The King of Pop, Sir Paul, and the Right to Reclaim Copyrights
by Chris ArledgeThis may be a shocking revelation to all but the most avid news-followers, but it is apparently true: pop star Michael Jackson recently passed away. A handful of media outlets found time to cover the story, and some of them have mentioned Jackson’s feud with Paul McCartney over Jackson’s ownership of the publishing rights to some of the Beatles’ biggest hits-rights acquired when Jackson outbid Paul McCartney and Yoko Ono in the mid-1980’s.
People not familiar with copyright law might be surprised to hear that McCartney-one-half of music’s most-successful songwriting duo-must pay royalties to perform his own hit songs. The fact certainly seemed to grate on McCartney, who frequently made mention of it in interviews. But even more surprising, at least to those not acquainted with the intricacies of copyright law, is that Sir Paul will one day be able to re-acquire the rights to his music without even having to pay to buy them back.
This is true because of the Copyright Act’s reversion provisions, which allow the original author of a copyrighted work to reclaim the work many years after assigning it away. It is this same right to reclaim lost copyrights that will soon make millionaires of the heirs of Joe Shuster and Jerry Siegel, Superman’s creators, when they conclude their pending lawsuit against Warner Brothers.
Congress, seeking to protect content creators who sell the copyrights in their works before understanding the works’ true value, inserted in the Copyright Act the right to reclaim a copyright-generally by terminating an earlier assignment-after a certain number of years have passed. For copyrighted material created before 1978, these rights will most often be available 56 years after the work was created. So in McCartney’s case, he should be able to reclaim the copyright to a Beatles song first published in 1964 in the year 2020, and he (or, likely, his children) will retain those rights for the final 39 years of the copyright term.
For newer works-specifically, anything created after January 1, 1978-the original author has the right to terminate a copyright assignment after 35 years. So, sticking with McCartney, he and Wings released the album “London Town” in 1978. Assuming he immediately assigned the copyright to the record company-which is common in the industry-he would most likely be entitled to terminate that assignment 35 years later, in 2013. These reversion provisions, then, will become an important news item in the coming years, when composers, authors, artists, and other content creators begin to reclaim works they created and assigned away in the late 1970’s. Because of the complexity of the reversion provisions, these efforts to reclaim copyrights will no doubt spawn dozens of high-profile lawsuits as well.
There are media rumors that Jackson has left to McCartney the publishing rights in Jackson’s Beatles catalogue. If so, we may never see the coming legal clash between two of music’s biggest superstars. But thanks to the Copyright Act, even if Jackson left the rights to somebody else, Sir Paul may still get his music back soon enough.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
70 Comments
The queen is dead… so let Sir Paul get his records back…. this is like a love affair gone awry…..I still have not received my records back from my ex girlfriend….
Paul's not out in the cold, he bought the Buddy Holly catalog and many others, including Autumn Leaves, and the Vanderbilt fight song Dynamite.
(Paul McCartney)…must pay royalties to perform his own hit songs. Forgive any confusion I might have on how the music industry works, but:
1. The Beatles made a boatload of money when their holdings in Northern Songs increased in value 7-fold due to the takeover by Lew Grade; plus, they got out of the 90% tax bracket.
2. Paul receives 50% of all profit on all the songs he authored (and 25% on the songs he wrote with John, etc).
3. McCartney owns publishing rights to at least 3000 other songs in the ATV catalog, including the Buddy Holly songs…total estimated value $600 million.
Hard to feel too sorry for Paul…
[...] Campaigns for President of Those Tired of Michael Jackson Coverage Chris Arledge, Big Hollywood: The King of Pop, Sir Paul, and the Right to Reclaim Copyrights John Nolte, Big Hollywood: Power of Pop Culture: Michael Jackson’s Final Makeover My Way: [...]
[...] King over Jacko comments and Another reason MSM’s Jacko-mania reeks Chris Arledge, Big Hollywood: The King of Pop, Sir Paul, and the Right to Reclaim Copyrights Jim Blazsik: Remember Michael, but please remember Iran Broken Masterpieces: Pondering Michael [...]
Yeah, Paul is rich, but there's still something about an artist not having control of his own work. I know this is a business decision. Even if there really isn't equity in the bargaining positions between the young artist and the established publishing company, it's still a legal contract. Even so, there's still something grating about it all, so I'm fine with the artists (or their heirs) having a chance to reclaim their copyrights.
On a different point, my opinion of the post-Thriller Jackson would tick up substantially if he left the Beatles copyrights to McCartney. Even if he did, however, my guess is that there would be a big fight about it. I'm sure the family wouldn't want something so valuable to just be given away (maybe there would be a provision for Paul to have the option to purchase the rights?), but there's also the issue of Jackson's debts and whether such a valuable asset would be allowed to be given away while creditors are left unpaid.
Was this the author's way of bashing Michael Jackson?
Very important issue!
I never did understand how an author could "sell" his copyright, least of all to corporations. The whole point of copyright law was to protect the right of the author/creator to own his work. Did the "Disney Corporation" create Mickey Mouse? Nobody can buy the right to say he wrote something.
[...] the original post here: The King of Pop, Sir Paul, and the Right to Reclaim Copyrights This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
This all stems from that fact that Paul didn't buy his own rights when he could have, before he met Jackson, so I really don't feel too much for him. Jackson snookered him out of a business deal, but if the one catalog you fail to buy is your own…well, that's just kind of dumb. This will be interesting to see–Jackson borrowed heavily against the value of the catalog in the last decade or so, and I believe Sony music holds it now. So it may be somewhat later than 2020 before the McCartney family gets it back.
It's about publishing the music or image. The image has been created. That's established. Now the "new" owner, ABC Corp wants to have condoms manufactured with Mickey's image printed on them. The originator of the image can't COMPLAIN about it, they SOLD the rights. I don't understand why anyone would side with Sir Paul on this one. If he want's his catalogue back, BUY IT BACK.
I hear ya…that stuff usually bothers me more than breaking up with the ex.
"Hey there, it's me…no, I didn't call for that. Look, do you still have my copy of Night at the Roxbury? Can you mail that back to me or something?"
True story.
yes…wise business move by Jackson's money people, now the still living icon want's his publishing rights back. I say, "Yo Sir Paul, bidding stars at $650, 000,000. Ya in?"
yes…wise business move by Jackson's money people, now the still living icon wants his publishing rights back. I say, "Yo Sir Paul, bidding stars at $650, 000,000. Ya in?"
Agreed…compared to musicians who actually don't own their songs anymore after joining a record label, or people in tv and comics who create their characters and then lose all the rights to them after getting tv shows made, I'd say Paul isn't doing too badly.
Did you SELL the records to your ex? No? Sir Paul SOLD his music to Jackson's estate. Big difference. I could give a flip about Jackson or the jackals circling his corpse. This seems like a fundemental point of law to me.
Particularly when he or his people SOLD their own catalogue. It wasn't STOLEN FROM HIM and now that Jacko's dead he can get it back…this is ridiculous…
I recall reading that Paul and Yoko were dragging their feet on buying the songs, even though both had more than enough millions to buy them in partnership without too much financial duress. A while earlier, Paul had taken Michael under his wing and taught him about buying music copyrights and how it can generate easy money over the long haul. Michael swooped in when Paul and Yoko were being indecisive and bought the catalog with the Beatles songs. Paul was really P-O'd about it, but Michael had waited and when Paul and Yoko were taking their sweet time to decide to make the purchase, Michael finally did the deal. Kinda like beating your chess teacher at a game of chess… I think that was an added source of irritation. Paul had taught Michael about buying music copyrights and the student was much quicker on the draw than the teacher. Life sucks, Paul, but Michael bought the copyrights fair and square, despite your whining.
The Superman copyright between Warner Bros. and The Siegels and Shusters is much more interesting. If the two families regain the character, their Superman is different from Warner Bros. Superman. They would have to make a deal with each other.____
With the Michael Jackson estate left with his debt, the Beatles catalog he owns may not be his much longer. At least MJ's kids will have his own catalog to live off of.
Yes, it's the author's way of bashing Michael Jackson through Paul McCartney's bashing of Michael Jackson.
I don't believe that McCartney sold his rights to Jackson. Jackson bought them from the record company that had the rights to the Beatles' catalogue from when they first started out. McCartney had wanted to buy them himself, but Jackson outbid him. Not quite the same thing.
That's actually a fairly decent provision of copyright law, as it helps artists who sold their work when young and broke to regain control and profits after a fair term when they are older. Using Sir Paul as a needy example is, however, beyond the pale. The guy is essentially a Hoover Dial-a-Matic vacuum, sucking up copyrights hither, thither, and yon; clear to the ends of the earth. His copyright holdings are so vast I'm betting no one person really knows what they all are. he can gripe all he wants about Jackson having owned the Beetles catalogue, but the catalogue was sold in a calculated move to maximize the take, and he was outbid fair and square when they came back up.
Every musician should be as needy as Paul McCartney. Seriously, that would be a just world, right there. LOL!
Over the years Sir Paul has shown himself to be a pretty-hard-headed businessman who undoubtedly knows every period, comma and semicolon in American (and international) copyright law. I've read the Copyright Act and attended legal seminars on the subject (got to get that yearly CLE credit) and the reasoning or Mr. Arledge appears sound. The big question is whether Mr. Jackson used any of his rights to the Beatle's catalogue to secure loans from major lenders. The issue will be whether the Act gives rights to a third-party creditor that are superior to the original artist and "toll" the provisions of the Act. I suspect a lot of lawyers are going to grow old before the Jackson estate is finally probated.
If I sell something to you, and it goes up in value, I should (after the fact) be given the right to get it back? For free? Sounds like legalized theft to me.
The Beatles still own a chunk of the rights just not all the rights…. supposedly snopes.com has a good explanation of the true and false http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/jackson.asp
Even dead, MJ needs no help bashing himself.
Catalogue is Jackson's ipso facto. How, when, why, what the weather was that day, who Mscartney was married to, whatever. In fact to quote MJ speaking to Sir Paul" if your thinking of being my brother, it don't matter if your black or white" as long as you "PAY ME for the catalogue YOU LET GET AWAY!" "Speak to my lawyers" was/should be the next step.
Catalogue is Jackson's ipso facto. How, when, why, what the weather was that day, who McCartney was married to, whatever is irrelevant. In fact to quote MJ speaking to Sir Paul" if your thinking of being my brother, it don't matter if your black or white" as long as you "PAY ME for the catalogue YOU LET GET AWAY!" "Speak to my lawyers" was/should be the next step.
Catalogue is Jackson's ipso facto. How, when, why, what the weather was that day, who McCartney was married to, whatever, is irrelevant. In fact to quote MJ speaking to Sir Paul" if your thinking of being my brother, it don't matter if your black or white" as long as you "PAY ME for the catalogue YOU LET GET AWAY!" "Speak to my lawyers" was/should be the next step.
You mean that Buddy Holly's relatives can't knock on Sir Paul's door and say "Hi Sir Paul, we'd like Buddy's songs back, ok?" "MONEY? Why?"
Aw, have some pity on Sir Paul! He has a divorce settlement to fund!
Is it just me, or does it seem rediculous that some 30+ years on, someone still can buy and sell "rights" to songs that a large percentage of the world's population already knows by heart?
So you think that because you can hum a tune, the writer shouldn't get paid when the song is used in a TV commercial? I'd say it's just you.
Didn't Jackson BUY the rights to the Beatles catalogue? Shouldn't MCCartney BUY back his music? Did McCartney get $$$ when Jackson or his money people BOUGHT the Beatles catalogue? What is the point of this story? Poor Sir Paul? Isn't he set to profit again from his music, beyond the millions he made BEFORE selling his rights AWAY?
They can try I guess. My understanding is that when McCartney bought Buddy Holly's catalog, he started paying real royalties to Holly's widow, as opposed to the pittance that early rock n roll artists generally received, when they received anything at all, so the estate might not consider it worthwhile. Holly died 50 years ago, so we'll find out come 2015.
[...] King over Jacko comments and Another reason MSM’s Jacko-mania reeks Chris Arledge, Big Hollywood: The King of Pop, Sir Paul, and the Right to Reclaim Copyrights Jim Blazsik: Remember Michael, but please remember Iran Broken Masterpieces: Pondering Michael [...]
Only in Pepperland, my friend. And you can only get there by newspaper taxi!
You still have to pay for "Happy Birthday," dude–and that sucker's over 100 years old! If you had an oil well, and there was still oil coming out of it a hundred years later, would you give it away just because oil can be found elsewhere? Hell no–your oil, your $!
I'm not sticking up for Jacko or trying to trash Sir Paul, I respect them both as artists (Jacko was a freak in private and Sir Paul is praying at the altar of "global warming", but whatever). After reading the piece I "get it" as to why Sir Paul could regain rights that he sold. I'm sure he regrets selling his rights, but I wonder, was he immediately regretful? He DID take the money at the time Jacko acquired the rights, correct?
Good luck to Sir Paul.
— Fan for life
"Happy Birthday" is public domain. No one has to pay for it. Don't believe every bit of disinformation that comes your way.
Drop dead Paul.
Michael won 'em fair and square.
But from one classic liberal to another,
everything is in the public domain anyway.
Have a nice day.
If it's due him, he is entitled!! No matter how much money he will get, ITS HIS.
fan 4 life
Let's not forget that an artist assigning his rights away usually benefits from the transaction menetarily in one way or another. It isn't as if a rights holder is stealing from the artist.
Hopefully, this will also bode well for Mr. Fogerty of Creedence Clearwater Revival.
I have to agree with most here, feeling sorry for a mega rich star who has been wealthy most of his adult life is not going to happen. So Paul can't buy the extra lear jet for the staff to use on their off days, tooooo baaaaaddd.
ahh.. so that's what he called it.
Does anyone believe that Paul McCartney didn't know what he signed away?
More disturbing is a story I remember from a long time ago. Upon a meeting Michael Jackson was supposed to have said, 'I own you."
That was just too frigging cute for me.
Was MJ twisting the knife in about having outbid PM?
Was it a typical black man tring to guilt trip a white man over slavery?
Or both?
"Congress, seeking to protect content creators who sell the copyrights in their works before understanding the works’ true value, inserted in the Copyright Act the right to reclaim a copyright-generally by terminating an earlier assignment-after a certain number of years have passed. For copyrighted material created before 1978, these rights will most often be available 56 years after the work was created. So in McCartney’s case, he should be able to reclaim the copyright to a Beatles song first published in 1964 in the year 2020"
This has an ex-post facto smell to it.
Pop stars are usually young and naive. And people take advantage of them, left and right. But whose fault is that?
"Nobody can buy the right to say he wrote something."
There can be informal agreements to do so, like in The Fountainhead. But no, you're right, there is no standard for selling the right to say you created something. But that's not the point. What's at stake is the right to publish something, that is, the right to receive royalties when other people use the work.
If someone wants to argue that they were not competent to make a deal, or to say that the other side somehow illegally pressured them or defrauded them, then fine. Go to court.
However, there's no absolutely objective way to ensure both sides are square. That no one takes advantage of the other in a legal yet "unfair" manner. It is the nature of contracts that you may end up regretting your decision at some point. The cure would be worse than the disease, as no one would want to contract with anyone if the terms could be altered at any time down the road.
"'Happy Birthday' is public domain. No one has to pay for it. Don't believe every bit of disinformation that comes your way. "
Don't be so quick to blame people for failing to capture such a complicated situation in one sentence.
It seems the melody for "Happy Birthday" was published long before a copyright was filed. Also, whether or not the people who copyrighted the lyrics actually created the lyrics, and therefore whether they had a right to claim them as there own, is unclear. It seems probable that it is more of a folk song than anything else, given all the different variations of it that appear going back to the mid-19th century.
However, there is a copyright, and people do pay for it. So the previous poster is not incorrect.
"Copyright Act" Hah more like the "Indian Givers Act", this is a shamneless effort to rewrite sales contracts which have already occurred, this is a retroactive revision of a contract by the state, and probably a taking.
Copyright law is rediculous anyway, you write a catchy tune & get free fascist exclusive monopoly revenue protection for life with no limits so lucrative that you never have to work again and become a junky child molester, versus spending tens of billions of dollars and decades finding a cure for a disease & get mere 17 years of semi exclusive protection, what a huge disparity.
All Musicians are raped by Ascap, BMI and RIAA. Fuck all of them.
RIAA, ASCAP, BMI et al. are going to get theirs. I haven't bought one piece of shit recorded by these MOFOS since 1989, and today's kids aren't either. Fuck Obama, RIAA, ASCAP, BMI and YOU,.
Oh, i FORGOT, SESAC. fuck SESAC AS cap well.
'feel sorry for Paul"? It's not a question of "feeling sorry" for Paul, it's a question of what is RIGHT. Those songs are the result of Paul's talent, his hard work and it would gall anyone to have to pay someone else to play your own music! It has nothing to do with money, it has to do with the justice of it all.
[...] <img class="size-fuRead more at http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/carledge/2009/07/14/the-king-of-pop-sir-paul-and-the-right-to-recl... [...]
You are so confused. Paul sold the copyrights. He didn't bid enough to buy them back. Every time he plays his own music, he gets 50% of the profit. You must be a liberal.
"it would gall anyone to have to pay someone else to play your own music!"
It might gall me, but if I had sold my rights, I wasn't so galled when I was spending the money, so why should I be galled when I have4 to pay later (for public concerts which, by the way, gross me tons of money).
"there's still something about an artist not having control of his own work"
Then perhaps we should make it illegal for artists to sell their work. Any way you cut it, swooping in after they sell it, stealing it away from those who bought it, and giving it back is wrong.
I think you need blotter to get to Pepperland. ;^)
No, I'm not suggesting that at all (and my post recognizes the business relationship). What makes this odd (or grating) is that we are talking here about something intangible. This isn't a painting or a sculpture. This isn't even a situation where a songwriter sells a song to someone else who makes the song famous. This is a situation where the person who wrote the song and as a performer made it famous now can't perform it without paying someone else. It leads to other odd situations such as John Fogerty getting sued for plagarizing himself. I'm not saying that artists shouldn't be able to sell their work, intangible or otherwise, but it does lead to some odd situations.
Also, no swooping is going on. The article indicates that the reversion provision is part of the Copyright Act, which means the buyer knew it when the rights were obtained (or "grandfathered" in at the time the law was passed). Think of it as more of a lease of the rights rather than an outright sale.
I suppose it depends on what you mean by "side with." Legally, MJ outbid McC for the rights and now they belong to MJ's estate or elsewhere as designated in his will. Sentimentally, I'd rather see McC have the rights and hope he is able to buy them back.
Yes, I seem to recall Yoko's role in this too. Figures. As much as I hope Paul gets the rights back, Yoko, not so much.
Not to get into the weeds here, but Jackson couldn't have sold greater rights to the works than he had in them. Given the reversion provisions of the Copyright Act, you might think of obtaining the rights as more of a lease than a sale. Jackson as the lessee of the rights can sublease his rights in the lease to a third party, but not the rights of the original owner.
[...] King over Jacko comments and Another reason MSM’s Jacko-mania reeks Chris Arledge, Big Hollywood: The King of Pop, Sir Paul, and the Right to Reclaim Copyrights Jim Blazsik: Remember Michael, but please remember Iran Broken Masterpieces: Pondering Michael [...]
[...] King over Jacko comments and Another reason MSM’s Jacko-mania reeks Chris Arledge, Big Hollywood: The King of Pop, Sir Paul, and the Right to Reclaim Copyrights Jim Blazsik: Remember Michael, but please remember Iran Broken Masterpieces: Pondering Michael [...]
[...] King over Jacko comments and Another reason MSM’s Jacko-mania reeks Chris Arledge, Big Hollywood: The King of Pop, Sir Paul, and the Right to Reclaim Copyrights Jim Blazsik: Remember Michael, but please remember Iran Broken Masterpieces: Pondering Michael [...]
[...] King over Jacko comments and Another reason MSM’s Jacko-mania reeks Chris Arledge, Big Hollywood: The King of Pop, Sir Paul, and the Right to Reclaim Copyrights Jim Blazsik: Remember Michael, but please remember Iran Broken Masterpieces: Pondering Michael [...]
You must be logged in to post a comment.