The estate of late Mastodon guitarist Brent Hinds has issued a forceful statement addressing the ongoing lawsuit against the band. The statement clarifies the true nature of its claim.
The statement pushes back against the narrative that the lawsuit is simply about Mastodon’s use of Hinds’ image in artwork for a new album. It argues instead that the case centers on unresolved compensation tied to his interests in the band’s business entities.
“Unfortunately, public discussion has largely focused on Mastodon’s inclusion of Brent’s image in artwork for a new album and has sometimes portrayed the lawsuit as an effort by his family to obtain a windfall. That is not what the case is about,” the estate said.
“After Brent was excluded from Mastodon, he sought an accounting, valuation, and orderly separation of interests he held in entities owned by the founding members. He passed away before that process was finished… Brent had not yet received compensation for any of his interests.”
The estate went on to explain why Hinds’ likeness being used in the album artwork remains relevant to its broader legal argument.
“[The use of Hinds’s image, it says, matters] because it illustrates a broader commercial issue related to merchandising revenues. More specifically, it relates to whether Brent’s exclusion from the band discontinued his, and now his Estate’s, entitlement to share in Mastodon’s merchandising revenue.”
The statement further pointed to what it described as a contradiction in the band’s position.
“The remaining members maintain that Brent did not participate in Mastodon’s new album, yet the band chose to use a recognizable image of him to market that album and did so without the estate’s consent. This illustrates that Brent remains relevant to Mastodon’s brand even after his exclusion and death.”
“The estate maintains that the band cannot fairly invoke Brent’s identity when it is commercially useful, while simultaneously denying the continuing relevance of his contributions when accounting for his interests,” the estate added.
The dispute traces back to a civil complaint filed on September 3 in Fulton County Court in Atlanta, naming original Mastodon members Troy Sanders, Bill Kelliher and Brann Dailor as defendants. The filing lays out the estate’s core grievance: Hinds was never properly bought out of his ownership stake in the band and its related business entities before his death.
Mastodon sent the estate a check for $80,000 as a buyout of Hinds’ share, following a document that summarized the terms of his separation from the group. The estate has declined to cash that check. It argues the figure does not accurately reflect the value of Hinds’ interests in the band and its associated businesses.
The lawsuit comes more than a year after Hinds was excluded from Mastodon in early 2025. The separation process remained unresolved when he died in a motorcycle accident in August 2025. The estate contends that this incomplete process left Hinds, and later his estate, without any compensation for his stake in the group. This occurred despite his significant role in building its business and brand.
Mastodon has publicly disputed the estate’s characterization of events. In a statement responding to the lawsuit, the band said, “We strongly deny allegations of ill intent on our part.” The band rejected suggestions that the use of Hinds’ image or the handling of his buyout was done in bad faith.
The case remains ongoing. Both sides present sharply different accounts of what Hinds was owed and whether the band’s actions since his departure and death have honored the terms of his separation from the group.
Source: Guitar World
