Nike Calls Beatles Suit Groundless
By JON PARELES
Published: August 5, 1987
Nike Inc., the company that used the original recording of the Beatles' ''Revolution'' in an advertisement for running shoes, said yesterday that a $15 million suit filed by the Beatles' British and American companies was groundless.
Philip H. Knight, chairman of Nike, was responding to the suit filed by Apple Corps Ltd. and Apple Records in State Supreme Court in Manhattan last week against Nike; Wieden & Kennedy Advertising, the company hired by Nike to produce the commercials, and Capitol-E.M.I. Records.
Mr. Knight said the suit was only ''the latest skirmish'' in a legal battle between Apple and Capitol-E.M.I.
''We negotiated and paid for all legal rights from Capitol-E.M.I., which has the licensing rights to all the Beatles' original recordings, and S.B.K., which represents Michael Jackson's interests as owner of the publishing rights,'' Mr. Knight said. ''Any implication that we did anything improper or disrespectful to the Beatles is untrue in our opinion.'' New Version Planned
The commercials edit the three-minute John Lennon-Paul McCartney song into 30-second and 60-second versions. The advertisements began running in mid-March and have now tapered off, Mr. Knight said, but he expects new versions using ''Revolution'' to run in the fall.
Leonard M. Marks, Apple's lawyer, said that Apple had offered to drop the suit if the commercials were withdrawn. Melissa Schumer, a Nike spokesman, said the company was unaware of that offer.
Yoko Ono, John Lennon's widow, expressed approval when the commercial was released; she was quoted in Time magazine as saying the commercial ''is making John's music accessible to a new generation.'' The surviving ex-Beatles have not commented publicly. Leonard M. Marks, Apple's lawyer, said yesterday that Ms. Ono and the three surviving Beatles each own 25 percent of Apple and that the company requires ''unanimity among the four Beatles' interests in order to act,'' implying that Ms. Ono had concurred in bringing the suit. ''They are all outraged about the commercial,'' he said. Beatles Received Nothing
Mr. Marks said that Nike had paid $250,000 for the rights to the recording (which a Capitol spokesman would not confirm or dispute) and that the Beatles received no payments for the commercial.
In a statement, Bob O'Neill, general counsel and vice president of Capitol-E.M.I., called the suit ''absurd and nonsensical.''
Recordings carry two copyrights, for publishing (the words and music of a song) and for performance, as embodied in the recording.
The Nike suit brings to three the number of lawsuits now pending over ownership of Beatles recordings and royalties on them. In July, Apple filed a $40 million suit in Manhattan charging that Capitol-E.M.I. unfairly delayed release of the Beatles' albums on compact disks for two years and was charging too much for packaging costs.
A suit filed in 1979 charges that Capitol-E.M.I. underpaid the Beatles for their recording royalties between 1969 and 1979. The amount under contention was recently reduced by a court in Manhattan from $80 million to $30 million, and allegations of fraud were dropped. ''It's now a contractual dispute,'' said Sue Satriano, a Capitol spokesman.
http://www.nytimes.com/1987/08/05/arts/nike-calls-beatles-suit-groundless.html
This sounds like what Paul McCartney was referring to when he said that Michael's concerts were being underwritten by the Nike commercials.
