Two daughters of the legendary blues artist B.B. King are insisting that their father’s recent death was not from natural causes, despite contrary initial autopsy reports. According to court documents, King’s daughters Patty King and Karen Williams allege that two of their father’s closest aides conspired to poison the “King of Blues” by administering diabetic shock-inducing drugs.

In two identically-worded affidavits, both women accused King’s aides, Louise Laverne Toney and Myron Johnson, of having administered “medications, fluids, and foreign objects” to King despite being “medically unlicensed.” The daughters claim that King was also “sequestered from all family members” and Toney, King’s business manager, and Johnson, his personal assistant, were the only individuals to have been in his presence for the week prior to his death. Both women wrote,

I believe my father was poisoned and that he was administered foreign substances to induce his premature death, and request a formal investigation into the matter.

…I believe my father was murdered.

According to CNN, King, 89, died May 14 while in home hospice care in Las Vegas. His preliminary autopsy report listed the cause of death as multi-infarct dementia, which is caused by a series of small strokes and can be a complication of diabetes. King had suffered from type 2 diabetes for over two decades and  was a high profile spokesman for the disease.

With all current signs pointing to diabetes as King’s cause of death, contention from both daughters may stem from control over his estate, which has been estimated at several million dollars. King, who was rumored to have fathered 15 children with 15 different women, named Toney, his employee of 39 years, as executor of his estate.

According to the Associated Press, Williams had attempted to take over as King’s guardian in an April 29 petition, in which Patty King and a third daughter, Rita Washington, accused Toney of elder neglect and embezzlement. However, on May 7 Clark County Family Court Hearing Master Jon Norheim said that “police and social services investigations in October and April uncovered no reason to take power-of-attorney from Toney” and dismissed the request.

Police are not currently investigating King’s death as a homicide and all parties have declined to comment, but a lawyer for King’s estate interviewed by the AP calls the allegations “ridiculous” and “extremely disrespectful” to King. Attorney Brent Bryson told the AP on Monday,

Three doctors determined that King was appropriately cared-for, and King received 24-hour care and monitoring by medical professionals “up until the time that he peacefully passed away in his sleep.”

At this time it doesn’t seem likely that investigators will change their stance on King’s death, but the lack of a formal investigation may do little to quell the conflict between King’s children and his associates. If the speculations surrounding the death of “American Top 40” voice Casey Kasem are any indication, the fall out could span years, which would be an unfortunate end for the famed musician’s legacy.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Was Music Legend B.B. King Poisoned? appeared first on Law Street.

Author Eric Dahl claims that Toyota stole a story from his book and used it in a recent Toyota Camry commercial.

According to Dahl’s complaint, his book, “B.B. King’s Lucille and the Loves Before Her,” contains a story that is similar to the story that occurs in a Toyota Camry Commercial.  In particular, Dahl alleges that he visited a pawn shop in Las Vegas and purchased a Gibson Lucille guitar.  He researched the guitar’s origin and discovered that the Gibson Lucille—the Prototype 1—was the same guitar that Gibson gave B.B. King on his eightieth birthday that was later stolen from his home. Dahl stated that he agreed to give King the Gibson guitar without compensation, and King arranged a meeting where King autographed another Gibson Lucille and gave it to Dahl in appreciation for his generosity.

If you have watched television in the last few weeks then you may have seen a Toyota Camry commercial where a girl finds a guitar, tracks down the previous owner — who happens to be B.B. King — gives him the guitar, and is given an autographed guitar in return. Take a look at the commercial below.

Dahl claims that Toyota’s commercial is a derivative work and is suing for copyright infringement.

Section 101 of the Copyright Act defines a derivative work as “a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a ‘derivative work.’”

Under United States Copyright Law, derivative works give authors exclusive rights to license new works based on the author’s work. For example, motion pictures based on novels are considered derivative works because they are works based on the author’s work (i.e., the novel). In this case, the Toyota Camry commercial may be a derivative work because it is based on Dahl’s work, and Dahl never licensed use of his book to Toyota.

In order for Dahl to have a claim for copyright infringement, he must prove two elements: that Dahl has a valid copyright in his work, and that Toyota copied constituent elements of his book.  In other words, the second element means that Dahl has to prove that Toyota actually copied Dahl’s work, and Toyota improperly appropriated Dahl’s work.

Proving copying is a factual question, which can be proven by direct evidence like testimony; however, copying is usually proven through circumstantial evidence like proving that Toyota had access to Dahl’s work, and there is a substantial similarity between Dahl’s book and the Toyota Camry commercial.

Dahl claims that Toyota had access to his book. The Entertainment Law Digest states that “members of Gibson Guitar who were aware of his book and the story of the returned Gibson Lucille prototype were consulted by Toyota and the advertising production crew and confirmed the ad is based on the account in Dahl’s book.”

Thus because Dahl owns a valid copyright of his work, and Toyota may have had access to Dahl’s book, there might be circumstantial evidence that Toyota committed copyright infringement. However, we will have to wait and see Toyota’s answer.  My guess is that Toyota will claim fair use in defense of its commercial.

Joseph Perry

Joseph Perry is a graduate of St. John’s University School of Law whose goal is to become a publishing and media law attorney. He has interned at William Morris Endeavor, Rodale, Inc., Columbia University Press, and is currently interning at Hachette Book Group and volunteering at the Media Law Resource Center, which has given him insight into the legal aspects of the publishing and media industries. Contact Joe at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Author Sues Toyota Over B.B. King Commercial appeared first on Law Street.