• Welcome
    Sponsors
  • Director
    Members
    Advisory Board
    International Advisory Council
    Research Affiliates
    IPilogue Editors
  • IPilogue
    Events
    Publications
  • JD
    Graduate Program
    Clinical
    Prizes & Awards
  • The IPIGRAM Archive
    Events Archive
    IP in the News
    IP Poll of the Week
    IP Pick of the Week
    Gowlings IPilogue Prize
  • Legislation
    Journals
    Government
  • Contact Us
    Subscribe

Who Owns The Beatles’ Publishing Right: Easy as 123?

July 7, 2009 by Nathan Fan (IPilogue Editor)

Michael Jackson’s death has the surviving members of the Beatles in knots. Not only because they just lost a fellow musician and entertainment icon, but also because Jackson’s untimely death has left his estate mired in legal complexities regarding the future ownership of the publishing rights of the Beatles’ catalogue. As co-owner of Sony/ATV Music Publishing, Jackson’s estate currently holds a 50 per cent hold on the Beatles’ catalogue, an investment now worth over $1 billion.

As one of the biggest musical acts in history, and arguably the most profitable, how did The Beatles’ publishing rights end up in the hands of Michael Jackson?

Sony/ATV Music Publishing is a publishing company co-owned by Sony and the late Michael Jackson.  Among their holdings is a 267-song catalogue of Beatles songs under the Northern Songs collection, whose story begins in the early ’60s.

Northern Songs Ltd. was a publishing company founded in 1963 by Dick James and Beatles manager, Brian Epstein. The publishing company was assigned the publishing rights to all songs within the Lennon/McCartney song catalogue. Lennon and McCartney were contractually bound to continue songwriting under Northern Songs until 1973.

In January of 1965, Northern Songs went public on the London Stock Exchange, leaving about 30% holdings with Lennon and McCartney and about 42% interest with Epstein, James, and Charles Silver (Northern Songs’ chairman).

With Epstein’s death in 1967, Lennon and McCartney attempted to renegotiate their publishing deal with Dick James. However, early in 1969, James and Silver abruptly sold their shares in Northern Songs to Sir Lew Grade of Associated Television music (ATV). After further purchases of shares traded on the LSE, ATV now had a majority holding in Northern Songs.

Although Beatles’ replacement manager, Allen Klein, attempted to negotiate a deal for Apple Corps to buy out ATV, Klein was ultimately outmanoeuvred. In October of 1969, Lennon and McCartney decided to sell their remaining shares in the company to ATV (while keeping their writer’s royalties) in order to free themselves from the publishing contract with Northern Songs.

ATV continued to hold a controlling interest in Northern Songs until 1985, after which a takeover battle forced the catalogue to be offered for sale.  Michael Jackson stepped in, outbidding Paul McCartney, and took the rights for the Beatles’ 267-song catalogue home for $47.5 million. In 1995, Jackson merged the Northern Songs catalogue with Sony Music publishing for $95 million to establish Sony/ATV Music Publishing, each retaining 50 per cent ownership.  (More about Northern Songs and ATV here).

As the new steward of the Beatles’ catalogue, Jackson used the Beatles’ songs in numerous commercials and media ventures in an effort to capture the attention of future generations. Most recently, Sony/ATV have teamed up with Harmonix Music Systems to release the newest instalment of videogame bestseller, Rock Band – Beatles: Rock Band. While Yoko Ono has spoken highly of the fellow artist’s stewardship of the songs, McCartney has begrudgingly voiced his annoyance in having to pay royalties each time he performs a Beatles song.

The financial strain due to his lavish lifestyle and legal battles ensuing from the mid-90s caused Jackson to place his interest in the company as collateral on a $270 million loan from the Bank of America (acquired by Fortress investments in 2005).  In 2006, Jackson also offered Sony the option to buy half of his 50 per cent stake in Sony/ATV to help him refinance his $300 million in loans. It is recently reported that Sony is looking to exercise that option. Combining Jackson’s stake, Sony/ATV is currently worth an estimated $1 billion.

Due to his deteriorating health earlier this year, Jackson reportedly told his lawyers that he wished to “make things right” and repair the rift between him and McCartney, leading to speculations that Jackson had his will altered to leave the publishing rights with the remaining controllers of the Beatles estate. However, Jackson’s family lawyer, L. Londell McMillan, has stated that at least one of Jackson’s wills is missing. According to the will made in 2002, Jackson’s assets would go to the Michael Jackson Family Trust, which leaves 40% to his children, 40% to his mother, and the remainder to charities working with children.

Even though Jackson is thought to have grossed over $2 billion over his 40 year career and brings in between $13 million and$ 20 million annually from his stake in The Beatles’ songs alone, it is estimated that Jackson’s creditors are still owed between $400 and $500 million.

There is no doubt that McCartney, Ono, Starr, and Olivia Harrison will be putting up a fight against Sony and the line up of creditors for a piece of the very lucrative publishing rights. However, they may have to wait patiently for a result as there are many legal and administrative issues to be resolved. Jackson’s estate is also mired with other complexities involving his children and family, and it may be a long time before anything is resolved. Until the dust settles from the flurry over Jackson’s estate, it is too early to tell who and what percentage will own the Fab Four’s publishing rights.

Arguments over the estate of Jimi Hendrix were not settled until 2005, some 20 years after his death. I am certainly not holding my breath for a quick answer here.

Posted in Contracts, Copyright, Music Industry, Music Industry, Ownership

Leave a Reply

All replies and responses are moderated and will not appear on the site immediately. Please see our response policy.

« Likely Corruption in the Indian Health Care System | What Jay Leno taught me about domain name disputes »

Career Opportunities
Osgoode IP Club
Writing Competitions
IP Research Guide

RSS Follow Comments via RSS
  • James Wagner on Copyright at the Edge of Artistic Creativity
  • Ken Anderson on Bill C-11: Through the Lens of Social Norms
  • Courtney Doagoo on Evidence Of Parasitic Intent Not Unfounded: L’Oreal
  • Denis Borges Barbosa on Evidence Of Parasitic Intent Not Unfounded: L’Oreal
  • D Vaver on Disclosure Front and Centre as Pfizer Prepares to Defend Viagra in Supreme Court of Canada
  • Dr. Emir Crowne on Disclosure Front and Centre as Pfizer Prepares to Defend Viagra in Supreme Court of Canada
  • Adam Stevenson on Bill C-11: Through the Lens of Social Norms
  • Anonymous on Should Canada Strengthen IP Protection for Pharmaceutical Products? The European Union Thinks So...
  • Aidan Hollis on Should Canada Strengthen IP Protection for Pharmaceutical Products? The European Union Thinks So...
  • Kalen Lumsden on IP Osgoode Speaker Series: Robert Levine and Dr. Brett Danaher
RSS Follow Posts via RSS
  • One Step Closer: Bill C-11
  • Bergeron Entrepreneurs in Science and Technology (BEST) Program Launches at York
  • Whose Patent is It Anyway?: The Ongoing Legal Legacy Between Samsung and Apple
  • Copyright at the Edge of Artistic Creativity
  • Luksan v. Van der Let, Or Rather, EU v. UrhG?
  • Global Health Challenges and the Role of Law
  • Sampling Questions Still Unsettled After Jay-Z/Kanye West Sampling Settlement
  • World Intellectual Property Day 2012
  • The Legal Implications of Commercializing Intellectual Property Rights
  • Announcement: Global Health Challenges and the Role of Law: the 2012 National Health Law Conference

IP Osgoode would like to send out its IPIGRAM at a time when most convenient for you. Please let us know your views by answering a few questions so that we can better serve you.

Click here to take poll.
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • June 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • Advisory Board (4)
  • Announcements (2)
  • Blogs (4)
  • Book Review (3)
  • Broadcasting Regulatory Policy (5)
  • Cloud Services (3)
  • Commercialization (77)
  • Competition (6)
  • Competition Law (7)
  • Contracts (59)
  • copyright reform (136)
  • defamation (15)
  • Design (6)
  • Development (4)
  • European Union (32)
  • events (75)
  • Fashion Industry (13)
  • Feature Post (126)
  • Freedom of Speech (15)
  • Freedom of the Press (14)
  • Gaming (6)
  • General (145)
  • Human Rights (3)
  • Image (2)
  • Innovation (138)
  • Internet (236)
  • IP (1041)
    • Copyright (522)
      • CD Levy (9)
      • Digital Downloads (64)
      • Digital Libraries (1)
      • Digital Locks (28)
      • Fair Dealing (61)
        • Parody (2)
        • Satire (1)
      • Infringement (124)
      • Internet Sharing (92)
      • Literary Works (52)
      • Moral Rights (9)
      • Movies (47)
      • Music Industry (88)
      • Originality (29)
      • Ownership (81)
        • Licensees (31)
      • Secondary (ISP) Liability (14)
      • Subsidiary Rights (5)
    • IP Reform (19)
    • Patents (331)
      • Access to Medicines (12)
      • Cross Border Issues (48)
      • Electronic Processes (18)
      • Infringement (60)
      • Patent Practice (18)
      • Patent Trolls (20)
      • Patentability (97)
      • Pharmaceutical Drugs (65)
    • Trademarks (201)
      • Domain Names (38)
      • Famous Marks (15)
      • Official Marks (10)
      • Parallel Importation (4)
      • Personality Rights (11)
  • IP Course Topic (11)
  • IP Intensive (4)
  • IP Litigation Practice (15)
  • Jurisdiction (65)
    • Canada (24)
    • Indonesia (1)
    • Japan (1)
    • UK (25)
    • US (28)
  • Law & Music Course Topic (20)
  • Links (3)
  • MediaLaws (6)
  • Music Industry (72)
  • Open-Source (16)
  • Osgoode Alumnus (10)
  • Patents Course Topic (28)
  • Privacy (165)
    • Electronic Databases (36)
    • Human Rights Issues (26)
    • Identity Theft (11)
  • Regulatory Policy (46)
  • Reputation Management (2)
  • Smartphones (10)
  • Social Justice (2)
    • United Nations Development Programme (1)
  • Social Media (23)
  • Supreme Court of Canada (17)
  • Tech Transfer (29)
  • Technology (208)
  • Telecommunications (73)
  • Trade Secrets (3)
  • UK (10)
  • Uncategorized (82)
  • US-Canada Relations (2)
  • WIPO (9)
  • Log in

Home   |   Contact Us  

© 2008 Osgoode Hall Law School York University
4700 Keele Street Toronto, Canada M3J 1P3
T:416.736.5030   F:416.736.5736