The music industry should be about just that—the music. Unfortunately, the huge sums of money involved in the business inspire all sorts of ugliness, including underhanded deals and deceptive contracts that lead to lengthy legal disputes, which only end up getting in the way of the music.

Many artists have struggled against the business-side of the music industry for one reason or another, but these 5 artists went one step beyond, engaging in epic feuds that often threatened to overshadow their actual work.

John Fogerty vs. Fantasy Records

John Fogerty was the voice and the brains behind the 1960s roots-rock hit-makers Creedence Clearwater Revival, but in 1972, he wanted out of the band and out of his suffocating contract with Fantasy Records. He ceded a large portion of his royalties to Fantasy’s owner Saul Zaentz so he could record elsewhere, but still spent a significant time fighting Fantasy in court after they lost money they owed to him in an offshore tax shelter deal gone awry.

In 1985, Zaentz accused Fogerty’s new song “The Old Man Down the Road” of being a carbon copy of the Creedence hit “Run Through the Jungle,” for which he owned the copyright. Essentially, he accused Fogerty of plagiarizing himself, resulting in further court proceedings that kept Fogerty from recording new material. The jury ruled in Fogerty’s favor, and in 2005, almost immediately after Zaentz sold his shares of Fantasy, Fogerty re-signed with the label.

Neil Young vs. Geffen

Never one to box himself into one specific genre, Neil Young started the ‘80s with 1982’s truly out-of-left-field Trans, a synth-heavy electro album that sounded nothing like his earlier country, folk and rock recordings. That didn’t sit well with David Geffen, the head of Geffen Records, which Young had only recently signed with.

“They told me they wanted me to play rock 'n' roll, and told me I didn't sound like Neil Young,” Young said, “so I gave them Everybody's Rockin' and said, 'This is a rock 'n' roll album by Neil Young after someone tells him what to do.’” Angered, Geffen sued Young in 1984 for $3.3 million for making music that was not “commercial” and “unrepresentative” of himself, and Young countersued for $21 million. Both suits were dropped after Geffen apologized, and Young returned to the label in 1988. An album of live performances of new songs recorded in the midst of the lawsuit finally saw the light of day in 2011, titled A Treasure.

Prince vs. Warner Bros.

Prince had clashed repeatedly with his record label Warner Bros. when he finally decided he wanted out of the contract he had signed with them in 1977 and extended in the early ‘90s.

Prince frequently disagreed with the record company, especially when it came to his enormous backlog of songs, which he wanted to release as soon as they were ready. Prince went rogue in 1993. He changed his name to the unpronounceable symbol , later dubbed “love symbol #2,” but was commonly referred to as “the artist formerly known as Prince.”

He was widely mocked by media and fans alike for the name change, but his new tendency to perform with the word “SLAVE” on his cheek gives some insight into the reason behind his rebellion. “The company owns the name Prince and all related music marketed under Prince. I became merely a pawn used to produce more money for Warner Bros.,” he once said in a press release. Prince went back to using his own name in 2000, once the contract had expired, and continued to speak out against big record companies while releasing music in innovative ways on his own independent label — though he still re-signed with Warner Bros. in 2014.

Johnny Cash vs. Columbia Records

In 1964, Johnny Cash collaborated with songwriter Peter La Farge for a socially conscious concept album that would make waves even today — a collection of storytelling folk ballads about the past and present injustices perpetrated against Native Americans titled Bitter Tears.

The album was banned and censored, rejected by country purists as un-American, and Cash was caught in the middle of a career-threatening controversy. His label Columbia Records pulled advertising for the album and Billboard had publicly refused to review it, so Cash bought a full-page ad in the magazine and penned an open letter to the music business.

“I had to fight back when I realized that so many stations are afraid of ‘Ira Hayes.’ Just one question: ‘Why?’” Cash bought a thousand copies of the album’s widely-banned lead single “The Ballad of Ira Hayes” from Columbia and had copies sent to every radio station in the US. The song reached the Billboard Top 10 in December 1964. Columbia later dropped Cash entirely in 1986, ending a 26-year-long relationship because the singer wasn’t bringing in enough money. Cash enjoyed a big comeback eight years later with a series of albums with American Recordings.

Michael Jackson vs. Sony Music Entertainment

The 2001 release of Invincible — Michael Jackson’s first album in six years and the final full LP of his career — was marred by an earlier dispute between Jackson and his record label, Sony.

Jackson believed the licenses to his own albums’ master recordings would revert to him in the early 2000s, but certain clauses in his contract extended the date several years into the future — a fact Jackson’s attorney had overlooked, probably because he was also representing Sony in the same deal. Sony had also been pressuring Jackson to sell his large share of their music catalog venture, and thus may have had an interest in seeing his album fail and him forced to sell his shares.

Invincible’s sales suffered due to the ongoing legal battle and lack of any promotional tour. Jackson railed against the greed and alleged racism of Sony execs, including then chairman Tommy Mottola, who Jackson alleged called his colleague Irv Gotti a “fat n*gger.” Sony refused to renew Jackson’s contract and blamed the record’s failure on Jackson’s refusal to tour during the dispute. Jackson said in 2002, “The recording companies really, really do conspire against the artists — they steal, they cheat, they do everything they can. [Especially] against the black artists.”