Will Paul McCartney Get The Rights To His Beatles Songs Back? He's Already Working On It | Page 2 | Fab Forum | The Beatles Bible

In fact, Carnival Of Light  IS A COPYRIGHTED COMPOSITION and it is copyrighted to LENNON/McCARTNEY/HARRISON/STARKEY.

Paul can’t claim sole authorship of a studio jam he led… and he’s never tried to…

Carnival Of Light was created to be played at The Million Volt Light and Sound Rave at The Roundhouse on 28 January 1967 (with a second playing there on 4 February). It was copyrighted because the recording was publicly played. Twice.

@Pablo Ramon said
It looks that way right now, anyway. You never know – they may change their minds in October, 2018, and then they will have to litigate.  

A very good write-up of the legal situation as it stands in your previous response, PR. There is a possible Spaniard spanner in the works though. The Duran Duran case which is currently heading for the UK Supreme Court.

Sony/ATV has handed back publishing on songs to US artists for the US market, two examples being Blondie and Billy Joel. However, in the case of Duran Duran, when they tried to reclaim their copyrights under US law, Sony/ATV sued in the British courts arguing that US law could not override a British contract, and that the British contract gave them worldwide rights for the whole length of the copyright.

Sony/ATV won the last round of the battle at the end of last year when the UK High Court ruled the British contract was the primary document, and a later US law could not supersede their original agreement.

This is now going to the Supreme Court to make the final decision.

Paul is extremely worried that Sony/ATV might be about to do the same to him, as they did not inform DD that they were rejecting their claim for the copyrights until the last moment they could legally reject DD’s claim.

One document I have never seen is the agreement between Paul and John made with ATV when they gave up and sold their shares.

Maybe there is a reason Yoko has left John’s side of the partnership with Sony/ATV, and maybe Paul’s pre-emptive lawsuit shows he may concerned there is something in the Northern contracts that may mean they fall under UK law, where he doesn’t get his half of publishing back, or US law which means he would.

The next moves by Paul and Sony/ATV I think will depend on the outcome of the Supreme Court. For now, let them bellow at each other like rutting stags.

 Been thinking about Paul’s legal argument since I posted it, and it seems pretty thin to me.

Here’s the problem with his argument the way I see it: His argument seems to be that Sony/ATV’s refusal to confirm they will not contest his claim when it comes into effect it 2018 prevents him from making plans for the future use of those copyrights as he would be uncertain if Sony/ATV would sue him for breach of copyright.

Sounds a reasonable position, so what’s the problem? Why does it seem a thin argument to me?

Because , even when he regains copyright (assuming Sony/ATV do not do a Duran Duran to him), there is nothing he can do with it without the agreement of Sony/ATV. Yoko has left John’s copyright with Sony/ATV, and so when the copyright comes back to him, with the exception of a few non-Beatles songs that were credited to him alone, he’ll be managing the Lennon/McCartney songbook with Sony/ATV representing John.

Since he’d have to consult and agree anything with Sony/ATV, I can’t see how he’s worried they’ll sue him for exploring possible commercial opportunities in breach of contract as they would have to be a part of any such exercise from the beginning.

The case does seem to be about getting Sony/ATV to give up all and every legal claim before the UK Supreme Court decides the Duran Duran case, just in case the change the High Court ruling made is upheld by the Supreme Court, changing the legal landscape possibly to his detriment.

It can only be one of two things.

1: Paul will take his half of the copyright away from ATV and have MPL run it along with Sony/ATV (which Yoko has left John’s half of the copyright with);

2: Paul will leave his half of the copyright with Sony/ATV allowing his and John’s interest to be administered by the same company, while he has an increased say in how those copyrights are exploited.