ZAPPA VS. ZAPPA
Legal dispute over Zappa name fractures a once tight-knit clan
An ugly legal battle over rights to Frank Zappa’s music has divided his four children,
For a decade, Dweezil Zappa, a son of the rock star Frank Zappa and a noted guitarist in his own right, has been paying tribute to his father’s music under the name Zappa Plays Zappa. The project, which features exacting performances of Frank Zappa’s famously complex music, has toured the world and won a Grammy.
But when Dweezil Zappa takes the project on the road this summer, it will be with a far less catchy name: Dweezil Zappa Plays Frank Zappa.
“It doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue,” he said in an interview, “but this is being done under duress.”
The name change is the most visible sign of a rift that has grown within one of the rock world’s most famous families since the death last year of Gail Zappa, the widow of Frank Zappa, who had managed her husband’s musical legacy with a firm hand since his death in 1993.
This month, the Zappa Family Trust, which owns the rights to Zappa’s music, informed Dweezil that he did not have permission to tour as Zappa Plays Zappa — the name is a trademark owned by the trust — and that he risked copyright infringement damages of $150,000 (U.S.) each time he played a song without proper permission.
“My last name is Zappa; my father was Frank Zappa,” Dweezil said. “But I am not allowed to use the name on its own. I’m not allowed to use a picture of him. I’m not allowed to use my own connection with him without some sort of deal to be struck.”
Business disputes are familiar territory among celebrity siblings, and members of groups such as the Doors and Creedence Clearwater Revival have also fought over the use of a valuable band name. As the 1960s rock generation ages, these types of disputes may become more common, music lawyers say.
After Gail Zappa’s death, control of the trust passed to two of the four Zappa children: Ahmet, a son, who controls the day-to-day operations of the business, and Diva, a daughter. Dweezil and his sister Moon are not trustees, but all four children are beneficiaries, and tensions have flared between the two sides over the Zappa Plays Zappa tours and a recent Kickstarter campaign for a documentary film.
Dweezil and Ahmet, who were once so close that they recorded two albums together and made regular appearances on late-night TV, now seem to communicate primarily through lawyers, with disputes over trademarks and music licensing.
In addition to changing the name of his tribute project, Dweezil Zappa said that he would not carry any of the trust’s official merchandise or use any images of his father — whose likeness is also controlled by the trust — in promoting the tour. He will, however, play the same songs from his father’s catalogue that he always has.
In an interview, Ahmet Zappa said he was not feuding with his brother but rather maintaining the integrity of the estate and preserving Zappa Plays Zappa as a family enterprise, available to any of the four children.
“I am not standing in the way of Dweezil playing the music,” Ahmet said. “He would just have to be in accordance with the family trust.”
The most contentious part of the dispute is over the minutiae of music licensing, an area in which the Zappa estate has long taken controversial stances. The family trust argues that for a show consisting largely of Frank Zappa’s music, performers cannot rely on the standard performing-rights licenses that music venues typically get from agencies such as ASCAP or BMI but instead need special permission from the estate for “grand rights,” a term that usually applies to theatrical presentations. Gail Zappa and ASCAP pursued a number of bands under this theory, with mixed success. Project/Object, a wellknown Zappa tribute group, had some of its shows cancelled by clubs that had received legal letters, but André Cholmondeley, a member of the band, said the group was advised by a lawyer that it did not need a special license and so has never gotten one. “We simply adhered to U.S.A. law,” Cholmondeley said in an email.
What makes a piece of music dramatic is not clearly stated in copyright law, but Conrad Rippy, a lawyer who has worked in both theatre and music, said it generally needed to meet several criteria.
“Is it performed in a place where you generally would perform a theatrical work? Are people wearing costumes? Does it advance a narrative storyline?” Rippy said. “The closer you get to answer those questions ‘Yes,’ the more it looks like that’s a grand right. A tribute band playing a Frank Zappa song in a club meets none of those tests.”
Dweezil Zappa said that while his mother charged him an “exorbitant fee” to use the name Zappa Plays Zappa, he has never paid for a grand rights license.
For the Zappas, the dispute seems to have divided a once-tight-knit family, whose children were very much a part of their father’s musical career. Moon, the eldest child, sang as a teenager on Frank Zappa’s only Top 40 single, “Valley Girl,” in 1982.
Ahmet said he was perplexed by the claims by his brother, whom he praised as a supremely talented guitarist and “the funniest dude.” He added: “Maybe, he’s grieving. For all of us, it’s been superemotional.” (Dweezil’s answer: “There is obvious deceit in my brother’s response. His actions speak louder than words.”)
Dweezil said he was eager to be free of the demands of the estate, but he was concerned that the name change might confuse fans or erode the good will he has built up with his audience over a decade of Zappa Plays Zappa shows.
“I just hope people will understand,” he said, “that the only thing I’m changing is the name.”