WEBVTT - McCartney Sues Sony Citing Unknown Copyright Rule (Audio)

0:00:00.080 --> 0:00:03.280
<v Speaker 1>Paul McCartney has been trying to regain the publishing rights

0:00:03.320 --> 0:00:06.320
<v Speaker 1>to two d sixties seven of the Beatles classic song

0:00:06.440 --> 0:00:10.080
<v Speaker 1>since the nineteen eighties. That's when Michael Jackson outbid him

0:00:10.119 --> 0:00:13.320
<v Speaker 1>for the rights. Last year, Jackson's estate sold the Beatles

0:00:13.360 --> 0:00:16.959
<v Speaker 1>back catalog to Sony. McCartney has now filed suit in

0:00:16.960 --> 0:00:19.400
<v Speaker 1>Manhattan to get the songs back in what is known

0:00:19.440 --> 0:00:24.799
<v Speaker 1>as copyright termination under the Copyright Act. This classic is

0:00:24.840 --> 0:00:28.440
<v Speaker 1>the first Beatles song to become eligible for copyright termination

0:00:32.800 --> 0:00:40.239
<v Speaker 1>Love You Know I Love You. Performers like Prince and

0:00:40.280 --> 0:00:42.840
<v Speaker 1>Billy Joel have used this part of the Copyright Act

0:00:42.880 --> 0:00:46.040
<v Speaker 1>to regain control of their work, but McCartney's case may

0:00:46.120 --> 0:00:49.320
<v Speaker 1>prove to be more difficult. I've been talking with intellectual

0:00:49.360 --> 0:00:53.199
<v Speaker 1>property litigator Terence Ross, a partner at Captain Uten Rosamund

0:00:53.680 --> 0:00:57.960
<v Speaker 1>Terry explain how copyright termination works. It's one of the

0:00:57.960 --> 0:01:03.200
<v Speaker 1>most complicated parts, alright, ex simply then, essentially, there was

0:01:03.240 --> 0:01:07.080
<v Speaker 1>this notion when we redid the copyright laws in ninety six.

0:01:07.520 --> 0:01:12.640
<v Speaker 1>Um this popular notion that big companies, recording companies, publishing houses,

0:01:13.200 --> 0:01:16.480
<v Speaker 1>movie studios were taking advantage of the creators of works,

0:01:17.040 --> 0:01:19.720
<v Speaker 1>and especially when they were young, and they were new

0:01:20.240 --> 0:01:23.160
<v Speaker 1>UH in their fields, and that they were obtaining the

0:01:23.280 --> 0:01:27.080
<v Speaker 1>rights to the copyrights to their works UM for relatively

0:01:27.160 --> 0:01:30.000
<v Speaker 1>little money. UM. I don't know if there was ever

0:01:30.120 --> 0:01:33.640
<v Speaker 1>any actual evidence to support that, but we put into

0:01:33.760 --> 0:01:39.600
<v Speaker 1>the nine Copyright Act UM two provisions that allowed these

0:01:39.800 --> 0:01:44.360
<v Speaker 1>um UH creators of works UM too at a future

0:01:44.520 --> 0:01:49.760
<v Speaker 1>date terminate assignments of the copyrights that they had given

0:01:49.800 --> 0:01:53.840
<v Speaker 1>away UM in an effort to re monetize UM the

0:01:54.000 --> 0:01:57.080
<v Speaker 1>value of those works. And if they had passed away

0:01:57.160 --> 0:02:01.240
<v Speaker 1>in the indim that right to terminate UM was passed

0:02:01.240 --> 0:02:05.480
<v Speaker 1>along to their heirs, whether these spouse or children or grandchildren.

0:02:05.760 --> 0:02:09.280
<v Speaker 1>So UM, and the mechanism is is different depending on

0:02:09.360 --> 0:02:13.680
<v Speaker 1>whether the work at issue was um um pre seventy

0:02:13.760 --> 0:02:18.880
<v Speaker 1>eight or post nine seventy eight. Here we're dealing with

0:02:18.960 --> 0:02:22.480
<v Speaker 1>the Beatles. Songs are all pre nineteen seventy eight songs,

0:02:22.760 --> 0:02:25.760
<v Speaker 1>and so they all come up. The termination right exists

0:02:25.840 --> 0:02:30.360
<v Speaker 1>under section three oh four of the United States Copyright Act. Okay,

0:02:30.400 --> 0:02:34.360
<v Speaker 1>So McCartney's lawyers started sending notices to Sony in two

0:02:34.360 --> 0:02:37.959
<v Speaker 1>thousand and eight stating he's desire to reclaim the copyright

0:02:38.480 --> 0:02:41.760
<v Speaker 1>Sony declined to do so, why would Sony agree to

0:02:41.800 --> 0:02:46.720
<v Speaker 1>that without a court fight, Because it is so complicated

0:02:47.000 --> 0:02:50.520
<v Speaker 1>to comply with the regular regulations that I allow you

0:02:50.560 --> 0:02:54.080
<v Speaker 1>to determinate um that it would be a mistake, in

0:02:54.160 --> 0:02:58.120
<v Speaker 1>my view on Sony's part um to ever agree that

0:02:58.200 --> 0:03:01.400
<v Speaker 1>they were done properly, because there is always the risk

0:03:01.800 --> 0:03:07.560
<v Speaker 1>um that McCartney will have watched um the termination procedures

0:03:08.040 --> 0:03:11.280
<v Speaker 1>and therefore Sony will get to keep the rights. And

0:03:11.400 --> 0:03:14.960
<v Speaker 1>this is not speculative. In in two thousand and fifteen,

0:03:15.000 --> 0:03:17.120
<v Speaker 1>we had a very important decision from the Second Circuit

0:03:17.160 --> 0:03:20.680
<v Speaker 1>there in New York involving the song Santa Claus Is

0:03:20.680 --> 0:03:22.560
<v Speaker 1>Coming to town. You know, the song Scianta Claus Is

0:03:22.560 --> 0:03:26.359
<v Speaker 1>Coming to Airs. The heirs of that song had attempted

0:03:26.400 --> 0:03:31.400
<v Speaker 1>to terminate the copyright and they were in litigation with E. M.

0:03:31.480 --> 0:03:35.200
<v Speaker 1>I for the better part of six years on whether

0:03:35.320 --> 0:03:39.320
<v Speaker 1>or not uh the heirs had followed the regulatory procedure

0:03:39.360 --> 0:03:42.880
<v Speaker 1>for termination correctly. The district court, the trial court originally

0:03:42.880 --> 0:03:45.640
<v Speaker 1>said no, you didn't, so there's no termination. They had

0:03:45.680 --> 0:03:47.320
<v Speaker 1>to go up to the Second Circuit and in a

0:03:47.520 --> 0:03:50.880
<v Speaker 1>very controversial decision um, the Second Circuit figured out a

0:03:50.920 --> 0:03:54.160
<v Speaker 1>way to UM to say that to rule that the

0:03:54.200 --> 0:03:57.560
<v Speaker 1>heirs had properly terminated UM. And if ever there was

0:03:57.920 --> 0:04:01.240
<v Speaker 1>a situation where UM that or a young songwriter had

0:04:01.240 --> 0:04:04.040
<v Speaker 1>been taken advantage of by a big recording company, that

0:04:04.160 --> 0:04:06.520
<v Speaker 1>was it. And yet the courts had really strain to

0:04:06.600 --> 0:04:10.680
<v Speaker 1>allow termination or why would Sony here? I just agree

0:04:10.840 --> 0:04:13.600
<v Speaker 1>that they did it the right way. About a minute,

0:04:13.720 --> 0:04:19.080
<v Speaker 1>Terry Duran. Duran recently lost a similar case. Could McCartney's

0:04:19.080 --> 0:04:21.480
<v Speaker 1>having been in the UK at the time, these were

0:04:21.520 --> 0:04:25.120
<v Speaker 1>made complicate things? I don't think so, because we're only

0:04:25.160 --> 0:04:29.200
<v Speaker 1>talking about U S copyrights here. The UK law copyright law,

0:04:29.200 --> 0:04:33.000
<v Speaker 1>it does allow for termination. It is different, um, significantly

0:04:33.040 --> 0:04:35.839
<v Speaker 1>different than the US law and termination. And so I

0:04:35.839 --> 0:04:39.440
<v Speaker 1>think Paul McCartney's lawyers have been very smart in what

0:04:39.520 --> 0:04:43.080
<v Speaker 1>they've done here and gone after termination of the U

0:04:43.240 --> 0:04:47.320
<v Speaker 1>S copyrights. UM. He's got very good counsel. I assume

0:04:47.400 --> 0:04:50.880
<v Speaker 1>that they're going to follow the formality's exactly right, UH,

0:04:50.920 --> 0:04:53.880
<v Speaker 1>and ultimately the courts will rule in his favor. But

0:04:54.360 --> 0:04:57.560
<v Speaker 1>I don't blame Sony for putting up a fight. They

0:04:57.839 --> 0:05:00.680
<v Speaker 1>they just bought them recently. Well, we will see what

0:05:00.720 --> 0:05:03.360
<v Speaker 1>happens and We'll have you on as this case goes

0:05:03.520 --> 0:05:05.760
<v Speaker 1>on and on and on, which I expect that it

0:05:05.800 --> 0:05:08.840
<v Speaker 1>will always a pleasure to have you on. That's Terence Ross,

0:05:08.920 --> 0:05:13.040
<v Speaker 1>a partner at katon Uten Rosenman, coming up on Bloomberg Law,

0:05:13.080 --> 0:05:16.560
<v Speaker 1>a new ruling in the ongoing legal fight over construction

0:05:16.600 --> 0:05:21.240
<v Speaker 1>of the controversial Dakota Access pipeline. I'm June Grosso. This

0:05:21.440 --> 0:05:25.520
<v Speaker 1>is Bloomberg. Love me Do