Pet Shop Boys Community

TwizzleUK wrote: Mon 02 Feb 2026, 10:13 pm Wonder if they'll skip 'Go West' when the digital singles re-release campaign finally happens?

Perhaps.
Similar to 10,000 Maniacs deleting Cat Stevens' Peace Train in 1989 from their 1987 album In My Tribe, but for different reasons.

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Dog,

Do you know what consequence this could have for any existing or future compilations, or even for any re-issues of Very?

Retro.

The short version is: existing releases are safe, but anything new that includes Go West is complicated until this case is resolved.

Anything already released - including Smash, PopArt, Very, streaming, etc. - is covered by long‑standing mechanical and performance licences that were granted in the 1990s. Those licences can’t simply be revoked, and Willis hasn’t claimed a breach of those agreements. So existing compilations and streaming availability aren’t at risk.

New compilations that include Go West would require fresh licensing for that track.
Until the dispute is settled, Warner will almost certainly avoid issuing anything that needs new clearance for the song given Willis will likely decline. So any future package including Go West will be on hold.

Reissuing Very itself would be fine - the album master is already licensed. But if they wanted to add bonus material, a new documentary, or a video component that includes Go West, that would trigger the same sync‑rights problem as the concert film. A straight audio reissue with no new uses of the song would be unaffected.

Reissuing the single digitally would be fine, if it’s a straight audio reissue using an existing master. But anything that counts as a new use of Go West would require fresh licensing. That would include new remixes, new edits, any stills from the Go West video, any new video content. Those would all require Willis’s approval, which she’s withdrawn.

The only area where Willis currently has leverage is sync rights - the right to use the song in video. That’s why the lawsuit is about the Dreamworld concert film.

Live performances are covered by blanket performance licences, so they could legally keep playing it. But dropping it is almost certainly a strategic move to avoid giving Willis any new angles while the legal issue is being resolved.

Just to recap on the case:

Remember all this stems from the Dreamworld film; because sync rights must be negotiated separately for each new video use. Warner asked for permission; Willis refused; the film still included Go West. That’s the basis of the claim.

It has been dismissed once - but only on technical grounds. The judge didn’t rule on who was right. The complaint was dismissed because Willis:

• Didn’t serve Neil and Chris properly
• Didn’t establish personal jurisdiction in California
• Didn’t allege specific actions by them
• Didn’t clearly state how they infringed her copyright

Willis was given 21 days to fix the problems; she refiled the case and it’s now active again. But it’s still stuck at the “is this lawsuit even valid?” stage: A hearing scheduled for February 2026 was cancelled. The judge decided they didn’t need oral argument and will rule on the motion to dismiss based on the written filings. Everything is now in limbo until that ruling appears.

Possible outcomes:

The judge is deciding a Motion to Dismiss. That means the court is not looking at who’s right about copyright yet - only whether the lawsuit is legally valid enough to continue.

From here, there are four realistic outcomes.

1. The judge dismisses the case entirely (most likely)

This would mean:

• The amended complaint still doesn’t meet legal standards
• The case ends unless Willis appeals

If dismissed with prejudice, she cannot refile. If dismissed without prejudice, she could try again - but judges rarely allow endless cycles of refiling.

Go West would probably remain off limits until everything is sorted.

2. The judge dismisses some parts but not others. For example:

• Claims against Neil and Chris dismissed
• Claims against Warner allowed to continue
• Or vice‑versa

The case would continue, but in a narrower form. Go West would remain on ice until it’s resolved.

3. The judge allows the case to continue as‑is

This would mean:

• The complaint is legally sufficient
• The case moves into discovery (evidence, documents, depositions)

This would drag the matter well into late 2026–27.

Again, Warner will not release anything involving Go West on video while litigation is active. PSB will likely continue avoiding the song live to prevent creating new potential claims.

4. The judge dismisses the case but gives Willis permission to amend again

This is possible but less likely, because:

• She has already been given one chance
• Courts don’t give unlimited retries

Just to clear up common misconceptions:

• The judge will not decide who owns the song
• Victor Willis’s personal feelings are irrelevant legally
• The judge will not block streaming or existing releases

No matter which outcome we get, the consequences are basically:

• No new video releases featuring Go West will be approved
• PSB won’t perform the song live until the dispute is resolved

Even though a straight audio reissue is legally safe, Warner will likely avoid any activity involving a disputed work while a lawsuit is ongoing.

New York City boy is unfortunately unaffected

Dog wrote: Mon 02 Feb 2026, 10:56 pm
New York City boy is unfortunately unaffected

*rim shot*

Greetings Dog,

Thanks for the detailed summary!

Retro.

Ah well, No West it is then.

I don't know if this is the reason they don't play the song these days.

It was part of the Strictly's medley.

leesmapman wrote: Wed 04 Feb 2026, 6:25 am Ah well, No West it is then.

Ba-dum-TSS!

We'll all just have to break out a rousing chorus of "One-nil to the Arsenal" (or insert your local variant here) and say the tune is based on a mashup of Pachelbel's Canon and the former Soviet national anthem.

leesmapman wrote: Wed 04 Feb 2026, 6:25 am Ah well, No West it is then.

Aww crap, I just used that on another thread. Had no idea it had been joked already.

Great minds think alike?

Nickname wrote: Wed 04 Feb 2026, 12:54 pm I don't know if this the reason they don't play the song these days.

It was part of the Strictly's medley.

Yes, its highly unlikely the two things are related....

Oop. There's an update:

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/cas ... nant_et_al

Friday, February 06, 2026
35 notice Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Fri 02/06 2:20 PM
NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Christopher Sean Lowe, Neal Francis Tennant (Anderson, Peter) (sjt)

The judgment was supposed to be today but this is obviously a few days behind.

I don't speak the (legal) language, so from what I can deduce from Google, does this mean that they've either settled or she's dropped the case for now, before it was decided by the judge, so that she can potentially regroup and tackle it from a different angle?

petshopgrrl wrote:Oop. There's an update:

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/cas ... nant_et_al

Friday, February 06, 2026
35 notice Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Fri 02/06 2:20 PM
NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Christopher Sean Lowe, Neal Francis Tennant (Anderson, Peter) (sjt)

The judgment was supposed to be today but this is obviously a few days behind.

I don't speak the (legal) language, so from what I can deduce from Google, does this mean that they've either settled or she's dropped the case for now, before it was decided by the judge, so that she can potentially regroup and tackle it from a different angle?

This looks like positive news. The voluntary dismissal means the case is over - at least this version of it. Because it was filed by Neil and Chris’s lawyer, it almost certainly reflects a mutual agreement to end the lawsuit before the judge ruled. It’s almost certainly “without prejudice,” but after two attempts and a near‑dismissal, a third filing is unlikely.

Depending on the terms agreed, this means Warner can now renegotiate sync rights normally.

Dog wrote: Fri 13 Feb 2026, 9:47 am This looks like positive news. The voluntary dismissal means the case is over - at least this version of it. Because it was filed by Neil and Chris’s lawyer, it almost certainly reflects a mutual agreement to end the lawsuit before the judge ruled. It’s almost certainly “without prejudice,” but after two attempts and a near‑dismissal, a third filing is unlikely.

Depending on the terms agreed, this means Warner can now renegotiate sync rights normally.

Which would be hilarious if it means they could add Go West back on to the DVD. It's the "without prejudice" part that is concerning because it doesn't shut the door. Surely she can't go on filing ad infinitum. She does seem remarkably persistent though.

It will be particularly interesting to see if it’s back in the Dreamworld setlist when they play Chile in nine days’ time. If it is, that will be a sign things have definitely changed. But if things are still being tidied up contractually they may hold off a little longer.

Go West is back!

Sandy Shaw wrote: Sun 21 Jun 2026, 12:17 am Go West is back!