Paul McCartney settles with Sony/ATV over Beatles music rights

myosotis

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
4,224
Points
48
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.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-people-paulmccartney-idUSKBN19L2ET

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Previous threads seem to have been archived:

http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...hts-to-Beatles-songs?highlight=paul+mccartney

http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...d-by-Michael-Jackson?highlight=paul+mccartney
 
Last edited:
Even Reuters can't get it straight that Michael did not outbid Paul. I seem to be the only one alive in 85 and remember this well.
Just saw your edit. ^^. I ran over to Facebook to see if I could assist. :)
 
Barbee you are always help somebody you are a sweet person.

Michael was just a smart business person.:)
 
Tell a lie often enough.... medias agenda to make mcartney look like the victim
 
They quoted Reuters on last nights local news about the outbidding. So I logged in to set them straight. Lol.
 
barbee0715;4198178 said:
Even Reuters can't get it straight that Michael did not outbid Paul. I seem to be the only one alive in 85 and remember this well.

Not directly anyway, as in Michael and Paul did not compete in the exact same auction. However in the grand scheme of things, Michael did offer to pay a much higher price for the catalogue than what Paul and Yoko offered towards the same seller. Technically that is outbidding, if somewhat indirectly.

In the early 1980s, Paul and Yoko were offered the catalogue exclusively for £10 million each (so total of £20 million). Paul was keen but Yoko wasn't for that amount, she said they should try to get it for £5 million. As we all know, the negotiations didn't go well and the deal fell through. It seems Paul was keen to buy it for what was originally offered but Yoko didn't want to budge from her position.

Anyhow I don't think either of you are wrong, but I do think the media could expand on it a bit to provide more clarity.
 
Last edited:
respect77;4198339 said:
You are talking about something that Paul and Yoko did years before MJ even was involved in this. That's not outbidding - when they weren't involved in the same auction.

Here is an article telling the story of MJ buying the catalog. Paul was asked by Branca in advance if he is going to bid and ha said "no": https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackom...es-inside-michael-jacksons-best-business-bet/ (page 2 of the article)

Which is why I said indirectly. It wasn't the exact same auction and I did say that in my post, but it was the same seller selling the exact same product. That's enough for me to consider it a form of indirect outbidding (in saying this, I can see why you and Barbee don't). I agree with Yoko in your quote though, I've always been glad it was Michael Jackson who owned it and for the most part would appreciate the importance of the music in the catalogue, rather than some grey suit who wouldn't be able to properly appreciate it and deal with it appropriately.

There are other factors at play that aren't mentioned in the snippet however as to why McCartney didn't (or couldn't really) make any more offers that I wish to point out. Yoko evidently wasn't interested in paying more than £5 million or so, but many MJ fans wonder why Paul McCartney didn't just buy it all himself when offered. There are a few things to keep in mind. These negotiations took place not long after John Lennon had been murdered and for Paul McCartney to swoop in so soon after his friend was murdered and buy out his share of the catalogue as well would be faced with a HUGE backlash not just by the media, but also by the public.

This was back during a time when the media liked to pit The Beatles against each other following their incredibly messy breakup, especially Lennon and McCartney as they suffered a very public fallout with each other at the beginning of the 70s. They had been making amends in private for some time before Lennon's death, but people still liked to take sides and pit them against each other, often siding with Lennon right after his death.

Paul was in between a rock and a hard place because he obviously wanted it and didn't seem to mind paying the original £10 million price tag (it was Yoko who suggested negotiations after all), but without Yoko he couldn't buy the catalogue without facing severe media and public backlash.

----

EDIT: I also want to add that as a massive fan of both Michael and The Beatles, I'm relatively neutral in the grand scheme of MJ buying the Beatles publishing rights. I can see why both parties did things and feel the way they do. My opinion is that I prefer these rights to be with their artists/next-of-kin, but I'm not opposed to other artists owning these rights so long as they're respectful of the original artists intentions. I think this is a complex issue that been exponentially blown out by the media and fans on both sides - especially given Michael didn't really publicly speak about it and Paul had moved on for the most part by the close of the decade. This is evident given his more relaxed and accepting attitude in interviews, but also the fact they caught up a number of times from the late 80s onwards + Paul spoke in Michael's defence during the first allegations. It just seems to be the fans and media who rile things up I feel. I wish it didn't turn out as badly as it did, I always loved seeing my two favourite musicians work together and they evidently got along really well as artists.
 
Last edited:
I think this is a complex issue that been exponentially blown out by the media and fans on both sides

No one criticised Paul for his conduct, nor made up garbage or slanted the truth to shame him. Least not that I ever saw. Paul did repeatedly bleat about the situation throughout the years which brought a lot of attention to it, however. I never saw Michael doing impersonations of Paul for laughs, either.

So I wholly reject your assertion here but I speak for myself as a Michael Jackson fan, and I don't speak for his fans in general.
 
^^He didn't even defend himself to say he asked first through Branca Paul and Yoko if they would buy the catalog. That's not outbidding, nor stealing; Paul and Yoko always had the preference to buy it first but they missed the opportunity and Michael bought it. It has pissed me off Paul has behaved himself as the victim and a little whiny boy who had his precious toy taken away from him.
 
Even more so when he owns the rights to other peoples songs. Pot kettle black comes to mind.

He should just get over the fact he amongst others made a big mistake letting them go and maybe? A bigger one not putting in an offer when he had the chance.
 
^^He didn't even defend himself to say he asked first through Branca Paul and Yoko if they would buy the catalog. That's not outbidding, nor stealing; Paul and Yoko always had the preference to buy it first but they missed the opportunity and Michael bought it. It has pissed me off Paul has behaved himself as the victim and a little whiny boy who had his precious toy taken away from him.
You never know how Paul is going to tell the story. It all seems to depend on where he is and who is his audience.
One time he'll say Michael bought the songs fair and square and explain that he didn't want to bid because he didn't want it to look like he was taking advantage of John's death. Then the next he'll tell the story of giving Michael financial advice of investing in catalogs and Michael says "I'm going to buy YOUR songs. And he did." (Insert baby voice there).

Just last year I watched a YouTube video and he and Katy Perry were on a popular English talk show (don't remember the name) and he was once again, telling the story about Michael getting his songs. The audience was roaring with laughter. Then Katy Perry, who was not smiling, turned around to him and said "But you're doing pretty OK financially, aren't you?" He actually looked a little ashamed for a minute.
 
So reading some of these comments, I've gone and had a think about my stance on the issue. I'm not going to lie, yes I'm still relatively neutral on it all but I'm more sided towards Michael because of the shit he has got for it over the years (funnily enough, I went to an old post I did and that was my opinion two years ago, which is a much balanced one I feel). I don't think Paul is as much of a victim as some people portray him to be, especially when it comes to Michael Jackson but I do feel bad for him when I consider the original deal that was signed in the early 60s, given how young and inexperienced they were when it came to these deals at the time. Going back to the MJ deal, I can see valid points of views from both parties and I think both parties could have done things better. It's an unpopular opinion here I'm sure but whatever, it is what it is.


I still stand by my opinion that it's the media and fans who often blow this out of proportion or keep bringing it up. Yes, Paul has talked about it over the years, sometimes on his own accord but many times he's been asked about it by the media and interviewers so of course he is going to talk about it. His attitude has improved over the years (as it should). For example @Barbee, I just watched that Graham Norton clip with Katy Perry and he was literally straight up asked about by Graham Norton. He tried to play it off by saying they got ripped off (in the earlier days with their deal they made starting out as Beatles) and then opening his arms and saying "But you know, what the heck". Norton pressed further about it, so Paul tells the story and finishes it with a comical ending. Additionally, on a minor note Katy Perry doesn't look uncomfortable but she is laughing along (and to be honest, I don't really see the issue with impersonating Michael's higher pitch voice, given that's how literally he publicly conducted himself at the time). I didn't see that financial comment though, the clip cuts off right before then.


Generally I have seen crap thrown at both sides by respective fans in the comment section (yes, more with a biased towards MJ hence me siding with him more). As someone who likes both and likes to focus on the music, it's gets quite annoying to see every single conversation about Michael Jackson and Paul McCartney turn into this. I'm not talking about this specific topic we're on right now, because it's specifically on the subject and in the Tribulations section, but I mean the ones that are meant to focus on their creative work dissolve into this discussion - such as that Say Say Say topic linked above. It's to the point where I'll see an article about MJ and Macca on either artists' social media, and I'll sort of roll my eyes and expect any discussions about their creative work turn into this topic. Also for the record, yes I have commented in Michael's defense elsewhere.



I'm mainly just saddened that it had to come to this because I loved the work they did together and wish they did more. Whenever I think about them, I tend to focus on the more positive aspects of their relationship.
 
Last edited:
^^What happened to your font, Historic? I had to blow it way up to read that.
You're right-it was the Graham Norton show I was talking about, and that's the "party story" that Paul has told over and over-and it's funny that way. Like I said, he more or less tells it that way for the audience. Don't get me wrong, I like Paul-he just irritates me sometimes with that-because people hear what they want to hear and they obviously jump to the conclusion that Michael "stole" the songs from Paul. I do feel bad that John and Paul got ripped off in the early days, but that happened to 99% of all musicians/songwriters back then. You sign a contract, you're young, you want that deal so people will hear your music, you have no idea what you're doing.


A lot of this outrage (and I see these fights on YouTube, etc. all the time) come from fans and critics who didn't want Michael to have the catalog-and thought Paul should have it. Paul actually got more upset over the use of the catalog in commercials like the Nike ad (Yoko loved it-she said it introduced John's song to a new generation), but Paul, George and Ringo got upset enough to sue over it. Oddly enough, though, they just sued Nike and EMI for the recording rights, not Michael for the publishing rights. But as I remember, Michael was the one who got the heat on it.
Paul also thought the royalty rate he was receiving was too low, and since Michael was a "friend", he would raise it. Michael didn't-and that's where the "it's just business, Paul" line came from. They were at odds for awhile, but obviously were OK when they visited the Black or White set a few years later. Paul's a savvy businessman, himself, so he knows he probably would have done the same thing.



 
^^Im on mobile right now so I'll have to look for good when I get home, but hopefully that fixed it? (EDIT: Fixed it! Thanks Barbee).

And yeah. I think that's the only thing I would've wanted done differently if I was Michael, change the royalty rate for Paul, as a small token to say thanks for introducing me to the world of music publishing. Michael had every right to refuse however and he did, but I think that was the nail in the coffin for their friendship, even if they got along better after a few years. Along the BoW set visit, there's a photo from the backstage of either Paul or Michael's show from the late 80s, and they're partying around! I love this picture. I've never found a high quality version though...

JacksonMcCarDM_468x362.jpg


Also, I know that Michael wasn't sued and please correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't he have had to sign off to allow the use of the songs in the commercial? That was the only thing I didn't like in regards to Michael owning it, apart from that I was happy with his use.
 
Last edited:
And that pic shows what a whiny hypocrite paul is! talking smack bout mike but when mike be around him he be "best friends" with him SMH LOL
 
I don't really see the issue with impersonating Michael's higher pitch voice, given that's how literally he publicly conducted himself at the time

It's meant to discredit him. To make him look silly. Maybe even naive.

Are you suggesting an interviewer or audience might not recognise which Michael Jackson was being discussed without the impersonation? Come on now.
 
And that pic shows what a whiny hypocrite paul is! talking smack bout mike but when mike be around him he be "best friends" with him SMH LOL

I don't think he wanted to be "best friends" with MJ, if he did there'd be more than 2 documents of them catching up post-Thriller era. Human relationships are much more complex than what you're making it sound like. They goofed around a lot like that when they were best friends before the fallout, even if they have their differences it's not entirely impossible for one to momentarily slip into it if they are around each other. I've literally done that with people I've had fallings out with myself, even if it was more reserved.

It's meant to discredit him. To make him look silly. Maybe even naive.

Are you suggesting an interviewer or audience might not recognise which Michael Jackson was being discussed without the impersonation? Come on now.

No I'm not suggesting that, but if Michael didn't want to look silly, maybe he shouldn't have put on a fake, silly voice when talking in public throughout the OTW/Thriller era (and I'm glad he dropped that act by the Bad era). There were times it was tolerable, but then there were times while watching the OTW documentary I kind of just rolled my eyes because it did sound silly and it was distracting.
 
d871bb24fa7dbac151d54e15a7788e7f.jpg


I hope Paul gets his songs soon. The above shows there were no hard feelings. Paul was allowed feel angry, but he got over it.

Ah poor Michael and Linda. I love this photo.
 
^I wonder and hope there are more! I remember someone showed that to me on the Say Say Say 2015 remix thread and I was really surprised!
 
HIStoric;4198472 said:
No I'm not suggesting that, but if Michael didn't want to look silly, maybe he shouldn't have put on a fake, silly voice when talking in public throughout the OTW/Thriller era (and I'm glad he dropped that act by the Bad era). There were times it was tolerable, but then there were times while watching the OTW documentary I kind of just rolled my eyes because it did sound silly and it was distracting.

You're free to dislike how he spoke during those eras, so was Michael to conduct himself however he pleased as far as I'm concerned. That didn't justify Paul's passive-aggressive whining attitude like Michael took advantage of him and twisting the truth for his convenience and I'm not saying he didn't have any right to be angry. I'm favoring Michael because it's a fact the seller approached him and Yoko first and none of them wanted to buy the catalog, years later Michael asked Branca to contact them and ask if they'd bide on it that time, they refused again and he bought it. Even Michael was giving them the preference to buy it first. For the record, I do love Paul, I grew up listening to the Beatles, their sólo stuff and the duets with Michael are my favorite collaboration from both of them but I'm not afraid to call him out based on facts, a thing the Beatles only fans are unwilling to do
 
and none of them wanted to buy the catalog

Yeah see, I don't believe it is as simple as Paul just not wanting it. He wanted it and he seemed to be happy to pay the initial price offered, but Yoko wasn't willing to pay more than half of what was offered.

Yoko was important in the mix because if he bought it without Yoko, especially so soon after John Lennon's death, then he would've got heavy backlash from the media and public for "swooping in" right after John Lennon's murder and "stealing his share" or what have you. Similar to this situation with Michael, actually (and this was a time when Paul wasn't always viewed as favourably in the press as he is today). I don't think there was an option for Paul to buy just his share either, I imagine Paul would've.

I believe that's why he backed off and never bought it. When he gets the rights back beginning in a year or two, he's only getting his share back. Yoko has already done a deal for John's share, quite a while back I believe.
 
Forgot to add, imagine if for some people a barely adult guy in his early 20s sounded silly doing a high pitched voice, now picture a 70+ man trying to sound like a baby when Michael stopped doing that in his late 20s every time he's asked about him and the catalog. Is It necessary to do that cheap impersonation every single time? Quite ridiculous of Paul.

And given the way John was murdered, it was understandable of Yoko not rushing to buy John's share at that moment and after that, she didn't want to deal with Paul as it was reported. In 1980 it was understandable not buying it but not at least to me when Branca asked them.
 
Even more so when he owns the rights to other peoples songs. Pot kettle black comes to mind.

He should just get over the fact he amongst others made a big mistake letting them go and maybe? A bigger one not putting in an offer when he had the chance.
Lets just be real and see the elephant in the room. Many of those who judge MJ on this issue is upset that a BLACK artist owns the biggest music by the biggest white group. Paul owns and out bid others to get their rights and no one is upset but when it came to MJ, folks were mad. Sorry but in black music, writers, and communities, blacks were happy to see a black artist in that era (80's) to be in a position of income to do it. MJ got it fair and square.
 
Last edited:
Forgot to add, imagine if for some people a barely adult guy in his early 20s sounded silly doing a high pitched voice, now picture a 70+ man trying to sound like a baby when Michael stopped doing that in his late 20s every time he's asked about him and the catalog. Is It necessary to do that cheap impersonation every single time? Quite ridiculous of Paul.

And given the way John was murdered, it was understandable of Yoko not rushing to buy John's share at that moment and after that, she didn't want to deal with Paul as it was reported. In 1980 it was understandable not buying it but not at least to me when Branca asked them.

It would look ridiculous if he always spoke like that, but he's not, he's doing a caricature of Michael Jackson and people understand that. Really the only people who think he looks ridiculous are Michael Jackson fans because for the general public it's common knowledge that Michael spoke with an unusually soft voice. He spoke with it during the peak of his success/cultural impact which is why most people will associate that voice with him.


It's also why almost every parody of Michael features it, because it's a caricature of him. Kinda like how many parodies of him feature him wearing a single white glove when he really only wore it during the Thriller era, and most times just to perform Billie Jean. On a similar note, The Beatles distinct Liverpool accents are often caricatured when they are parodied too.

Re: Yoko, Yeah I can understand if she wasn't keen to get John's share so quickly given how unpopular she is (and often rather unfairly imo). Unfortunately, it still hindered Paul too. I wish they were offered it before John's shooting, I think it would've gone down better for everyone.
 
Also, I know that Michael wasn't sued and please correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't he have had to sign off to allow the use of the songs in the commercial? That was the only thing I didn't like in regards to Michael owning it, apart from that I was happy with his use.
I am not 100%, but I do believe that he had to sign off on it, because of the publishing, even though it was the master recordings that were used. I think since he was good friends with Yoko at that time, he agreed with her stance that it introduced John and the Beatles to a completely new young audience and actually, I thought the commercial was really inspiring. I like it before I started hearing all the backlash.
But then, I was like Michael, and a little kid when those songs came out and I wasn't part of the "hippie" 60's and considered it a sacred anthem.
 
I am not 100%, but I do believe that he had to sign off on it, because of the publishing, even though it was the master recordings that were used. I think since he was good friends with Yoko at that time, he agreed with her stance that it introduced John and the Beatles to a completely new young audience and actually, I thought the commercial was really inspiring. I like it before I started hearing all the backlash.
But then, I was like Michael, and a little kid when those songs came out and I wasn't part of the "hippie" 60's and considered it a sacred anthem.

Yeah, Yoko was fine with it but none of the living Beatles were. It's interesting though how out of the all the parties involved with getting the song on the commercial, he was the only one who they didn't sue. I'm really keen to know why because if MJ would have had to approve it's use for the songs to be used.
 
It would look ridiculous if he always spoke like that, but he's not, he's doing a caricature of Michael Jackson and people understand that. Really the only people who think he looks ridiculous are Michael Jackson fans because for the general public it's common knowledge that Michael spoke with an unusually soft voice. He spoke with it during the peak of his success/cultural impact which is why most people will associate that voice with him.

It's also why almost every parody of Michael features it, because it's a caricature of him. Kinda like how many parodies of him feature him wearing a single white glove when he really only wore it during the Thriller era, and most times just to perform Billie Jean. On a similar note, The Beatles distinct Liverpool accents are often caricatured when they are parodied too.

You might think it's funny or cute. I just find it classless and disrespectful.

It's one thing to enhance someone's strong regional dialect or accent but another to make them sound like Mickey Mouse.
 
Back
Top