Please consider registering
Guest
sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register
Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search
Forum Scope


Match



Forum Options



Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters
sp_Feed sp_TopicIcon
Will Paul McCartney Get The Rights To His Beatles Songs Back? He's Already Working On It
20 January 2017
12.44pm
Avatar
Ron Nasty
Apple rooftop
Members

Reviewers
Forum Posts: 11055
Member Since:
17 December 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

In fact, Carnival Of Light  IS A COPYRIGHTED COMPOSITION and it is copyrighted to LENNON/McCARTNEY/HARRISON/STARKEY.

Paul can't claim sole authorship of a studio jam he led... and he's never tried to...

"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty

To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966

20 January 2017
12.49pm
Avatar
HMBeatlesfan
Kalamazoo, Seussville, USA
Candlestick Park
Guests
Forum Posts: 1115
Member Since:
23 July 2016
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

What sort of person copyrights a song but doesn't release it.

Maybe you should try posting more.

20 January 2017
12.49pm
Avatar
meanmistermustard
Here when I am. Not when I am not.
Moderator
Members

Reviewers


Moderators
Forum Posts: 23412
Member Since:
1 May 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

HMBeatlesfan said
Paul clearly disliked the song and didn't play on it (except for the bass from Revolution 1 ), so either every Beatle but him said yes to it, or he was drunk while the mix was being done.  

Whether or not Paul liked it is not the issue. Paul did not stop its release and that is what matters. It's called compromise, same as John agreeing to ditch 'What's The New Mary Jane '. John was determined to get 'Revolution 9 ' out and he did, thankfully.

"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)

20 January 2017
12.50pm
Avatar
meanmistermustard
Here when I am. Not when I am not.
Moderator
Members

Reviewers


Moderators
Forum Posts: 23412
Member Since:
1 May 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

HMBeatlesfan said
What sort of person copyrights a song but doesn't release it.  

So others cannot take it and say it is theirs for one.

They may think it's not that good but don't want others to use it. Or think they will keep it for later and then never do.

The following people thank meanmistermustard for this post:

HMBeatlesfan

"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)

20 January 2017
12.55pm
Avatar
Ron Nasty
Apple rooftop
Members

Reviewers
Forum Posts: 11055
Member Since:
17 December 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Carnival Of Light was created to be played at The Million Volt Light and Sound Rave at The Roundhouse on 28 January 1967 (with a second playing there on 4 February). It was copyrighted because the recording was publicly played. Twice.

The following people thank Ron Nasty for this post:

HMBeatlesfan, HMBeatlesfan, HMBeatlesfan, SgtPeppersBulldog

"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty

To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966

20 January 2017
12.58pm
Avatar
HMBeatlesfan
Kalamazoo, Seussville, USA
Candlestick Park
Guests
Forum Posts: 1115
Member Since:
23 July 2016
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Do any audio recordings survive from either event.

Maybe you should try posting more.

20 January 2017
2.23pm
Avatar
Necko
Earth
Apple rooftop
Members
Forum Posts: 7920
Member Since:
10 November 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

HMBeatlesfan said
Do any audio recordings survive from either event.  

No.

The following people thank Necko for this post:

HMBeatlesfan, HMBeatlesfan, HMBeatlesfan

I'm Necko.  I'm like Ringo except I wear necklaces.

I'm also ewe2 on weekends.

Most likely to post things that make you go hmm... 2015, 2016, 2017. 

29 January 2017
4.54pm
Avatar
SayaOtonashi
London Palladium
Members
Forum Posts: 109
Member Since:
21 January 2016
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

https://www.theguardian.com/co.....-back-sony

Sony give Paul back the rights.

The following people thank SayaOtonashi for this post:

SgtPeppersBulldog, Ahhh Girl
29 January 2017
6.38pm
Avatar
Ahhh Girl
sailing on a winedark open sea
Moderator

Moderators

Members

Reviewers
Forum Posts: 19649
Member Since:
20 August 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

SayaOtonashi said
https://www.theguardian.com/co.....-back-sony
Sony give Paul back the rights.  

Yeah, @SayaOtonashi, maybe we should make a petition and get people to sign it for Paul to get the rights to his songs back. paul-mccartney-thumb_gifheart

19 March 2017
5.41pm
Avatar
Ahhh Girl
sailing on a winedark open sea
Moderator

Moderators

Members

Reviewers
Forum Posts: 19649
Member Since:
20 August 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Bump in the road. blue-meanie

Paul McCartney should wait to get back Beatles songs, Sony/ATV says

First paragraph

By Jonathan Stempel | NEW YORK
Paul McCartney , who has waited decades to reclaim ownership of hundreds of the Beatles' songs, should wait a little longer rather than continue his U.S. lawsuit against Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC, the defendant said.

In a filing on Monday with the U.S. District Court in Manhattan, a lawyer for Sony/ATV said the publisher has never challenged the validity of McCartney's notices to terminate its copyrights in the songs, starting in October 2018.

As a result, McCartney's Jan. 18 lawsuit "impermissibly seeks an advisory opinion on a hypothetical claim" and should be dismissed for the time being, the lawyer, Donald Zakarin, wrote.

More to the story at the link. Gosh, this make my head spin. Legallalalalalalala....

Blast it all!! Give the man his music back!!

The following people thank Ahhh Girl for this post:

William Shears Campbell, moriz, ewe2, WeepingAtlasCedars
21 March 2017
8.04pm
Avatar
Pablo Ramon
Some Time in NYC
Hollywood Bowl
Members
Forum Posts: 687
Member Since:
19 October 2016
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Sony is arguing that the claim isn't "ripe," meaning there isn't an actual, substantial harm or legal wrong. At the moment, Sony still owns the songs. They haven't challenged the termination notice that takes effect in October, 2018, but it's not October, 2018 yet. The law requires that you show an actual harm in order to make a claim. The civil courts are not designed to handle theoretical lawsuits, only cases where someone has harmed someone else in a legal sense.

It's sort of like this - let's say I have a car and you want to buy it, but I tell you I need the car until July, and then I'll sell it to you. In order to make sure I don't sell it to someone else, we agree that you'll give me a $500 down payment now and then $5000 in July at which time I will give you the car.

Then, in May, you begin to believe I won't actually let you have the car come July. Can you sue me to guarantee you can have the car in July? No, of course not - since you're not entitled to complete the sale until July. Your claim isn't ripe until I've actually denied you the car in July.

Sony is saying "we own the songs until October 2018, you can have them then and not a day sooner. Until then we will be earning money with them."

The following people thank Pablo Ramon for this post:

Leppo
21 March 2017
8.20pm
Avatar
Ahhh Girl
sailing on a winedark open sea
Moderator

Moderators

Members

Reviewers
Forum Posts: 19649
Member Since:
20 August 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Thank goodness we have a legal mind in our midst. So, everything is really still on track for Paul to get his songs back. Right? @Pablo Ramon

21 March 2017
8.22pm
Avatar
Pablo Ramon
Some Time in NYC
Hollywood Bowl
Members
Forum Posts: 687
Member Since:
19 October 2016
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

It looks that way right now, anyway. You never know - they may change their minds in October, 2018, and then they will have to litigate.

The following people thank Pablo Ramon for this post:

Ahhh Girl
23 March 2017
5.41pm
Avatar
Bongo
Somewhere In Time
Candlestick Park
Members
Forum Posts: 1759
Member Since:
28 March 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

HMBeatlesfan said
I was hoping that this would give Paul exclusive rights to The Beatles catalogue and therefore let him release it without anyone else's permission.  

God knows Apple needs more money and should be re-re-re-releasing something Beatley soon, I'm sure. a-hard-days-night-paul-7

http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk38/rickdelsie/The%20Beatles/parlunread_zps28270d9d.gif BEATLES Music gives me Eargasms!  apple01

23 March 2017
6.23pm
Avatar
Ron Nasty
Apple rooftop
Members

Reviewers
Forum Posts: 11055
Member Since:
17 December 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

@Pablo Ramon said
It looks that way right now, anyway. You never know - they may change their minds in October, 2018, and then they will have to litigate.  

A very good write-up of the legal situation as it stands in your previous response, PR. There is a possible Spaniard spanner in the works though. The Duran Duran case which is currently heading for the UK Supreme Court.

Sony/ATV has handed back publishing on songs to US artists for the US market, two examples being Blondie and Billy Joel. However, in the case of Duran Duran, when they tried to reclaim their copyrights under US law, Sony/ATV sued in the British courts arguing that US law could not override a British contract, and that the British contract gave them worldwide rights for the whole length of the copyright.

Sony/ATV won the last round of the battle at the end of last year when the UK High Court ruled the British contract was the primary document, and a later US law could not supersede their original agreement.

This is now going to the Supreme Court to make the final decision.

Paul is extremely worried that Sony/ATV might be about to do the same to him, as they did not inform DD that they were rejecting their claim for the copyrights until the last moment they could legally reject DD's claim.

One document I have never seen is the agreement between Paul and John made with ATV when they gave up and sold their shares.

Maybe there is a reason Yoko has left John's side of the partnership with Sony/ATV, and maybe Paul's pre-emptive lawsuit shows he may concerned there is something in the Northern contracts that may mean they fall under UK law, where he doesn't get his half of publishing back, or US law which means he would.

The next moves by Paul and Sony/ATV I think will depend on the outcome of the Supreme Court. For now, let them bellow at each other like rutting stags.

The following people thank Ron Nasty for this post:

SgtPeppersBulldog, Leppo

"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty

To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966

30 March 2017
3.30pm
Avatar
Ron Nasty
Apple rooftop
Members

Reviewers
Forum Posts: 11055
Member Since:
17 December 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

There was a response from Paul's side yesterday, in the form of a letter to the judge from his legal team, answering Sony's assertion that Paul's claim was "unripe".

His legal team have said:

Delay would not simplify the parties' dispute, but it would prejudice McCartney. As long as Sony/ATV refuses to disavow any right to sue for breach of contract, McCartney has a cloud over the title to his works, which devalues his rights.

Adding:

By seeking to dismiss this lawsuit, Sony/ATV intends to leave McCartney in suspense. Is he exposed to claims for damages if he relies on his undisputed rights under U.S. copyright law or not? Will it sue him for breach of contract or not? Can he license his copyrights as his termination notices become effective, or does that present legal risks? Will third parties be willing to negotiate with McCartney, and at what reduction in price, concerned that they may ultimately face a Sony/ATV lawsuit for interference with contractual relations?

The following people thank Ron Nasty for this post:

Leppo

"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty

To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966

30 March 2017
5.42pm
Avatar
Ron Nasty
Apple rooftop
Members

Reviewers
Forum Posts: 11055
Member Since:
17 December 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

a-hard-days-night-ringo-8 Been thinking about Paul's legal argument since I posted it, and it seems pretty thin to me.

Here's the problem with his argument the way I see it: His argument seems to be that Sony/ATV's refusal to confirm they will not contest his claim when it comes into effect it 2018 prevents him from making plans for the future use of those copyrights as he would be uncertain if Sony/ATV would sue him for breach of copyright.

Sounds a reasonable position, so what's the problem? Why does it seem a thin argument to me?

Because , even when he regains copyright (assuming Sony/ATV do not do a Duran Duran to him), there is nothing he can do with it without the agreement of Sony/ATV. Yoko has left John's copyright with Sony/ATV, and so when the copyright comes back to him, with the exception of a few non-Beatles songs that were credited to him alone, he'll be managing the Lennon/McCartney songbook with Sony/ATV representing John.

Since he'd have to consult and agree anything with Sony/ATV, I can't see how he's worried they'll sue him for exploring possible commercial opportunities in breach of contract as they would have to be a part of any such exercise from the beginning.

The case does seem to be about getting Sony/ATV to give up all and every legal claim before the UK Supreme Court decides the Duran Duran case, just in case the change the High Court ruling made is upheld by the Supreme Court, changing the legal landscape possibly to his detriment.

"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty

To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966

30 June 2017
6.31pm
Avatar
Ahhh Girl
sailing on a winedark open sea
Moderator

Moderators

Members

Reviewers
Forum Posts: 19649
Member Since:
20 August 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

From the BBC

Sir Paul McCartney and Sony 'reach deal' on The Beatles song rights

Sir Paul McCartney and Sony have a reached a deal in a battle over who owns publishing rights to The Beatles' songs, The Hollywood Reporter says.

The musician had gone to a US court, seeking to regain the rights to 267 of the band's classic tracks.

He has been trying to get them back since the 1980s, when Michael Jackson famously out-bid him for the rights.

Jackson's debt-ridden estate sold the songs to Sony last year, along with others including New York, New York.

Sir Paul's legal case, filed in a Manhattan court in January, was over what is known as copyright termination - the right of authors to reclaim ownership of their works from music publishers after a specific length of time has passed.

He claimed that he was set to reacquire the Beatles songs in 2018, but said Sony had not confirmed that it would transfer the copyrights to him.

"The parties have resolved this matter by entering into a confidential settlement agreement," Sir Paul's attorney Michael Jacobs wrote in a letter to US District Judge Edgardo Ramos.

Confidential. a-hard-days-night-ringo-14 Inquiring minds want to know. a-hard-days-night-george-4

The following people thank Ahhh Girl for this post:

WeepingAtlasCedars, SgtPeppersBulldog
30 June 2017
6.41pm
Avatar
Ron Nasty
Apple rooftop
Members

Reviewers
Forum Posts: 11055
Member Since:
17 December 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

It can only be one of two things.

1: Paul will take his half of the copyright away from ATV and have MPL run it along with Sony/ATV (which Yoko has left John's half of the copyright with);

2: Paul will leave his half of the copyright with Sony/ATV allowing his and John's interest to be administered by the same company, while he has an increased say in how those copyrights are exploited.

The following people thank Ron Nasty for this post:

Ahhh Girl, WeepingAtlasCedars, Dark Overlord

"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty

To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966

4 July 2017
9.02pm
Avatar
C.R.A.
Land of the Rising Sun
Carnegie Hall
Members
Forum Posts: 509
Member Since:
4 February 2014
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Nice link on this matter: https://www.law360.com/article.....tles-songs

"The case is James Paul McCartney v. Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC et al., case number 1:17-cv-00363, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York."

The case number takes you to their service page where you can register for free (for 7 days) and see the actual case.

The following people thank C.R.A. for this post:

SgtPeppersBulldog
Forum Timezone: America/Chicago
Most Users Ever Online: 700
Currently Online:
Guest(s) 1
Top Posters:
Starr Shine?: 15967
Ron Nasty: 11055
50yearslate: 8663
Necko: 7920
AppleScruffJunior: 7254
parlance: 7111
mr. Sun king coming together: 6403
Mr. Kite: 6147
trcanberra: 6064
sir walter raleigh: 5201
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 88
Members: 2598
Moderators: 6
Admins: 1
Forum Stats:
Groups: 3
Forums: 44
Topics: 4952
Posts: 353525
Newest Members:
Tesco, pdCGM, Billy Shears, pat0099, hoaxing
Moderators: Joe: 5184, Zig: 9812, meanmistermustard: 23412, Ahhh Girl: 19649, Beatlebug: 17433, The Hole Got Fixed: 8042
Administrators: Joe: 5184