Pet Shop Boys Community

Not sure if this has been shared / mentioned previously but saw this on Facebook.

The wife of the Village People’s lead singer failed to state a valid claim Pet Shop Boys members infringed her copyright.

A California federal judge dismissed without prejudice a claim brought by the wife of the Village People’s lead singer against members of the Pet Shop Boys involving a concert film including a Village People cover, finding she failed to state a valid claim for copyright infringement, failed to properly effectuate service on the band members, and failed to establish personal jurisdiction (Willis v. Tennant, No. 3:25-cv-00491-TWR-BLM (S.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2025)).

Background. Karen L. Willis, wife of Village People lead singer Victor Willis, sued Pet Shop Boys members Neil Tennant and Chris Lowe, along with Warner Music Group, over a Pet Shop Boys performance of the song “Go West” in a concert film.

Victor Willis and the Pet Shop Boys members had a good relationship until January 2024, according to the ruling in the case, when Victor Willis allegedly saw a video where Tennant spoke ill of the original Village People version of the song, which was also a hit for the Pet Shop Boys. Victor Willis allegedly tried to reach out to Tennant, who refused to call him, leading him to revoke approval for them to “use” the song.

Before approval was revoked, the Pet Shop Boys performed the song at a July 7, 2023, concert in Copenhagen, and an English company filmed the performance for a movie called Pet Shop Boys Dreamworld: The Greatest Hits Live. Warner Music Group, which according to the ruling “is responsible for obtaining authorization to use music for the Pet Shop Boys,” reached out to an agent of Karen Willis, owner of the copyright in the song, “about approval for use” of the song in the film, but Willis denied permission, according to the ruling.

Still, the concert film included footage of Tennant and Lowe performing the song, and the film was shown around the world—including in California—and released to PBS, according to the ruling.

Personal jurisdiction. Under Supreme Court precedent in Calder v. Jones, Willis needed to show that Tennant and Lowe “committed an intentional act” that was “expressly aimed at the forum state” of California “causing harm that the defendant knows is likely to be suffered in the forum state.”

But the court found that Willis failed to “allege any acts by Tennant or Lowe that contributed to the distribution or display of Pet Shop Boys Dreamworld: The Greatest Hits Live and failed to show “express aiming” at California.

“Absent specific allegations about Moving Defendants actions contributing to the distribution of the concert film Pet Shop Boys Dreamworld: The Greatest Hits Live, allowing a third party to distribute the film in California does not satisfy express aiming,” according to the ruling.

Nor did she show that her injury “arose out of or is related to any conduct” by the band members in California, the court found, granting without prejudice the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Copyright infringement. Even if she had established personal jurisdiction, Willis’s cause of action would still be dismissed for failing to state a claim, according to the ruling.

Willis alleged direct infringement, which requires showing copyright ownership of the relevant material and violation of an exclusive right assigned to copyright holders. The two sides don’t dispute Willis’s copyright ownership, but the Pet Shop Boys members deny they violated any of her rights, emphasizing they didn’t “reproduce, distribute, display, or publicly perform” the concert film.

Willis alleged that the band members violated her rights by “engaging in acts causing the infringing work to be reproduced, distributed, displayed, and publicly performed in a motion picture,” but the court found that “conclusory statement” isn’t sufficient to “plausibly state a claim for copyright infringement.”

The court granted the band members’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, dismissing the complaint without prejudice.

Service of process issues. In March 2025, Willis emailed the Pet Shop Boys’ manager to ask “who would accept service” on the members’ behalf, but the manager didn’t respond, according to the ruling. Willis then mailed her a copy of the summons and complaint in the case and also sent a copy to a United Kingdom address obtained through a “skip trace” on Tennant and Lowe, according to the ruling.

And when California lawyer Peter Anderson, representing Tennant and Lowe, reached out for settlement discussions, Willis served him via FedEx. But while “service was received and signed for at Mr. Anderson’s office or mailroom on July 9, 2025,” Anderson alleges copies of the summons were actually never received by him or his firm.

Willis didn’t attempt service under the Hague Convention, which governs international service of process, according to the ruling. She originally claimed she was told it could take six to nine months do so, but later said she was told it would take a minimum of 90 days, according to the ruling. Tennant and Lowe claim it “can take less than a month.”

Willis argued that California law allows service at a place of business, based on the alleged service to attorney Anderson, but the court found that the lawyer’s office is not the band members’ place of business under the law, additionally dismissing the case without prejudice for insufficient service.

The court granted Willis leave to amend the complaint within 21 days.

The Case is No. 3:25-cv-00491-TWR-BLM.

Judge: Robinson, T.

Greetings,

Fascinating. So that's why the DVD is delayed...

Victor Willis and the Pet Shop Boys members had a good relationship until January 2024, according to the ruling in the case, when Victor Willis allegedly saw a video where Tennant spoke ill of the original Village People version of the song, which was also a hit for the Pet Shop Boys. Victor Willis allegedly tried to reach out to Tennant, who refused to call him, leading him to revoke approval for them to “use” the song.

Does anyone where this "video" is? I would like to hear what Neil actually said.

Retro.

Is this really about Trump's use of Village people songs and Victor Willis's repositioning of the VP in a way that tries to shake off their association with gay culture?

Great to get clarity on what’s been going on here. And good news in that the lawsuit - regarding Pet Shop Boys including Go West in the concert film without permission - has been dismissed. Worth noting though that the court dismissed it not because the Pet Shop Boys won outright, but purely because the complaint didn’t meet legal standards.

But Willis can refile if she fixes the issues. To do this she’d need to:

* Properly serve the papers
* Allege specific actions by Neil and Chris that contributed to the film being distributed in California
* Clearly explain how their actions specifically violated her copyright

But whatever happens here, the fact still remains that Willis has denied rights for them to use Go West in their work. Until this is resolved - either through a new agreement or a final legal decision - Warners are highly unlikely to release the DVD, or any other new work featuring Go West, commercially.

We can reason that live performances are most likely exempt from the above given Pet Shop Boys continued to perform Go West throughout 2024, including on Strictly Come Dancing, and well after Willis revoked approval. That’s likely because live performances are covered by blanket licenses through performance rights organisations, rather than by individual copyright holders. But as we know in 2025, they’ve stopped playing it completely - presumably this is a strategic move to avoid further legal complications while the DVD issue is still up in the air.

So Willis now has 21 days to refile the complaint. If she does, things could drag on well into next year. If she doesn’t refile, Warner might try to renegotiate to eventually release the film. But this is likely to take time too. And I would say Go West is unlikely to return to the setlist until all this is settled.

Here’s hoping things get resolved soon.

For those who wish to plough through the whole summary of the case!
https://business.cch.com/ipld/WIllisTennant20251022.pdf

Tentenlad wrote: Sat 25 Oct 2025, 8:51 am Not sure if this has been shared / mentioned previously but saw this on Facebook.

Background. Karen L. Willis, wife of Village People lead singer Victor Willis, sued Pet Shop Boys members Neil Tennant and Chris Lowe, along with Warner Music Group, over a Pet Shop Boys performance of the song “Go West” in a concert film.

Victor Willis and the Pet Shop Boys members had a good relationship until January 2024, according to the ruling in the case, when Victor Willis allegedly saw a video where Tennant spoke ill of the original Village People version of the song, which was also a hit for the Pet Shop Boys. Victor Willis allegedly tried to reach out to Tennant, who refused to call him, leading him to revoke approval for them to “use” the song.

Does anyone have an idea about what Neil said against the original version?

PSBForTheMasses wrote: Sat 25 Oct 2025, 10:37 am Does anyone have an idea about what Neil said against the original version?

Neil has been on record since 1993 about how awful he thought the Village People's Go West was when Chris played it to him for the first time:

Neil: He played it to me and I said, ‘This is ghastly.’ I thought it was ghastly beyond belief. Awful. Anyway, Chris just carried on regardless.
Chris: Neil just couldn’t hear it.
Neil: Then Chris enticed me into it by pointing out that it was the same chord change as Pachelbel’s Canon. And that indeed worked.”

Willis is simply a mendacious crank.

Drico.

Drico One wrote:

PSBForTheMasses wrote: Sat 25 Oct 2025, 10:37 am Does anyone have an idea about what Neil said against the original version?

Neil has been on record since 1993 about how awful he thought the Village People's Go West was when Chris played it to him for the first time:

Neil: He played it to me and I said, ‘This is ghastly.’ I thought it was ghastly beyond belief. Awful. Anyway, Chris just carried on regardless.
Chris: Neil just couldn’t hear it.
Neil: Then Chris enticed me into it by pointing out that it was the same chord change as Pachelbel’s Canon. And that indeed worked.”

Willis is simply a mendacious crank.

Drico.

It’s likely it’s along the lines of this. The other thing which Neil has said more recently is that he sometimes forgets that their version of Go West is a cover version.

They must be glad they got Smash out the door when they did, then!

I won't pretend to understand the complexities of US copyright law but I'm somewhat confused that this dispute focuses solely on the film release, rather than the probably much more lucrative fact that Go West is still available on streaming services? Can that licence not be revoked once granted?

Neil and Chris are credited as co-writers for the parts they added to the song - this was presumably agreed between all parties before they released the song. All writers (or those who now control the rights) usually have to agree on the usage of the song. If one disagrees, it’s usually because of a falling out or to get more money out of the original deal. In theory this person could block PSB releasing the song again, though it’s already on many compilations. If they apply properly to stop use of the song then it could prevent further usage in certain media. Unless PSB agree a new ‘deal’?

Dog wrote: Sat 25 Oct 2025, 10:50 am

Drico One wrote:

PSBForTheMasses wrote: Sat 25 Oct 2025, 10:37 am Does anyone have an idea about what Neil said against the original version?

Neil has been on record since 1993 about how awful he thought the Village People's Go West was when Chris played it to him for the first time:

Neil: He played it to me and I said, ‘This is ghastly.’ I thought it was ghastly beyond belief. Awful. Anyway, Chris just carried on regardless.
Chris: Neil just couldn’t hear it.
Neil: Then Chris enticed me into it by pointing out that it was the same chord change as Pachelbel’s Canon. And that indeed worked.”

Willis is simply a mendacious crank.

Drico.

It’s likely it’s along the lines of this. The other thing which Neil has said more recently is that he sometimes forgets that their version of Go West is a cover version.

That’s just Neil exercising his right to free speech and expressing his personal opinion. I should imagine that greed is at the root of this somewhere. The irony being that Willis would have made a lot more money via the boys’ hit cover of the song than had it remained solely a Village People song.

The original was practically unknown before Psb and has remained an obscurity ever after. Imagine if Dolly Parton banned Whitney Houston's version of I Will Always Love You and demanded radio only play her, which would damage the song's reputation more?

It's such a shame, when this is about a song that is not only a huge commercial success but has deep meaning for many - the partially coded message of ''the gay utopia'' as Chris has called it of the original and then the Boys' brilliant elegiac cover.

https://stevepafford.com/gowest/

Ramzy wrote:They must be glad they got Smash out the door when they did, then!

I won't pretend to understand the complexities of US copyright law but I'm somewhat confused that this dispute focuses solely on the film release, rather than the probably much more lucrative fact that Go West is still available on streaming services? Can that licence not be revoked once granted?

Streaming services operate under mechanical and performance licenses that are typically long-term and hard to revoke once granted. Any licensing agreements made in 1993 (including co-writing credits and royalty splits) will still apply. Unless Willis can prove a breach of those original terms, she can’t retroactively block streaming or compilation releases. That’s why the lawsuit will have zeroed in on the film - “sync rights” must be negotiated separately for each use.

The driver is always money and greed, but there's a sense of cutting off your nose to spite your face here.