While master-recording rights reversions to artists is a relatively new phenomena that has made headlines in recent years, song copyright reversions have long been a quiet fact of life for music publishers. But many in the publishing business have been a little alarmed at the long line of big-name songwriters and artists lining up at their doors asking for their songs back recently.
Currently, some of the world’s greatest songwriters–or their heirs–are among those who have termination notices on file with the U.S. Copyright Office. The list includes the cornerstones of the ’60s sound–Paul McCartney, Bob Dylan and Brian Wilson–and the legendary Brill Building duos that proceeded them: Mort Shuman and Doc Pomus, Gerry Goffin and Carole King, and Barry Mann and Cynthia Weil. It also includes Nashville greats (Willie Nelson), soul music legends (Steve Cropper) and rock’n’roll pioneers (Buddy Holly, Bo Diddley and Lloyd Price). Pop mainstays like Tommy Boyce and Bobby Hart as well as Daryl Hall and John Oates have filed as well.
At stake are songs worth tens of millions of dollars, in a publishing industry worth $4 billion annually. These are the sort of classic songs that can provide the perpetual fuel of the publishing industry, and as songwriters bring them back onto the open market they’ll be looking for more favorable terms. Think of publishers competing for the rights to administer song catalogs that include “Good Vibrations,” “Be My Baby” and “This Magic Moment” and you’ll get a sense of what’s up for grabs.
Trending on Billboard
Publishing sources are concerned, but cautiously optimistic. That’s because termination notices don’t always lead to terminations–once a notice is on file, it doesn’t mean the song will automatically revert to the songwriter. And copyright law provides ample opportunity for publishers to renegotiate with songwriters who’ve filed notices.
Currently, perhaps the most noticeable claim on file is from McCartney, who has sent termination notices for more than 100 Beatles songs–including 62 filed on Dec. 22, 2010, and 36 filed on Dec. 27, 2011–to publisher Sony/ATV. Among the songs are “Yesterday,” “Michelle” and “A Hard Day’s Night.”
In some instances, songwriters like Dylan and Wilson filed terminations for 14 early songs and 15 songs, respectively, including tracks from the Beach Boys’ “Pet Sounds” and Dylan’s 1962 debut album.
The Beatles’ publishing is owned by Sony/ATV, through a deal the company did with Michael Jackson in 1995. Jackson bought the Beatles catalog of 250 songs as part of his acquisition of ATV for $47.5 million in 1985. He subsequently merged the ATV catalog with Sony Music Publishing in 1995, receiving $90 million in a 50% stake in the then-new entity.
Jackson’s ATV acquisition turned out to be one of the great ironies in McCartney’s business career. Legend has it that while collaborating with Jackson on “Say Say Say” in the early ’80s, McCartney explained to Jackson about the value of publishing and why he had purchased the catalog of Buddy Holly (one of the Beatles’ heroes), only to see Jackson turn around and buy the Beatles catalog.
Now, thanks to copyright law, it looks like McCartney could be getting back his share of the Beatles’ songs. (The songs are, of course, Lennon/McCartney compositions. There don’t appear to be any termination notices for the John Lennon portion of the publishing on file.)
Neither copyright law nor the termination process is exactly straightforward (see story, page 29), but because the Beatles songs in question were written before the passage of the 1976 Copyright Act, they are subject to two 28-year terms before the publishing can revert to the original author, for a total of 56 years. The songs McCartney has filed for were written before 1966 and have effective termination dates ranging from June 2020 through December 2021, or 56 years from 1964 and 1966.
That leaves Sony/ATV plenty of time to reap value from this material. And the copyright law is written in such a way that the original publisher has at least a two-year headstart on negotiations. During the two-year period before the copyright expires, other publishers can’t talk to the songwriter. (This is more theory than practice, of course. But while conversations might take place, deals can’t be made.)
In the case of most reversions, this means the original publishers have a shot at keeping their songs–they can attempt to buy the publishing for the songs outright or make a play to become the administrator. McCartney, though, owns his own publishing company, MPL, which has led to speculation that Sony/ATV will eventually lose his share of the catalog, regardless of what they offer.
Sony/ATV executives were unavailable to comment.
With regard to Lennon’s portion of the publishing on these songs, sources have told Billboard in the past that Sony/ATV has tied it up for the life of the copyright. Since Lennon died in 1980 during the first copyright term of 28 years, under a clause in the Copyright Act the heirs could reclaim the songs after the first term and didn’t have to wait two terms, or 56 years. But sources say that a deal was cut with Lennon’s widow, Yoko Ono, to assign the copyright to what would become Sony/ATV for the second term–which some say isn’t 28 years but 67 years through the copyright extension legislations enacted in 1978 and 1998. Other industry copyright experts Billboard spoke with believe Lennon’s heirs can still reclaim the copyright for those songs.
There are copyright termination notices on file from the heirs of Holly, though, for such songs as “Not Fade Away,” “That’ll Be the Day,” “It’s So Easy,” “Think It Over” and “Maybe Baby.” The effective dates for these songs occur during the next three years. And ironically, in the case of Holly, the publisher is McCartney’s MPL, and in some instances peermusic. Peer declined to comment, while MPL didn’t respond to requests for comment.
While the loss of revenue from renowned catalogs and well-known songs might be seen as a blow, publishers take all that into account when they’re buying copyrights and investing in them in the first place, publishing executives say. And the two-year grace period that precedes terminations leaves plenty of time to safeguard those investments worth protecting.
“We have a database and know when songs are coming up for reversion, and we don’t distinguish if the reversion is due to copyright law or contract,” says one senior publishing executive with a major. “We look and see if the notices have been filed properly and then we deal with the songwriters. We have been very successful in retaining songs. We may have to pay some money but it’s just another investment like signing a new songwriter, landing an established writer or buying a catalog. It’s all part of the standard mix of how music publishers spend their investment dollars every year.”