Jim Ladd, Tom Petty, KLOS Win Copyright Suit

Jim Wagner was over the moon. The struggling singer-songwriter had just gotten a call from legendary classic rock DJ, Jim Ladd. Ladd really liked the demo Wagner sent him. Could he use it as the theme song for his nightly show? Wagner was thrilled - so thrilled he didn’t even ask for compensation when he said yes. The two agreed that the quality of the demo was inadequate for air. They arranged to re-record it, this time with Ladd adding the spoken-word “Lord, have mercy” part.  The re-recorded version of Wagner’s song, “The Last Great Radio DJ”, became the opening for Ladd’s classic rock show on KLOS-FM, Los Angeles’ preeminent classic rock radio station.  That was July 2000.

The complaint filed in Los Angeles Superior Court in October 2004 sought damages totaling $6 million: $1.5 million in lost returns and $4.5 million in punitive compensation.  According to the suit, when Wagner gave Ladd permission to use the song it was “implied both in-fact and by law a promise” that Wagner would be compensated if said song were used for anything other than Ladd’s theme song. 

[Video after the jump]

The document alleges breach of contract and “breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing”; it names Ladd; KLOS FM Radio, Inc.; and rocker, Tom Petty as defendants.  The suit contends that Ladd gave Petty the demo of Wagner’s song “The Last Great Radio DJ” in 2002. Petty “took the idea, theme, title, and overall ‘feel’ of the song” and created his own version of Wagner’s song. The alleged infringing song, “The Last DJ”, was released by Warner Brothers Records in October 2002. The suit argues that Wagner suffered damages because “the commercial value of Wagner’s song was ‘dead’ after Petty and Warner Brothers released the (infringing) song.”

The judge dismissed the case.

The demurrer filed by the lawyer representing all three defendants objected to the plaintiff’s claims by first dissecting and comparing the two songs which it characterized as “not substantially similar.” The songs were written in different keys, were different lengths and had different rhyming patterns and time signatures. Wagner’s demo was “slow, pensive, and moody” while Petty’s song was energetic and exciting.  The two sounded nothing alike.

The document continues to object. The statute of limitations on breach of a verbal contract is two years. Wagner made his claim too late. The document delves further into the legal realities of a verbal contract. It calls Wagner “a blurter”, a person who discloses his original idea prior to a contract. The pummeling continued, “The only way for an idea to be the proper subject of a contract is if the prospective purchaser agrees, in advance, to pay for the service of having the idea conveyed to him.” Wagner “disclosed the ideas in the song without first having made his bargain.”