Why did Paul McCartney suing the Beatles

More than 50 years ago Paul McCartney offered the rights to 267 Beatles songs to various music publishers. Michael Jackson, who bought several songs written by Lennon / McCartney in the 1980s, was among the buyers. After his death, his heirs sold the musical gold to Sony. But now Macca wants to fight back the rights and has filed a lawsuit against Sony in a Manhattan court. But the music giant can only smile about it and describes the lawsuit as "forum shopping" (court shopping spree), as the "Hollywood Reporter" reports.

Editor's recommendation

Accordingly, one came to the conclusion that the legal efforts of the Beatle, which began in January, were simply immature and could not be successful in the case. The complaint states that McCartney wants Sony to know that under applicable US law, after a period of time, he will be entitled to the Beatles songs acquired by the company. A judgment could have the effect that the musician with his claims does not violate a contract that has been concluded in the meantime (as Sony currently holds).

Sony makes its point of view clear

With his action, McCartney follows a ruling from Great Britain (Gloucester Place Music Ltd v. Le Bon), in which it was decided that American termination rights in the case of exploitation agreements must also take into account agreements that were once concluded in Great Britain.

Sony had informed the responsible judge in New York of the following (excerpts):

"As an initial matter, SATV has made no statement challenging the validity of Plaintiff’s termination notices. Indeed, it has acknowledged they are valid, so there is no controversy regarding this issue. Nor has SATV claimed that Plaintiff’s service of the notices breached any agreement and SATV may never make such a claim. The complaint thus impermissibly seeks an advisory opinion on a hypothetical claim that depends on both the outcome of Gloucester and contingent future actions that may never occur. Assuming that a U.S. forum would ever be appropriate for the determination of U.K. law, a dismissal without prejudice now would spare this Court the need to issue a decision that may be unnecessary pending the outcome of Gloucester while assuring that, if and when a claim is ever ripe, U.K. law will have been settled. Here, Plaintiff is a U.K. citizen and the Grants were negotiated and entered into in the U.K. with U.K. companies with respect to songs presumably written in the U.K. in return for payment in the U.K. This Court would therefore presumably look to the Gloucester case, which is unsettled as it is currently being appealed. "