Paul McCartney settles with Sony/ATV over Beatles music rights

[rooster59]

Paul McCartney settles with Sony/ATV over Beatles music rights

By Jonathan Stempel

 

Paul McCartney celebrates after performing with Ringo Starr (not pictured) during the 2015 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Induction Ceremony in Cleveland, U.S. on Ohio April 18, 2015. REUTERS/Aaron Josefczyk/Files

 

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Paul McCartney has reached a confidential settlement of his lawsuit against Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC in which he sought to reclaim copyrights to songs by the Beatles.

 

The accord disclosed on Thursday in filings with the U.S. District Court in Manhattan ends the 75-year-old McCartney's pre-emptive effort to ensure that the copyrights, once owned by Michael Jackson, would go to him starting in October 2018.

 

U.S. District Judge Edgardo Ramos signed an order dismissing the case, but agreed to revisit it if a dispute arose.

 

The dismissal request had been made by Michael Jacobs, a lawyer for McCartney, on behalf of the singer and Sony/ATV.

 

It is unclear how the accord affects McCartney's copyright claims. The singer's representatives could not immediately be reached on Friday for comment.

 

McCartney had sued on Jan. 18 for a declaration that he could reclaim more than 260 copyrights, including for songs credited to him and John Lennon such as "I Want to Hold Your Hand," "Yesterday" and "Hey Jude."

 

The registrations at issue also covered "Maybe I'm Amazed" and several other songs McCartney recorded as a solo artist.

 

They even covered such titles as "Scrambled Egg," which is close to the working lyric "Scrambled Eggs" that McCartney once used for the song that became "Yesterday."

 

McCartney had been outbid by Jackson in 1985 for the Beatles' song rights, which were later rolled into Sony/ATV, a joint venture with Sony Corp.

The pop star's estate sold its stake in that venture to Sony for $750 million last year.

 

McCartney sued 1-1/2 months after a British court said the pop group Duran Duran could not reclaim rights to their songs, in its case against Sony/ATV's Gloucester Place Music unit.

 

Changes made in 1976 to U.S. copyright law let authors like McCartney reclaim song rights after periods of time elapsed.

 

In his lawsuit, McCartney said he could begin exercising his rights on Beatles songs, starting with "Love Me Do," on Oct. 5, 2018.

The case is McCartney v Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 17-00363.

 

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-07-01

[roderick17]

Is he not rich enough already?

[colinneil]

Just another case of greed.

The more money they have the more they want, sheer greed.

[piersbeckett]

Putting myself in Macca's position; I'd do the same, a settlement has been reached - jolly good.

[roderick17]

MaCartney has always been known as a great musician and songwriter. He also has a reputation as being a complete tightarse as well!

[ezzra]

 

The man is reportedly worth 720 pounds and this Is what he had to say...

 

Speaking about how he and his band mates felt by the 90s, Sir Paul confessed: “We were fed up with being Beatles.

“We really hated that <deleted> four little mop-top boys approach.

“We were not boys, we were men. It was all gone, all that boy s**t, all that screaming, we didn’t want it any more.

"Plus, we’d got turned on to pot and thought of ourselves as artists rather than just performers."

[vogie]

Come on guys, he wrote the songs, what's wrong with wanting to own them?

[wgdanson]

Did the article really have to tell us that Ringo was NOT in the picture?

[zoza]

used to have a beer with one lad who married into the family and people were guessing what they would get off Paul MC  ......most said a house or a deposit on a house....they got a set of sheets.. 

give him his due he never tried to impress, drank in the local run down pub.

[chickenslegs]

1 hour ago, roderick17 said:

Is he not rich enough already?

 

1 hour ago, colinneil said:

Just another case of greed.

The more money they have the more they want, sheer greed.

 

I hope no one is feeling sorry for Sony. I think they can afford the loss.

[RobFord]

 
The man is reportedly worth 720 pounds and this Is what he had to say...
 
Speaking about how he and his band mates felt by the 90s, Sir Paul confessed: “We were fed up with being Beatles.
“We really hated that  four little mop-top boys approach.
“We were not boys, we were men. It was all gone, all that boy s**t, all that screaming, we didn’t want it any more.
"Plus, we’d got turned on to pot and thought of ourselves as artists rather than just performers."

555. Then when it became apparent how much Jackson was making McCartney asked him for a raise.

When asked how he felt about having Jackson as his "boss," as controller of the song catalogue, McCartney replied, "I think he needs to give me a raise." (None of the Beatles' royalty rates as composers had ever been increased, despite their continuing sales.) McCartney reportedly did ask Jackson for a royalty increase but was turned down, further cooling their relationship.

http://www.norwegianwood.org/beatles/english/northern.html



Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[JSixpack]

2 hours ago, colinneil said:

Just another case of greed.

The more money they have the more they want, sheer greed.

 

Yep, TVF Economists, known for astute financial management, would leave that 750 million on the table. That's how they got where they are today. Now to whinge about the inflation in bar fines since the 80s.

 

[klauskunkel]

trying to wrap my head around this:

1985 Michael Jackson (American) bought the rights to the Beatles' (British) songs 30 years later these rights are sold to Sony (Japan based multinational) then there is an American law from 1976 that lets you reclaim a copyright if you are the original creator after certain period (my guess is around 30 years) so a song like "Yesterday" which was created and released in the UK in 1965, now is subject to an American copyright law... how interesting..., why would anyone want to buy stuff like this

[helloagain]

6 hours ago, colinneil said:

Just another case of greed.

The more money they have the more they want, sheer greed.

He is a good man. He does not shout about who he helps. Stop being jealous cos you not think of yesterday

[colinneil]

13 minutes ago, helloagain said:

He is a good man. He does not shout about who he helps. Stop being jealous cos you not think of yesterday

Whatever medication you are on please increase the dose.

[transam]

3 hours ago, klauskunkel said:

trying to wrap my head around this:

1985 Michael Jackson (American) bought the rights to the Beatles' (British) songs 30 years later these rights are sold to Sony (Japan based multinational) then there is an American law from 1976 that lets you reclaim a copyright if you are the original creator after certain period (my guess is around 30 years) so a song like "Yesterday" which was created and released in the UK in 1965, now is subject to an American copyright law... how interesting..., why would anyone want to buy stuff like this

Why not.....Music has no age....Franks "My Way", a simple song is known in near every country.....How do you explain that...?

[vogie]

6 hours ago, colinneil said:

Just another case of greed.

The more money they have the more they want, sheer greed.

I have heard they are very good.

 

 

Edited July 1, 2017 by vogie

[Mansell]

I lost respect for Paul when he tried to have the writing credit on his songs with John changed so McCartney's name was first........Sad.

[transam]

1 minute ago, Mansell said:

I lost respect for Paul when he tried to have the writing credit on his songs with John changed so McCartney's name was first........Sad.

Perhaps he wrote them with a little help from a friend...?

[klauskunkel]

5 hours ago, klauskunkel said:

trying to wrap my head around this:

1985 Michael Jackson (American) bought the rights to the Beatles' (British) songs 30 years later these rights are sold to Sony (Japan based multinational) then there is an American law from 1976 that lets you reclaim a copyright if you are the original creator after certain period (my guess is around 30 years) so a song like "Yesterday" which was created and released in the UK in 1965, now is subject to an American copyright law... how interesting..., why would anyone want to buy stuff like this

 

1 hour ago, transam said:

Why not.....Music has no age....Franks "My Way", a simple song is known in near every country.....How do you explain that...?

I'm not questioning the popularity of a song,. My point is: you buy the rights to a song that was already sold once 30 years ago and suddenly the song's creator has again rights to that song due to an American copyright law even though the song was created by a British citizen in Britain.

[transam]

1 minute ago, klauskunkel said:

 

I'm not questioning the popularity of a song,. My point is: you buy the rights to a song that was already sold once 30 years ago and suddenly the song's creator has again rights to that song due to an American copyright law even though the song was created by a British citizen in Britain.

Sure I don't know about the legal stuff, but I do know what happened regarding cash to this great song, and the band bar one ain't happy..

 

 

 

[ebonykap]

2 hours ago, Mansell said:

I lost respect for Paul when he tried to have the writing credit on his songs with John changed so McCartney's name was first........Sad.

I wasn't aware of that.

I always saw John as the creative talent and Paul as the pretty melody man, and L comes before M in the alphabet so no change.

[bendejo]

There's a track on Abbey Road called You Never Give Me Your Money   (one of those tracks on side 2 that all run together).  It's about being done over by the band's manager.  Look it up.  After going through stuff like that I can see why he's putting some effort into this.  Also, it's not just about $$, it's about legacy and control of material.  E.g., preventing something like, say, a funeral business to use Eleanor Rigby in their adverts.  The family of his first wife was big-time lawyers, and they pointed out to him how they screwed themselves over in signing off the rights when they were (relatively) new to the business.

I have a vague recollection of Michael Jackson (when he owned the Beatles catalog) keeping a rap group from covering one of the songs, I think it was  Day Tripper.