1
00:00:00,080 --> 00:00:03,280
Speaker 1: Paul McCartney has been trying to regain the publishing rights

2
00:00:03,320 --> 00:00:06,320
Speaker 1: to two d sixties seven of the Beatles classic song

3
00:00:06,440 --> 00:00:10,080
Speaker 1: since the nineteen eighties. That's when Michael Jackson outbid him

4
00:00:10,119 --> 00:00:13,320
Speaker 1: for the rights. Last year, Jackson's estate sold the Beatles

5
00:00:13,360 --> 00:00:16,959
Speaker 1: back catalog to Sony. McCartney has now filed suit in

6
00:00:16,960 --> 00:00:19,400
Speaker 1: Manhattan to get the songs back in what is known

7
00:00:19,440 --> 00:00:24,799
Speaker 1: as copyright termination under the Copyright Act. This classic is

8
00:00:24,840 --> 00:00:28,440
Speaker 1: the first Beatles song to become eligible for copyright termination

9
00:00:32,800 --> 00:00:40,239
Speaker 1: Love You Know I Love You. Performers like Prince and

10
00:00:40,280 --> 00:00:42,840
Speaker 1: Billy Joel have used this part of the Copyright Act

11
00:00:42,880 --> 00:00:46,040
Speaker 1: to regain control of their work, but McCartney's case may

12
00:00:46,120 --> 00:00:49,320
Speaker 1: prove to be more difficult. I've been talking with intellectual

13
00:00:49,360 --> 00:00:53,199
Speaker 1: property litigator Terence Ross, a partner at Captain Uten Rosamund

14
00:00:53,680 --> 00:00:57,960
Speaker 1: Terry explain how copyright termination works. It's one of the

15
00:00:57,960 --> 00:01:03,200
Speaker 1: most complicated parts, alright, ex simply then, essentially, there was

16
00:01:03,240 --> 00:01:07,080
Speaker 1: this notion when we redid the copyright laws in ninety six.

17
00:01:07,520 --> 00:01:12,640
Speaker 1: Um this popular notion that big companies, recording companies, publishing houses,

18
00:01:13,200 --> 00:01:16,480
Speaker 1: movie studios were taking advantage of the creators of works,

19
00:01:17,040 --> 00:01:19,720
Speaker 1: and especially when they were young, and they were new

20
00:01:20,240 --> 00:01:23,160
Speaker 1: UH in their fields, and that they were obtaining the

21
00:01:23,280 --> 00:01:27,080
Speaker 1: rights to the copyrights to their works UM for relatively

22
00:01:27,160 --> 00:01:30,000
Speaker 1: little money. UM. I don't know if there was ever

23
00:01:30,120 --> 00:01:33,640
Speaker 1: any actual evidence to support that, but we put into

24
00:01:33,760 --> 00:01:39,600
Speaker 1: the nine Copyright Act UM two provisions that allowed these

25
00:01:39,800 --> 00:01:44,360
Speaker 1: um UH creators of works UM too at a future

26
00:01:44,520 --> 00:01:49,760
Speaker 1: date terminate assignments of the copyrights that they had given

27
00:01:49,800 --> 00:01:53,840
Speaker 1: away UM in an effort to re monetize UM the

28
00:01:54,000 --> 00:01:57,080
Speaker 1: value of those works. And if they had passed away

29
00:01:57,160 --> 00:02:01,240
Speaker 1: in the indim that right to terminate UM was passed

30
00:02:01,240 --> 00:02:05,480
Speaker 1: along to their heirs, whether these spouse or children or grandchildren.

31
00:02:05,760 --> 00:02:09,280
Speaker 1: So UM, and the mechanism is is different depending on

32
00:02:09,360 --> 00:02:13,680
Speaker 1: whether the work at issue was um um pre seventy

33
00:02:13,760 --> 00:02:18,880
Speaker 1: eight or post nine seventy eight. Here we're dealing with

34
00:02:18,960 --> 00:02:22,480
Speaker 1: the Beatles. Songs are all pre nineteen seventy eight songs,

35
00:02:22,760 --> 00:02:25,760
Speaker 1: and so they all come up. The termination right exists

36
00:02:25,840 --> 00:02:30,360
Speaker 1: under section three oh four of the United States Copyright Act. Okay,

37
00:02:30,400 --> 00:02:34,360
Speaker 1: So McCartney's lawyers started sending notices to Sony in two

38
00:02:34,360 --> 00:02:37,959
Speaker 1: thousand and eight stating he's desire to reclaim the copyright

39
00:02:38,480 --> 00:02:41,760
Speaker 1: Sony declined to do so, why would Sony agree to

40
00:02:41,800 --> 00:02:46,720
Speaker 1: that without a court fight, Because it is so complicated

41
00:02:47,000 --> 00:02:50,520
Speaker 1: to comply with the regular regulations that I allow you

42
00:02:50,560 --> 00:02:54,080
Speaker 1: to determinate um that it would be a mistake, in

43
00:02:54,160 --> 00:02:58,120
Speaker 1: my view on Sony's part um to ever agree that

44
00:02:58,200 --> 00:03:01,400
Speaker 1: they were done properly, because there is always the risk

45
00:03:01,800 --> 00:03:07,560
Speaker 1: um that McCartney will have watched um the termination procedures

46
00:03:08,040 --> 00:03:11,280
Speaker 1: and therefore Sony will get to keep the rights. And

47
00:03:11,400 --> 00:03:14,960
Speaker 1: this is not speculative. In in two thousand and fifteen,

48
00:03:15,000 --> 00:03:17,120
Speaker 1: we had a very important decision from the Second Circuit

49
00:03:17,160 --> 00:03:20,680
Speaker 1: there in New York involving the song Santa Claus Is

50
00:03:20,680 --> 00:03:22,560
Speaker 1: Coming to town. You know, the song Scianta Claus Is

51
00:03:22,560 --> 00:03:26,359
Speaker 1: Coming to Airs. The heirs of that song had attempted

52
00:03:26,400 --> 00:03:31,400
Speaker 1: to terminate the copyright and they were in litigation with E. M.

53
00:03:31,480 --> 00:03:35,200
Speaker 1: I for the better part of six years on whether

54
00:03:35,320 --> 00:03:39,320
Speaker 1: or not uh the heirs had followed the regulatory procedure

55
00:03:39,360 --> 00:03:42,880
Speaker 1: for termination correctly. The district court, the trial court originally

56
00:03:42,880 --> 00:03:45,640
Speaker 1: said no, you didn't, so there's no termination. They had

57
00:03:45,680 --> 00:03:47,320
Speaker 1: to go up to the Second Circuit and in a

58
00:03:47,520 --> 00:03:50,880
Speaker 1: very controversial decision um, the Second Circuit figured out a

59
00:03:50,920 --> 00:03:54,160
Speaker 1: way to UM to say that to rule that the

60
00:03:54,200 --> 00:03:57,560
Speaker 1: heirs had properly terminated UM. And if ever there was

61
00:03:57,920 --> 00:04:01,240
Speaker 1: a situation where UM that or a young songwriter had

62
00:04:01,240 --> 00:04:04,040
Speaker 1: been taken advantage of by a big recording company, that

63
00:04:04,160 --> 00:04:06,520
Speaker 1: was it. And yet the courts had really strain to

64
00:04:06,600 --> 00:04:10,680
Speaker 1: allow termination or why would Sony here? I just agree

65
00:04:10,840 --> 00:04:13,600
Speaker 1: that they did it the right way. About a minute,

66
00:04:13,720 --> 00:04:19,080
Speaker 1: Terry Duran. Duran recently lost a similar case. Could McCartney's

67
00:04:19,080 --> 00:04:21,480
Speaker 1: having been in the UK at the time, these were

68
00:04:21,520 --> 00:04:25,120
Speaker 1: made complicate things? I don't think so, because we're only

69
00:04:25,160 --> 00:04:29,200
Speaker 1: talking about U S copyrights here. The UK law copyright law,

70
00:04:29,200 --> 00:04:33,000
Speaker 1: it does allow for termination. It is different, um, significantly

71
00:04:33,040 --> 00:04:35,839
Speaker 1: different than the US law and termination. And so I

72
00:04:35,839 --> 00:04:39,440
Speaker 1: think Paul McCartney's lawyers have been very smart in what

73
00:04:39,520 --> 00:04:43,080
Speaker 1: they've done here and gone after termination of the U

74
00:04:43,240 --> 00:04:47,320
Speaker 1: S copyrights. UM. He's got very good counsel. I assume

75
00:04:47,400 --> 00:04:50,880
Speaker 1: that they're going to follow the formality's exactly right, UH,

76
00:04:50,920 --> 00:04:53,880
Speaker 1: and ultimately the courts will rule in his favor. But

77
00:04:54,360 --> 00:04:57,560
Speaker 1: I don't blame Sony for putting up a fight. They

78
00:04:57,839 --> 00:05:00,680
Speaker 1: they just bought them recently. Well, we will see what

79
00:05:00,720 --> 00:05:03,360
Speaker 1: happens and We'll have you on as this case goes

80
00:05:03,520 --> 00:05:05,760
Speaker 1: on and on and on, which I expect that it

81
00:05:05,800 --> 00:05:08,840
Speaker 1: will always a pleasure to have you on. That's Terence Ross,

82
00:05:08,920 --> 00:05:13,040
Speaker 1: a partner at katon Uten Rosenman, coming up on Bloomberg Law,

83
00:05:13,080 --> 00:05:16,560
Speaker 1: a new ruling in the ongoing legal fight over construction

84
00:05:16,600 --> 00:05:21,240
Speaker 1: of the controversial Dakota Access pipeline. I'm June Grosso. This

85
00:05:21,440 --> 00:05:25,520
Speaker 1: is Bloomberg. Love me Do