Paul McCartney sues Sony to regain control over 267 Beatles songs

The Beatles legend asked a judge to rule that he could retrieve copyright control over songs he co-wrote with John Lennon, in a battle that may set an important precedent for the music industry.

Mario Anzuoni/Reuters
Musician Paul McCartney takes the stage to perform at the Desert Trip music festival at Empire Polo Club in Indio, Calif., on Oct. 8, 2016. The former Beatles band member is suing Sony to regain control over some of the groups classic songs.

Paul McCartney wants the rights to his songs back – and he’s doing everything he can to ensure that his latest opportunity to reclaim them doesn’t slip through his fingers.

On Wednesday, Sir Paul filed a lawsuit in federal court in Manhattan. In the suit, he asked a judge to confirm that he wouldn’t be breaking a contract by retrieving a collection of his songs under copyright termination law. The law allows artists to reclaim the rights to their work after a certain number of years, but executives at Sony – which owns the rights to these songs – had suggested that McCartney’s work was not eligible, thanks to contracts he signed in Britain.

The suit could be a key battle in the sphere of music copyrights. Not only is the collection of classic Beatles songs one of the most valuable in the world, but it could also set an important precedent for artists who sign contracts outside the United States.

“A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time so that Paul McCartney can rely on quiet, unclouded title to his rights,” the filed lawsuit read, according to the Associated Press.

Between September 1962 and June 1971, McCartney co-wrote 267 songs for the Beatles with the late John Lennon. McCartney has long wanted to retrieve the copyright to these songs. In 1985, however, he was outbid by Michael Jackson for publishing rights to the songs, and the songs later became part of Jackson’s label, based at Sony. In 2016, Jackson’s estate sold the rights to the songs to Sony Corp for $750 million, The Guardian reported.

But US copyright law may provide another route for McCartney to retrieve his songs. The US Copyright Act of 1976 gives creators the right to reclaim their work from publishers after a certain period of time has elapsed. In recent years, the New York Times noted, an increasing number of music artists have used the law to regain control of their songs — and gain the financial upper hand:

“When Prince’s classic albums were nearing the point at which he could reclaim them, he struck a lucrative new deal with his label, Warner Bros., to let the company continue to release his music.”

The first of McCartney’s songs to become eligible for so-called copyright termination is “Love Me Do,” in October 2018. The rest would gradually become available over the following eight years, the Associated Press reported.

McCartney’s lawyers have been laying the groundwork for him to retrieve the rights since October 2008, his lawsuit indicated, according to Reuters. But executives at Sony reportedly suggested that the Beatles songs might not be covered under copyright termination after all, the lawsuit continued.

Why? In a case decided in December, a judge ruled that British pop band Duran Duran was prevented from reclaiming their rights in the US, thanks to their original contract, which was signed in Britain. McCartney and Lennon likewise signed multiple publishing contracts in Britain, according to the New York Times.

That uncertainty led McCartney and his lawyers to seek confirmation from a judge that McCartney would not be violating a contract if he were to reclaim his songs under US copyright law. 

For its part, Sony declared itself “disappointed” in the lawsuit, which it termed “unnecessary and premature.”

“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,” the company said in a statement, according to the Associated Press.

Material from the Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.