Latest on MJJC

Wanted to asked a question in regards to the ATV/Beatles Cat.

~* White Chocolate *~

~* White Chocolate *~

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
753
Points
0
Location
L.A./London/And the somewhere in between
Ok, so my sister, who happens to be a BIG Beatles fan, and I started "discussing" Michael's purchase of the Beatles music and all this stuff...Anyway, she said Paul now had the rights to the music? I was kind of confused and said well Michael hasn't sold his half of it (I told her how Sony bought half of it in a merger...) so...It all made me question whether or not I had my stuff right on it. So I decided to ask all you wonderful people. I know this question has probably been asked DOZENS of times, but I didn't know where else to go to get the info. What is the status of Michael's ownership, the ATV/Beatles Cat, Paul, and all that good stuff?

I really appreciate any and ALL help guys.


Thanks a bunch in advance. I just want to know what I'm talking about so I don't come across as sounding like a jackass. LOL. Thanks again.
 
MJ owns the catalogue but Paul still gets paid as a songwriter.

Paul, was quoted, himself, as saying that MJ 'bought a rip off catalogue', because it was 'too pricey'.
 
the song royalties get cut quite a few ways tmk. theres performer royalties songwriting and producing and then obviously publishing. paul will never get the "songs back" infact he will actually start losing some royalties as the royalties given to the performer only last for a certain amount of years after the song is released/registared. it varies from 50 years upwards. so nope mj is the publisher and will continue to be unless he sells his 50% ownership
 
elusive moonwalker said:
the song royalties get cut quite a few ways tmk. theres performer royalties songwriting and producing and then obviously publishing. paul will never get the "songs back" infact he will actually start losing some royalties as the royalties given to the performer only last for a certain amount of years after the song is released/registared. it varies from 50 years upwards. so nope mj is the publisher and will continue to be unless he sells his 50% ownership
Click to expand...

great points.. because I saw that some thought Michael was going to loose the catalog ...becuz of what's been quoted from Paul that he will get some of his songs back...

if that was the case....every artist that Paul owns in his music catalog would be getting their songs back too becuz most of those artist are died years ago.. and many of those songs were written before the Beatles even formed as a group.........

being a music publisher is no joke... the money spent on this investment.. is money WELL spent...
too bad Paul was too cheap to see it..
 
Last edited:
Paul was too cheap and didn't want to buy the catalogue, and Michael beat him to it. Now he's upset that he didn't buy it when it was available to him. I think it's a horrible way to end a friendship, but it wasn't anything personal against Paul; like Michael said, it was just a business decision.

I think Paul needs to get over it. It's been over 20 years, let sleeping dogs lie.
 
FYI:

The chief benefit to owning the publishing rights of songs is that standard publishing agreements call for royalties to be split 50-50 between the publisher and the songwriter(s), so owning the publishing rights to popular songs can be a lucrative form of income.

http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/jackson.asp
 
Last edited:
MsMo said:
[FONT=Trebuchet MS,Bookman Old Style,Arial]
yellowsb.jpg


[/FONT]FYI:

The chief benefit to owning the publishing rights of songs is that standard publishing agreements call for royalties to be split 50-50 between the publisher and the songwriter(s), so owning the publishing rights to popular songs can be a lucrative form of income.

http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/jackson.asp
Click to expand...

yeah..but although that link feels the need to qualify things..royalties aren't exactly fixed income. they continue..are alive..like constantly growing weeds. so fifty percent is really like a hundred percent. lol

it's like that for the beatles and MJ..fifty fifty is like a hundred a hundred..lol,,,since it's continuing, it might as well not need qualification.

for those who choose to think of fifty or even twenty five as less..when it's a royalty..they'd never be satisfied with what really is more than a king's ransom
 
The only Beatles song that know Paul McCartney owns the publishing rights to is Love Me Do (the first Beatles single), and he may have owned the rights to that song before Michael bought the ATV publishing company. There may be a few other songs of The Beatles that McCartney owns (though I don't think so), but Michael owns the majority of The Beatles songs. As I think George Harrison owned the publishing rights for all or most of The Beatles he wrote, as it was Lennon & McCartney who sold their publishing rights in the 1960's, not George Harrison (though I'm not 100% sure).
 
vncwilliam said:
yeah..but although that link feels the need to qualify things..royalties aren't exactly fixed income. they continue..are alive..like constantly growing weeds. so fifty percent is really like a hundred percent. lol

it's like that for the beatles and MJ..fifty fifty is like a hundred a hundred..lol,,,since it's continuing, it might as well not need qualification.

for those who choose to think of fifty or even twenty five as less..when it's a royalty..they'd never be satisfied with what really is more than a king's ransom
Click to expand...

I feel U :cheeky:

However, technically and as a standard, it's necessary to qualify because it all depends on the value of each individual song at a given time.

For example, 50 or 25 percent of the royalties for one song may only be $1000, compared to $250,000 for another...and, those same songs could reap $2000 and $500,000 respectively 1 year later, depending on numerous factors.

Vincent Price should have taken the percentage option for his part on Thriller rather than a flat fee. His beneficiaries would still be gettin' paid for that today, just like Mike.
 
MsMo said:
I feel U :cheeky:

However, technically and as a standard, it's necessary to qualify because it all depends on the value of each individual song at a given time.

For example, 50 or 25 percent of the royalties for one song may only be $1000, compared to $250,000 for another...and, those same songs could reap $2000 and $500,000 respectively 1 year later, depending on numerous factors.

Vincent Price should have taken the percentage option for his part on Thriller rather than a flat fee. His beneficiaries would still be gettin' paid for that today, just like Mike.
Click to expand...

well, lol...factors aside..it's still a weed..and with patience..it grows.
however...i do agree with you about Vincent Price.

a flat fee of 1000$ is 1000$. so if you get a bigger flat fee, you do better than the person with the lesser flat fee.
but a royalty of 5 percent vs. a royalty of 50% is a moot point, because it's a weed. and it can't stop growing. you grow slow..vs. you grow fast. but you still grow. it depends on your ability to be patient. that's why people are willing to accept lesser percentages, to someone else's bigger percentages. the only thing that shouldn't be accepted, is the flat fee. and, of course, we gotta remember, that MJ is one person with his share. the others are a multitude with their share.

that's why it didn't hurt MJ to sell half his share. it's as if he didn't really give anything up. have you ever tried to cut off a weed? come back tomorrow, and the weed will be back. if it took two days, you'll still be pissed off at the weed, because it still returned. it didn't matter how long it took for it to come back. it's still the same financially worthy weed. publishing wouldn't be such a valuable commodity, if this was not true. that's why MJ keeps coming out on top. and he does have power, despite what that link said. because he did say he wouldn't use the beatles' music in 'cheap commercials'. and a publisher does have a say in licesncing, and such. and if you look at Rasta's siggy..you'll see that the Sony people said they needed MJ's input. he's the spearhead behind Sony's aggressive publishing campaign. you don't not pay attention to MJ's knowhow..lol..he weilds a strong legal financial sword, and Sony knows it.
 
Last edited:
I just want to repost a past article that really reiterate what vncwilliam said..

Sony/ATV is a joint venture between Sony Corp and pop star Michael Jackson. Bandier says the gloved one has been a great partner even as speculation floats from time to time that Jackson may want to sell his share to repay some of his loans.

“I don’t think that Michael’s interested in selling his share. For me, he’s been a great partner, has been supportive and has an amazing reputation among the artistry and makes a call when we need him to reinforce our position with artists.

http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/2008/04/17/sonyatvs-bandier-keen-for-digital-beatles/
Click to expand...
 
LOL! Thanks for reposting that joint Rasta.

I totally love the part when Marty talks about "MJ having an AMAZING reputation among the artistry." And MJ having to make a call every now and then, in order to close a particular deal. LOVE IT!

You're phone rings and it's Michael Jackson, wanting to finalize a Sony/ATV songwriting deal. Can you imagine!
 
vncwilliam said:
he co owns the beatles catalogue with Sony
Click to expand...
yeah he co owns that but i was asking about your quote about mj selling half of something. half of what?

You're phone rings and it's Michael Jackson, wanting to finalize a Sony/ATV songwriting deal. Can you imagine!
Click to expand...
you will sign that deal. lol
 
elusive moonwalker said:
yeah he co owns that but i was asking about your quote about mj selling half of something. half of what?
Click to expand...

no..either i worded it wrong or somn..i was referring to him sharing the catalogue with Sony. MJ got ninety five million dollars to co own it with Sony, after he bought it from the beatles.
 
he merged his cat with sony music publishing to create one large company where the profits of the company are shared between the 2 owners.(after mj bought branca out of his share)

MJ got ninety five million dollars to co own it with Sony, after he bought it from the beatles.
Click to expand...

the ATV cat wasnt just northern songs ie the beatles it contained thousands apon thousands of other songs. the beatles in song number are a very small but profitiable part of a cat that contained a huge amount of songs. he didnt buy the car from lennon and mac it was owned by around 2 other different ppl b4 mj bought it
 
elusive moonwalker said:
he merged his cat with sony music publishing to create one large company where the profits of the company are shared between the 2 owners.(after mj bought branca out of his share)



the ATV cat wasnt just northern songs ie the beatles it contained thousands apon thousands of other songs. the beatles in song number are a very small but profitiable part of a cat that contained a huge amount of songs. he didnt buy the car from lennon and mac it was owned by around 2 other different ppl b4 mj bought it
Click to expand...

yeah..lol..i'm aware of all that..i'm just using the beatles as a buzzword. it's easier on me to do so. i also know that the supposedly less profitable other songs really have much worth because of the sheer volume of songs there.
 
that the supposedly less profitable other songs really have much worth because of the sheer volume of songs there
Click to expand...
on a individual song basis they dont but obviously putting them all together they do.

yeah..lol..i'm aware of all that..i'm just using the beatles as a buzzword.
Click to expand...
ok just that ppl asking questions about this may be unsure as to what the cat actually is. to many think its just the bealtes songs and nothing else because of the media obsession with those songs and not the 650,000 or so other songs that are included. we need to make it clear. the same as ppl thinking that mj sold the cat in 95 when it was a merger of 2 companies and nothing else
 
vncwilliam said:
well, lol...factors aside..it's still a weed..and with patience..it grows.
however...i do agree with you about Vincent Price.

a flat fee of 1000$ is 1000$. so if you get a bigger flat fee, you do better than the person with the lesser flat fee.
but a royalty of 5 percent vs. a royalty of 50% is a moot point, because it's a weed. and it can't stop growing. you grow slow..vs. you grow fast. but you still grow. it depends on your ability to be patient. that's why people are willing to accept lesser percentages, to someone else's bigger percentages. the only thing that shouldn't be accepted, is the flat fee. and, of course, we gotta remember, that MJ is one person with his share. the others are a multitude with their share.

that's why it didn't hurt MJ to sell half his share. it's as if he didn't really give anything up. have you ever tried to cut off a weed? come back tomorrow, and the weed will be back. if it took two days, you'll still be pissed off at the weed, because it still returned. it didn't matter how long it took for it to come back. it's still the same financially worthy weed. publishing wouldn't be such a valuable commodity, if this was not true. that's why MJ keeps coming out on top. and he does have power, despite what that link said. because he did say he wouldn't use the beatles' music in 'cheap commercials'. and a publisher does have a say in licesncing, and such. and if you look at Rasta's siggy..you'll see that the Sony people said they needed MJ's input. he's the spearhead behind Sony's aggressive publishing campaign. you don't not pay attention to MJ's knowhow..lol..he weilds a strong legal financial sword, and Sony knows it.
Click to expand...

Right, right, tru all dat!

That's why I only posted the part about the % standard. I don't agree with the opinion in regards to power either. I only posted the link for source purposes.

As for the weeds comparison, like you said they still require some time to grow, and IF an investor/songwriter can be patient, as Michaels' investment has proven, they really can't lose...but, there is a world of difference between how much more one can gain in less time with 50% as opposed to 5%. That's the only only point I was trying to make.
 
emwill02 said:
ok, like what i thought, 20% to 5% Mike: Paul or something like that.
Click to expand...
Yoko Ono (or John Lennon's estate) gets paid also. I was never sure if the songs George & Ringo wrote were in the catalog. George had a separate publishing deal from Paul & John. There are a couple of songs written by all 4 Beatles (Flying is one), so I guess they're split between Paul, Ringo, Michael, Sony, Yoko, & Olivia Harrison.
 
I am loving this discussion.. and Elusive.. great point that Michael "didn't" sell.. he merged....but the media keeps obsessing over the word "sell"...in order to distort.. the actual magnitude of Michael's business deal with Sony...

and going back to what Busta said on that video.... I can kind of understand why Michael is not so quick to sue or combat the media over their hateful ways...for this or that... at the end of the day... he gets the last ..........he....he...he...(laugh)...
especially... in Eminems...case...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top