Log In
Register
10.57pm
28 February 2016
Offline
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/sony-to-buy-out-michael-jackson-estates-half-of-sony-atv-publishing-20160314#ixzz42wM0J3dD
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook
11.34pm
Moderators
Members
Reviewers
20 August 2013
Offline Wha….
Jackson first purchased ATV Music Publishing, which owned the publishing rights to the majority of the Beatles’ music, in 1985 for $41.5 million at the insistence of Paul McCartney .
Again, wha…?? That’s not the way I’ve heard how that went down.
Can buy Joe love! Amazon | iTunes
Check here for "how do I do this" guide to the forum. 
(2017) 
(2018)
11.47pm
28 February 2016
Offline Ahhh Girl said
Wha….Jackson first purchased ATV Music Publishing, which owned the publishing rights to the majority of the Beatles’ music, in 1985 for $41.5 million at the insistence of Paul McCartney .
Again, wha…?? That’s not the way I’ve heard how that went down.
That sentence stood out to me too, definitely seems like a misnomer
12.18am
11 November 2010
Offline I think they just phrased it in a really bad way. Paul inspired M.J. to buy another artist’s catalog, just like how Paul bought Buddy Holly’s catalog, but Paul didn’t specifically urge M.J. to buy the Beatles’ catalog.
I'm Necko. I'm like Ringo except I wear necklaces.
I'm also ewe2 on weekends.
Most likely to post things that make you go hmm... 2015, 2016, 2017. 
12.25am
Moderators
Members
Reviewers
20 August 2013
Offline Yeah, they put the facts through a blender. Yes, the end product contains the same substances you put in, but they don’t look anywhere near the same.
The following people thank Ahhh Girl for this post:
Bullion, BeatlebugCan buy Joe love! Amazon | iTunes
Check here for "how do I do this" guide to the forum. (2017) (2018)
2.42am
28 February 2016
Offline It looks like they will only have the publishing rights to The Beatles work for a few more years . . I saw this article recently, do any of you know when the publishing rights will revert back to Paul and John’s estate?
Sir Paul McCartney is set to win back the rights to The Beatles songs.
The veteran rocker, 71, lost ownership of the publishing rights to the songs he co-wrote with late bandmate John Lennon .
Sir Paul was furious when his former friend Michael Jackson outbid him to buy the Associated Television Corporation (ATV)’s back catalogue, which includes The Beatles’ tracks, in 1985.
Getting back what’s rightfully his: Sir Paul McCartney , pictured in San Francisco on August 9, is set to win back The Beatles back catalogue
The King Of Pop paid a reported $47.5million for between 160 and 260 Beatles classics, including Yesterday and Let It Be .
However, the 1976 US Copyright Act means Sir Paul will now be able the claim back the titles once more in five years, according to The Sun.
A source told the paper: ‘Paul’s been fuming for decades. It’s as much personal as business. Now he’ll get back what’s rightfully his.’
The Act means songs written prior to 1978 turn into the property of the songwriter after 56 years.
Payday: Sir Paul will be able to receive royalties from Sgt Pepper ‘s Lonely Hearts Club Band and Abbey Road albums
Sir Paul and Michael, who recorded several songs together in the ’80s, including The Girl Is Mine, famously fell out over the purchase.
No doubt Sir Paul, who has a reported £680 million fortune already, will be looking forward to receiving royalties and licensing money for tracks he wrote in the ’60s and 1970.
Years ago, he complained at having to pay Michael royalties every time he wanted to perform a Beatles song: ‘The annoying thing is I have to pay to play some of my own songs. Each time I want to sing Hey Jude I have to pay.’
While it is unknown how much the back catalogue would be worth nowadays, in 2005, Sony paid Michael $95million for 50 per cent of the rights.
Feud: Sir Paul, pictured in 1983 with late wife Linda, famously fell out with Michael Jackson over the purchase of the rights
When Jackson died in 2009, Sir Paul denied reports he was ‘devastated’ not to have been left the rights by the tragic singer in his will.
He said at the time: ‘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 [about the will] was true, and therefore the report that I’m devastated is also totally false.’
In an interview after Michael’s death, Sir Paul admitted his resentment against the singer had faded somewhat: ‘I got off that years ago. It was something for a while I was very keen on and you can see why, naturally… [but these] sort of things can eat you up.
‘I feel privileged to have hung out and worked with Michael. He was a massively talented boy man with a gentle soul. His music will be remembered forever and my memories of our time together will be happy ones.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2394325/Sir-Paul-McCartney-set-win-rights-Beatles-catalogue.html#ixzz42xI9Kgll
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
7.13am
28 March 2014
Offline Don.W said
It looks like they will only have the publishing rights to The Beatles work for a few more years . . I saw this article recently, do any of you know when the publishing rights will revert back to Paul and John’s estate?
Heard it too, but don’t know when…. 
BEATLES Music gives me Eargasms! 
7.51am
Moderators
15 February 2015
Offline
Don.W said
It looks like they will only have the publishing rights to The Beatles work for a few more years . . I saw this article recently, do any of you know when the publishing rights will revert back to Paul and John’s estate?Sir Paul McCartney is set to win back the rights to The Beatles songs.
The veteran rocker, 71, lost ownership of the publishing rights to the songs he co-wrote with late bandmate John Lennon .
<And then came the snippage>
It can’t have been too recent an article, as Sir Paul is 73. 
Either that or 1) they’ve got his age wrong or 2) they’re actually talking about Faul, and he’s two years younger. 
The following people thank Beatlebug for this post:
Necko, Bullion([{BRACKETS!}])
New to Forumpool? You can introduce yourself here.
If you love The Beatles Bible, and you have adblock, don't forget to white-list this site! 
2.54pm
3 November 2015
Offline 
Why did Michael Jackson make it his mission to beat Paul to the chase all those years ago? Especially since they were friends. If my idol/friend wanted to get their songs back after many years and I had the money, I’d buy them and hand over the rights back to Paul. It sort of makes me angry.
Only music can save us.
2.59pm
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline Paul and Yoko took an age to get around to actually buying the catalogue and Michael stepped in and took advantage. Michael looks the bad guy but Paul and Yoko should have gotten their act together and made a firm bid instead of trying to work out what they were doing. Its business.
The following people thank meanmistermustard for this post:
KaleidoscopeMusic, Beatlebug, Bullion, AppleScruffJunior"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
3.21pm
28 February 2016
Offline meanmistermustard said
Paul and Yoko took an age to get around to actually buying the catalogue and Michael stepped in and took advantage. Michael looks the bad guy but Paul and Yoko should have gotten their act together and made a firm bid instead of trying to work out what they were doing. Its business.
I think he could of bought it himself but he was worried about the perception of how it would look if he had the rights to both his and John’s songs, he’s probably right too. The public is very fickle and could see fans calling for him to give half of the rights to Yoko or John’s kids. Apparently the story is he went to Yoko and mentioned that they would both have to put up $30 million and she insisted they could get it for cheaper. It would’ve been nice to see Paul have the rights to his songs though. He’s already got more money than he’ll ever need, I believe he’s close to a billionaire but if he had the rights to those songs all of those years it would be nice for songwriters to be able to have such a pristine example of financial success to look up to. He’s such a great songwriter that I feel like he deserves the fruits of his labor
The following people thank Bullion for this post:
Beatlebug, meanmistermustard, O Boogie4.38pm
18 April 2013
Offline Don.W said
It looks like they will only have the publishing rights to The Beatles work for a few more years . . I saw this article recently, do any of you know when the publishing rights will revert back to Paul and John’s estate?Sir Paul McCartney is set to win back the rights to The Beatles songs.
The veteran rocker, 71, lost ownership of the publishing rights to the songs he co-wrote with late bandmate John Lennon .
Sir Paul was furious when his former friend Michael Jackson outbid him to buy the Associated Television Corporation (ATV)’s back catalogue, which includes The Beatles’ tracks, in 1985.
Getting back what’s rightfully his: Sir Paul McCartney , pictured in San Francisco on August 9, is set to win back The Beatles back catalogue
The King Of Pop paid a reported $47.5million for between 160 and 260 Beatles classics, including Yesterday and Let It Be .
However, the 1976 US Copyright Act means Sir Paul will now be able the claim back the titles once more in five years, according to The Sun.
A source told the paper: ‘Paul’s been fuming for decades. It’s as much personal as business. Now he’ll get back what’s rightfully his.’
The Act means songs written prior to 1978 turn into the property of the songwriter after 56 years.
Payday: Sir Paul will be able to receive royalties from Sgt Pepper ‘s Lonely Hearts Club Band and Abbey Road albums
Sir Paul and Michael, who recorded several songs together in the ’80s, including The Girl Is Mine, famously fell out over the purchase.
No doubt Sir Paul, who has a reported £680 million fortune already, will be looking forward to receiving royalties and licensing money for tracks he wrote in the ’60s and 1970.
Years ago, he complained at having to pay Michael royalties every time he wanted to perform a Beatles song: ‘The annoying thing is I have to pay to play some of my own songs. Each time I want to sing Hey Jude I have to pay.’
While it is unknown how much the back catalogue would be worth nowadays, in 2005, Sony paid Michael $95million for 50 per cent of the rights.
Feud: Sir Paul, pictured in 1983 with late wife Linda, famously fell out with Michael Jackson over the purchase of the rights
When Jackson died in 2009, Sir Paul denied reports he was ‘devastated’ not to have been left the rights by the tragic singer in his will.
He said at the time: ‘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 [about the will] was true, and therefore the report that I’m devastated is also totally false.’
In an interview after Michael’s death, Sir Paul admitted his resentment against the singer had faded somewhat: ‘I got off that years ago. It was something for a while I was very keen on and you can see why, naturally… [but these] sort of things can eat you up.
‘I feel privileged to have hung out and worked with Michael. He was a massively talented boy man with a gentle soul. His music will be remembered forever and my memories of our time together will be happy ones.’
“He was a massively talented boy man.”
LOLOL
The following people thank Expert Textpert for this post:
Beatlebug, O Boogie"If you're ever in the shit, grab my tit.” —Paul McCartney
10.41am
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline The deal has been finalised.
The following people thank meanmistermustard for this post:
Bullion"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
3.55pm
28 February 2016
Offline With the US copyrights reverting to the songwriter perhaps Paul could use that as a bargaining chip to buy out the rights of The Beatles’ publishing all-together. At this point though it would be a long-term investment that would benefit his kids. It’s really too bad he didn’t get them in the 80s
4.58pm
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline I don’t see how that would work, @Bullion. What would be in it for Sony/ATV to go, “Well, we’re losing the US publishing, might as well offload the rest of the world as well…” It could easily be argued that the publishing for the rest of the world is much more profitable than the US publishing, given the size of emerging markets like China.
Nor would I want, to be honest, Paul alone (and his heirs following his death) to control The Beatles publishing. Were, maybe under the umbrella of Apple, Paul and the estate of John Lennon (with maybe a small share for the estate of George Harrison as they also published his songs before Harrisongs became active in 1968), they to go for attempting to regain the group’s publishing, I would be for that.
But I would not Paul to solely control their publishing; no more than I would want the estates of John Lennon or George Harrison , or Ringo, to have sole control.
The following people thank Ron Nasty for this post:
Bullion"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
9.45pm
28 February 2016
Offline Ron Nasty said
I don’t see how that would work, @Bullion. What would be in it for Sony/ATV to go, “Well, we’re losing the US publishing, might as well offload the rest of the world as well…” It could easily be argued that the publishing for the rest of the world is much more profitable than the US publishing, given the size of emerging markets like China.Nor would I want, to be honest, Paul alone (and his heirs following his death) to control The Beatles publishing. Were, maybe under the umbrella of Apple, Paul and the estate of John Lennon (with maybe a small share for the estate of George Harrison as they also published his songs before Harrisongs became active in 1968), they to go for attempting to regain the group’s publishing, I would be for that.
But I would not Paul to solely control their publishing; no more than I would want the estates of John Lennon or George Harrison , or Ringo, to have sole control.
With the US rights expiring they may be willing to take a lower offer for the whole thing since a large portion of the cash flow will be lost once the rights revert to him. They already have John’s portion guaranteed for awhile longer but he more easily negotiate for his half. Perhaps he could do something similar to what Prince did with Warner Bros where he agreed to do an album for Sony, and if they market it right it would be a mutually beneficial endeavor for him. He could also agree to let them administrate the catalog for a certain term, so they’d be making something in the range of 10%-25% rather than a regular publishing deal which is 50% – but from what it seems like Paul and John lost 100% of their publishing, including their writing share. There’s various incentives that could be thrown in. Perhaps even signing with Sony/ATV to administrate the MPL Publishing catalog in certain territories. That would definitely be a sweet offer
Including the US – 10%-25% of the whole pie vs. 100% of a smaller pie
The US is still the number one music market. With the right foresight you can project growth in the markets of India and China – although I’m not sure if there’s any censorship policies that could provoke the Chinese government to curtail The Beatles popularity there
1 Guest(s)