Paul McCartney “I am taking my Beatles Songs back from Sony”
Paul McCartney is putting Sony Music on notice … he’s going to reclaim his copyright on a bunch of The Beatles hits in the very near future whether the label likes it or not.
Sony currently holds the copyright on the songs, but in legal docs Sir Paul says they will become his property again in 2018. The tracks — including “Love Me Do,” “All You Need Is Love” and “I Want to Hold Your Hand” — are part of the Sony ATV catalog.
It’s the same group of songs Michael Jacksononce controlled. His estate sold it to Sonyoutright last year … for $750 million.
According to docs, McCartney’s tried numerous times to get confirmation Sony will transfer the rights without a fight, but says he kept getting the run around.
McCartney’s legal team is citing the 1976 Copyright Act that says that the rights to works made before 1978 must be returned to their creators 56 years after the date of the original copyright; 2018 will be 56 years since Lennon and McCartney first starting writing songs together in 1962.
“Sony/ATV has the highest respect for Sir Paul McCartney with whom we have enjoyed a long and mutually rewarding relationship with respect to the treasured Lennon and McCartney song catalog,” a rep for the publishing company tells Rolling Stone. “We have collaborated closely with both Sir Paul and the late John Lennon’s Estate for decades to protect, preserve and promote the catalog’s long-term value. We are disappointed that they have filed this lawsuit which we believe is both unnecessary and premature.”
McCartney is hoping that a U.S. court will rule in his favor ahead of a U.K. court; Duran Duran had filed a similar suit last year with a Sony/ATV subsidiary and an English court ruled that American law came second to those of Great Britain. By filing the suit in the U.S., McCartney’s legal team hopes that U.S. Copyright law and its statutory termination rules – the point at which the copyright reverts back to the writer – would take precedence over any contracts in the U.K.
McCartney and John Lennon had assigned the rights to some of the songs, written between 1962 and 1971, to various publishers; by the Eighties, a number of the songs belonged to ATV. In late 1984, Australian billionaire Robert Holmes à Court put the songs up for sale. McCartney had spoken to his then-friend, Michael Jackson, about the lucrative business of owning songs and Jackson subsequently outbid his friend, taking ownership of the Beatles’ catalogue for the price of $47.5 million.
Jackson later worked with Sony to form Sony/ATV. The book Michael Jackson, Inc. reports that as of 2014, Sony/ATV was worth $2 billion. Jackson’s heirs owned half of the business until the estate sold its share to Sony last year.
“Some time ago, the media came up with the idea that Michael Jackson was going to leave his share in the Beatles songs to me in his will, which was completely made up and something I didn’t believe for a second,” McCartney said in 2009, upon news of Jackson’s death and the revelation that Jackson had not given him his songs back. “Now the report is that I am devastated to find that he didn’t leave the songs to me. This is completely untrue. I had not thought for one minute that the original report was true and therefore, the report that I’m devastated is also totally false, so don’t believe everything you read folks.”
McCartney’s transfers of his copyright interests to Defendants’ predecessors in interest for themusical works listed in the Termination Notices on the effective dates listed therein.54.
Notably absent from Mr. Bandier’s response was any reference to PaulMcCartney’s rights of termination in view of Paul McCartney’s contracts with Sony/ATV’s predecessors. On December 21, 2016, counsel for Paul McCartney sent another letter to Mr.Bandier. (Ex. C-3 attached.) The letter explained: “As we begin to think about our plans forthese works following termination, you will understand our desire that no possibility of litigationcloud our title.” Accordingly, Paul McCartney’s counsel requested that Mr. Bandier “clarify thatSony/ATV not only regards the termination notices to be effective under Section 304(c) of theCopyright Act, but also that the termination notices give rise to no valid claim, in contract orotherwise.”55.
Bandier responded by email the same day, December 21, 2016. (Ex. C-4attached.) He indicated that he was “on holiday” but promised that he would get back to PaulMcCartney’s counsel in early January.56.
On January 5, 2017, Bandier emailed Paul McCartney’s counsel. (Ex. C-5attached.) Bandier’s January 5, 2017 message did not indicate whether Sony/ATV believed thatthe Termination Notices give rise to any legal claims against Paul McCartney. Instead, themessage indicated that Sony/ATV had retained counsel. Bandier wrote: “since you have askedfor certain assurances that amount to legal conclusions I have turned this matter over to ouroutside counsel Don Zakarin.” The message further stated: “You will have a substantiveresponse from him early next week.”57.
On January 9, 2017, Paul McCartney’s attorneys received an email fromDefendants’ New York attorney Mr. Zakarin. (Ex. C-6 attached.) The message first assertedthat “SATV has no wish to engage in litigation with Paul” McCartney. Nevertheless, themessage refused to answer the question that Paul McCartney’s counsel had asked on December21, 2016, namely, whether “Sony/ATV not only regards the termination notices to be effectiveunder Section 304(c) of the Copyright Act, but also that the termination notices give rise to no
Case 1:17-cv-00363 Document 1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 13 of 16
14valid claim, in contract or otherwise.” Instead, Defendants’ attorney wrote that the Duran Durancase “has yet to conclude” and that “with respect to your request for confirmation regarding therelinquishment of any possible rights of SATV, it seems to SATV to be premature to discusstheoretical future events which I know that SATV hopes will never arise and therefore will notwarrant or necessitate any discussion.”58.
The December 21, 2016 letter from Paul McCartney’s counsel explained PaulMcCartney’s desire that no possibility of litigation cloud his title to his works and invitedDefendants to confirm that they do not intend to take legal action against him over theTermination Notices. Defendants have refused to provide such confirmation and have thusattempted to reserve Defendants’ right to assert that once Paul McCartney’s terminations go intoeffect, Paul McCartney will have breached his contractual obligations to Defendants. Ratherthan provide clear assurances to Paul McCartney that Defendants will not challenge his exerciseof his termination rights, Defendants are clearly reserving their rights pending the final outcomeof the Duran Duran litigation in the U.K. If that goes as Defendants hope, Defendants evidentlyintend to challenge Paul McCartney’s exercise of his termination rights on similar contractualgrounds. Defendants’ position is contrary to 17 U.S.C. § 304(c)(5), which states that“[t]ermination of the grant may be effected notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary.”Because the earliest of Paul McCartney’s terminations will take effect in 2018, a judicialdeclaration is necessary and appropriate at this time so that Paul McCartney can rely on quiet,unclouded title to his rights.
COUNT IDECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NO BREACH OF CONTRACT
59.
Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 58above as iffully set forth herein.60.
Defendants have refused to acknowledge that Defendants not only regard PaulMcCartney’s Termination Notices to be effective under Section 304(c) of the Copyright Act, butalso that the Termination Notices give rise to no valid contractual claim against Paul McCartney.
Case 1:17-cv-00363 Document 1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 14 of 16
15Instead, Defendants have attempted to reserve their rights to challenge Paul McCartney’sexercise of his termination rights on contractual grounds.61.
Paul McCartney denies that his exercise of his termination rights represents a breach of any contract and denies that the Publishing Agreements are lawful or enforceableagainst him to the extent that they conflict with Paul McCartney’s Termination Notices.62.
There exists an actual and justiciable controversy between Defendants and PaulMcCartney with respect to whether Paul McCartney’s exercise of his termination rightsrepresents a breach of any of the Publishing Agreements and whether the Publishing Agreementsare unlawful and/or enforceable against Paul McCartney to the extent that they conflict with PaulMcCartney’s Termination Notices.63.
Paul McCartney seeks a declaration that his exercise of his termination rights doesnot represent a breach of any Publishing Agreement. Paul McCartney also seeks a declaratory judgment that the Publishing Agreements are unlawful and/or unenforceable against PaulMcCartney to the extent that they conflict with Paul McCartney’s Termination Notices. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time so that Paul McCartney can rely onquiet, unclouded title to his rights.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Paul McCartney prays for relief against Defendants as follows:A.
A declaration that Paul McCartney’s exercise of his termination rights does notrepresent a breach of any of the Publishing Agreements;B.
A declaration that the Publishing Agreements are unlawful and/or unenforceableagainst Paul McCartney to the extent that they conflict with Paul McCartney’s Termination Notices;C.
An order awarding Paul McCartney his costs and fees, including his attorneys’fees; andD.
Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Case 1:17-cv-00363 Document 1 Filed 01/18/17 Page 15 of 16
16
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), Plaintiff demands a trial by jury of allissues so triable in this action.Dated: San Francisco, CaliforniaJanuary 18, 2017Respectfully submitted,By: /s/ Michael A. JacobsMichael A. Jacobs (pro hac vice motion forthcoming)MORRISON & FOERSTER
LLP
425 Market StreetSan Francisco, California 94105-2482415.268.7000mjacobs@mofo.com
Tmz
