Michael Jackson: remove songs from a posthumous album after rumors that they are adulterated tracks

Michael Jackson: remove songs from a posthumous album after rumors that they are adulterated tracks

“The Estate of Michael Jackson and Sony Music decided to remove the tracks ‘Breaking News’, ‘Monster’ and ‘Keep Your Head Up’ from the 2010 album ‘Michael’ as the simplest and best way to go beyond the associated conversation with these clues once and for all,” reads the statement issued. “The remaining tracks on the album are still available. Nothing should be read in this action about the authenticity of the prints; it is just time to go beyond the distraction that surrounds them”, he concludes.

Rumors about Michael Jackson’s album

The songs in question have been at the center of an unusually aggressive legal campaign by fans that those responsible for the musician’s estate ultimately won in 2018. They were reportedly recorded in 2007 with the songwriters and producers. Edward Cascio Y James Port, two years before Jackson’s death from an accidental overdose. Fans have long claimed that an American vocalist named jason malachi he actually sang all three songs, allegedly admitting as much in a 2011 Facebook post, according to TM, though his manager later denied it, claiming the post was false.

The legal action began in 2014, when a fan attempted to file a class action lawsuit claiming that the album liner notes, which list Jackson as the singer, are actually a misrepresentation under the California Unfair Competition Law and the Consumer Legal Remedies Law. However, the appeals court ruled that because the estate and Sony did not know for sure whether Jackson sang on all three songs, the album cover and promotional materials were protected by the First Amendment.

“Under these circumstances, appellant’s representations as to the singer’s identity amounted to a statement of opinion rather than fact,” the California appellate judge wrote. Elwood Liu at that moment. “The lack of personal knowledge here also means that appellants’ contested statements do not fit the definition of speech that is ‘less likely to be chilled by proper regulation.'”

Source: Ambito

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Latest Posts