[Z]

Originally Posted by 08marsh

I don't think this is fair to Heidi. Heidi is now the longest serving member of the group (or maybe joint with Keisha) and probably deserves the rights more than anyone. She replaced the first original member after about 1 single and has stayed and worked towards the groups name and reputation six years after Mutya decided she was too good.

Now her solo career flopped she decides she doesn't want them to be successful without her. Laughable.

They probably won't have to change their name but she just owns the rights and therefore gets a high percentage of profits anyway.

Sure it's ****ty for Heidi but she should have spoken up about how she felt several years ago, before Mutya even left the band; if Keisha had been sacked and it had been Mutya and Heidi looking for a new member, and then Mutya had left after a while, Heidi could still have been in a credible band. She doesn't deserve the rights more than anyone. Siobhan and Mutya were friends, Mutya brought her friend Keisha along and a clever man with a business head stuck the three of them together as a group. All three are talented singers, but they are also three teenage girls, and after two years, Siobhan ended up not being able to take it anymore and left the band. Regardless of how long she's been in the band, Heidi was not there from the beginning, so public perception will always be that she doesn't have any real right to the name. Mutya didn't "decide she was too good", she had a baby and just grew up, she didn't want to be standing on stage singing about things like "'cause I'm cooler than the red dress" anymore. If you invented something, would you be happy seeing somebody else taking credit for it? For most people I imagine that would be a resounding no, so why is this any different? I'm pleased she's won. I like the new Sugababes song but I've been of the opinion that they should have changed their name right away for a long time. Clean break, new start, and perhaps people would take them a little bit more seriously if they did.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Zee

Sure it's ****ty for Heidi but she should have spoken up about how she felt several years ago, before Mutya even left the band; if Keisha had been sacked and it had been Mutya and Heidi looking for a new member, and then Mutya had left after a while, Heidi could still have been in a credible band. She doesn't deserve the rights more than anyone. Siobhan and Mutya were friends, Mutya brought her friend Keisha along and a clever man with a business head stuck the three of them together as a group. All three are talented singers, but they are also three teenage girls, and after two years, Siobhan ended up not being able to take it anymore and left the band. Regardless of how long she's been in the band, Heidi was not there from the beginning, so public perception will always be that she doesn't have any real right to the name. Mutya didn't "decide she was too good", she had a baby and just grew up, she didn't want to be standing on stage singing about things like "'cause I'm cooler than the red dress" anymore. If you invented something, would you be happy seeing somebody else taking credit for it? For most people I imagine that would be a resounding no, so why is this any different? I'm pleased she's won. I like the new Sugababes song but I've been of the opinion that they should have changed their name right away for a long time. Clean break, new start, and perhaps people would take them a little bit more seriously if they did.

It doesn't matter really. You can't believe they have more right just because they were there at the start. If Mutya gave a **** she wouldn't have left in the first place. As for Siobhan, can't really call her a member or a founder as she was there for about 5 minutes and moved on.

Heidi's been a part of the band for nearly 10 years (longest serving), as well as giving the "brand" all that time, worked to earn it the money it has. Siobhan wasn't there. Public perception would react to a picture of Heidi as a Sugababe, and a picture of Siobhan as "Who's that?".

So, when it comes to Heidi "taking credit" for something someone else "invented" doesn't ring true.

I agree Mutya should still own a percentage of the brand (as she probably already did anyway) but taking away any rights from Heidi is not in the slightest bit fair.

Sure it's ****ty for Heidi but she should have spoken up about how she felt several years ago, before Mutya even left the band; if Keisha had been sacked and it had been Mutya and Heidi looking for a new member, and then Mutya had left after a while, Heidi could still have been in a credible band.

I don't understand what you're saying here. Are you suggesting Keisha was the reason Mutya quit and therefore Heidi should have sided with Mutya and pushed Keisha out earlier "if she cared enough". It's nothing to do with their personal relationships but ownership of the brand.

The order in which Mutya and Keisha left the band doesn't change the situation.

[Z]

Originally Posted by 08marsh

It doesn't matter really. You can't believe they have more right just because they were there at the start. If Mutya gave a **** she wouldn't have left in the first place. As for Siobhan, can't really call her a member or a founder as she was there for about 5 minutes and moved on.

Heidi's been a part of the band for nearly 10 years (longest serving), as well as giving the "brand" all that time, worked to earn it the money it has. Siobhan wasn't there.

So, when it comes to Heidi "taking credit" for something someone else "invented" doesn't ring true.

I agree Mutya should still own a percentage of the brand (as she probably already did anyway) but taking away any rights from Heidi is not in the slightest bit fair.

Eh, you can call her a member AND a founder because she was a member and a founder. And it was 3 years, not 5 minutes, they released four singles before she left. Heidi played third fiddle to Mutya and Keisha; then when Amelle joined, guess what? She was still the pretty face who did the harmonies and the bridge. And now? Same again. She's a girl who got lucky and was patient enough to put up with being treated like crap for seven years before it all got too much for her. They all made choices and that's how it played out. Siobhan herself has expressed no interest in being associated with them time and time again, but that doesn't suddenly erase the fact she was an original member and helped put them where they are today in the first place. She was the main writer of Overload, and the main singer in Overload, their breakthrough first single. Anyway, the suit was filed by Mutya, so it's Mutya vs the Sugababes; Siobhan and Keisha do not have anything to do with it directly.

[Joelle.]

Originally Posted by 08marsh

I don't think this is fair to Heidi. Heidi is now the longest serving member of the group (or maybe joint with Keisha) and probably deserves the rights more than anyone. She replaced the first original member after about 1 single and has stayed and worked towards the groups name and reputation six years after Mutya decided she was too good.

Now her solo career flopped she decides she doesn't want them to be successful without her. Laughable.

They probably won't have to change their name but she just owns the rights and therefore gets a high percentage of profits anyway.

I completely agree. It's not as if the spiteful cow will actually use it.

[Z]

@ 08marsh, you edited your post so I'm responding to the bit you edited in: From what I gather, Keisha is a control freak about every aspect of what is produced in a Sugababes album. Mutya went away to have her baby and so Keisha and Heidi busied themselves with writing a new album, but their policy has always been to split the writing credits three ways between them so that they each receive royalties. Heidi is a pushover and Keisha always gets her way, so with no Mutya there to put forward an alternative perspective that gets listened to, that last album with Mutya was all Keisha's ideas. That is my understanding of the situation; Mutya clearly wasn't impressed by any of it and left after two singles from that album campaign. Heidi obviously did not enjoy being treated like her opinion didn't count for anything, and later neither did Amelle, which is why they quit the band only for the label to turn around and sack Keisha instead. If Heidi had kicked up a fuss several years prior to September 2009, things would have probably been very different. Mutya wouldn't have come back to an album project that she didn't like and Heidi wouldn't have been a doormat for all those years.

[Marsh.]

Someone just said on twitter "Yay, she finally won.... Now what? She gonna frame the name and hang it in her toilet". Lol

But having just read up more, it seems Heidi and the others would still retain their respective rights it's just Mutya would have control over their merchandising options and is listed as the sole creator which is fair enough. The current line up can use "Sugababes" as their name and on their albums etc but anything that uses the general SB brand name as advertising is at Mutya's discretion.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Zee

@ 08marsh, you edited your post so I'm responding to the bit you edited in: From what I gather, Keisha is a control freak about every aspect of what is produced in a Sugababes album. Mutya went away to have her baby and so Keisha and Heidi busied themselves with writing a new album, but their policy has always been to split the writing credits three ways between them so that they each receive royalties. Heidi is a pushover and Keisha always gets her way, so with no Mutya there to put forward an alternative perspective that gets listened to, that last album with Mutya was all Keisha's ideas. That is my understanding of the situation; Mutya clearly wasn't impressed by any of it and left after two singles from that album campaign. Heidi obviously did not enjoy being treated like her opinion didn't count for anything, and later neither did Amelle, which is why they quit the band only for the label to turn around and sack Keisha instead. If Heidi had kicked up a fuss several years prior to September 2009, things would have probably been very different. Mutya wouldn't have come back to an album project that she didn't like and Heidi wouldn't have been a doormat for all those years.

Ah, thanks for that. Now I understand what you're saying.

It's funny, people used to joke there's something wrong with Keisha because they keep leaving but she does seem like a real controlling bitch.
This would also clearly explain the sudden clash between Amelle, who looks like she could hold her own in a fight, and Keisha.

[Z]

I think Keisha gets a bad rap. She's not a bad person, she's just very much determined that her way is the right way. To a 16 year old girl (e.g. Siobhan Donaghy) that would have felt like bullying; to 26 year old women (e.g. Heidi and Amelle) it's working with a nightmare colleague and she pushed them to breaking point. As a solo artist she can do things however she wants, but in the context of working in a group, as with any team work, you have to be prepared to listen to everyone and take everyone's ideas on board... You can tell that the Sweet 7 album was her concoction, IMO. I feel sorry for Heidi and Amelle that they walked into this saga but, like Jade, they saw an opportunity and they grabbed it with both hands, so I don't think it's fair to hate on them either. It's just a series of unfortunate decisions that have played out to make all six of them look pretty bad when you look back over the 13 years that the band has existed.

[Matt]

The Sugababes have insisted it's "business as usual" following news that former member Mutya Buena has won limited rights to their name.

It was reported yesterday that Buena, who left the band in 2005, won the rights to the group's name for a limited number of products, including stationery and gift wrap.

A spokesperson for the band said: "Heidi, Amelle and Jade would like to reassure their fans that it's business as usual for Sugababes.

"Over 4 months ago it was officially confirmed by the European Trade Marks Department that Sugababes were successful in claiming their ongoing right to use the name "Sugababes" for all areas of commercial activity that the band requires, namely within the music, sound recording and entertainment industry, as well as being granted extensive rights to produce a wide range of merchandise."

They added that Buena's category of ownership is an area that "currently holds no commercial interest for the band and, accordingly, the band has no immediate plans to challenge Ms. Buena for these rights."

The Sugababes release their new single 'Freedom' on September 25. Their eighth studio album follows later this year.

Source: http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/music/ne...-as-usual.html

[Joelle.]

I'm sure your stationary range will prove very popular Mutya...

[Z]

I think this will only be the beginning - she seems set on winning rights to the name. At least it's some kind of recognition though, I'm pleased for her. They really ought to have changed their name when the line up changed...

['Conor]

i still think they should keep it.

[Shaun]

I want a Sugababes pencil case.

[Marc]

ROFL I have the pencil case Shaun, and the pencils (one for each member) Siobhan's been sharpened down so much that she's around an inch tall. Amelie rubber is great, it's tough and rough.

[Shaun]

omg is there a Jade compass? I bet it never gets used

[Marc]

Originally Posted by Shaun

omg is there a Jade compass? I bet it never gets used

Yeah but it's so irrelevant I just use it to make my pencils dance