Earlier this month, it was revealed that the property of late Mastodon guitarist Brent Hinds was suing his former bandmates. 

Their declare revolved across the assertion that Hinds’ industrial pursuits within the band had not been formally separated from its remaining members previous to his tragic dying in August final yr, simply months after he had exited the group. It additionally talked about using Hinds’ likeness on the quilt of their newest studio album, Marrow Deep.

Shortly afterwards, Mastodon issued a public assertion in response to the lawsuit, writing: “We are going to vigorously defend what we consider is a meritless lawsuit,” earlier than vowing to take action in personal, in order to not taint “Brent’s reminiscence or the legacy of his musical presents”.

Now, Hinds’ property has given a followup assertion clarifying its place and why it selected to file the lawsuit within the first place.

“Sadly , public dialogue has largely targeted on Mastodon’s inclusion of Brent’s picture in paintings for a brand new album and has typically portrayed the lawsuit as an effort by his household to acquire a windfall,” the assertion reads [via Guitar World]. “That’s not what the case is about.”

It continues: “After Brent was excluded from Mastodon, he sought an accounting, valuation, and orderly separation of pursuits he held in entities owned by the founding members. He handed away earlier than that course of was completed… Brent had not but acquired any compensation for any of his pursuits.”

Whereas Hinds’ property highlights that a lot of the net discourse surrounding the lawsuit pertains to using his picture on the quilt of the band’s new album, it clarifies that that is only a small a part of its declare. The property says it “illustrates a broader industrial challenge associated to merchandising revenues”, including: “Particularly, it pertains to whether or not Brent’s exclusion from the band discontinued his, and now his Property’s entitlement to share in Mastodon’s merchandising income.”

“The remaining members keep that Brent didn’t take part in Mastodon’s new album, but the band selected to make use of a recognisable picture of him to market that album and did so with out the property’s consent. This illustrates that Brent stays related to Mastodon’s model even after his exclusion and dying.”

Hinds property says “the band can’t pretty invoke Brent’s identification when it’s commercially helpful, whereas concurrently denying the persevering with relevance of his contributions when accounting for his pursuits.”

The assertion concludes by saying the property is just not requesting “anybody to decide on sides or diminish what Brent and his bandmates created collectively. Nor does it ask the general public to evaluate anybody’s grief or intentions.”

Away from the continuing authorized battle, the surviving members of Mastodon have mirrored lately on their time with Brent Hinds.

“It isn’t simple to speak about Brent, he was our household, somebody all of us cherished wholeheartedly. He was a wild man, our wild man and that got here with some challenges,” the band wrote in July.

“Each issues are true and we aren’t curious about chasing one reality over the opposite. Shedding him has meant sitting with a kind of grief we by no means anticipated. No extra hugs, no extra excessive fives, no extra disagreements, no extra making up. That half has been exhausting, it’s actual.”