“Some time ago, the media came up with the idea that Michael Jackson was going to leave his share in the Beatles songs to me in his will, which was completely made up and something I didn’t believe for a second,” McCartney said in 2009.
In 2016, Sony acquired the Michael Jackson estate’s 50% share of Sony/ATV, making it a wholly owned Sony company. Now Sony is dropping the ATV part of the name. They own the Beatles catalog, The goose that lays the golden egg now belongs to Sony. Now Sony Music Publishing Drops “ATV” and holds Beatles catalog.
Excerpt from The Original Court Act - Sir James Paul McCartney (known professionally as Paul McCartney) authored or co-authored with other former members of the world-famous musical group TheBeatles. Defendants in this action are music publishing companies that claim to be thesuccessors to publishers that acquired copyright interests in many of Paul McCartney’scompositions in the 1960s and early 1970s. 
This Court also has jurisdiction over Paul McCartney’s claims for declaratory judgmentof no breach of contract on the alternative basis of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.Plaintiff Paul McCartney is a citizen of the United Kingdom, and no Defendant is a citizen of a foreign state.
In 1962, The Beatles released their first singles, “Love Me Do” and “P.S. I LoveYou,” both of which were written by Paul McCartney and John Lennon. A company called Ardmore & Beechwood, Ltd. (“Beechwood”) published these two compositions.
On February 5, 1965, Paul McCartney and John Lennon incorporated another company known as MacLen (Music) Limited (“MacLen”). Paul McCartney and John Lennon each owned 40% of MacLen’s stock, and Nems owned the remaining 20%
On February 11, 1965, Paul McCartney and John Lennon executed an agreement between themselves, MacLen, and Nems, under which Paul McCartney and John Lennon assigned the copyrights in the musical works they would create over the next eight years to MacLen (the “MacLen Agreement”).
Case 1:17-cv-00363 Document 1 Filed 01/18/17
John and Lee Eastman, father and son, are attorneys who represent Paul
McCartney. Each Termination Notice was signed by Paul McCartney’s attorney Lee Eastman.
The Present Dispute
For years following service of the first Termination Notices, Defendants gave no
indication to Paul McCartney that they contested the efficacy of Paul McCartney’s Termination
Notices. Defendants’ affiliates did, however, oppose at least one other artist’s terminations of
transfers under the terms of the 1976 Copyright Act.
...When members of the band Duran Duran attempted to exercise their rights to
terminate transfers made in the early 1980s to their publisher under U.S. copyright law, the
publisher, Sony/ATV subsidiary Gloucester Place Music, sued the band members for breach of
contract in the United Kingdom. On December 2, 2016, the High Court of Justice of England
and Wales issued an opinion in the Duran Duran case, captioned Gloucester Place Music Ltd. v.
Le Bon, [2016] EWHC 3091 (Ch). In that opinion, the High Court adopted Sony/ATV’s position
that the original publishing agreements between Duran Duran’s members and its publishing
company (which were subject solely to English law and did not explicitly refer to U.S.
termination rights) precluded Duran Duran’s members from exercising their termination rights.
Download PDF of Legal acts here 336935184-Mccartney-termination
FOTOGALLERY HERE
