of him to market that album and did so without the estate’s consent. This illustrates that Brent remains relevant to Mastodon’s brand even after his exclusion and death.”
Hinds estate says “the band cannot fairly invoke Brent’s identity when it is commercially useful, while simultaneously denying the continuing relevance of his contributions when accounting for his interests.”
The statement concludes by saying the estate is not requesting “anyone to choose sides or diminish what Brent and his bandmates created together. Nor does it ask the public to judge anyone’s grief or intentions.”
Away from the ongoing legal battle, the surviving members of Mastodon have reflected recently on their time with Brent Hinds.
“It isn’t easy to talk about Brent, he was our family, someone we all loved wholeheartedly. He was a wild man, our wild man and that came with some challenges,” the band wrote in July.
“Both things are true and we aren’t interested in chasing one truth over the other. Losing him has meant sitting with a type of grief we never expected. No more hugs, no more high fives, no more disagreements, no more making up. That part has been hard, it’s real.”
The post “The band cannot invoke Brent’s identity when it is commercially useful, while denying the continuing relevance of his contributions”: Brent Hinds’ estate makes statement amid ongoing Mastodon lawsuit appeared first on Guitar.com | All Things Guitar.
Source: www.guitar-bass.net
