Jackson bijna failliet, rechten Beatles te koop

quote:

Op woensdag 8 juni 2005 15:11 schreef Zanderrr het volgende:
Je hebt gelijk, het ging meer om 't voorbeeld. Nike heeft "Revolution" vroeger ooit eens voor een commercial gebruikt. Een deel van de Lennon-catalogus is ook in handen van ATV/Sony, geloof ik.

Moest vroeger wel lachen om die remake van "Getting Better" in de Philips-reclame. De achtergrondstemmetjes die origineel in 't refrein "It can't get no worse" zingen, die hadden ze maar weggelaten..

quote:

Op woensdag 8 juni 2005 15:27 schreef SeLang het volgende:
Ik heb eens gelezen dat McCartney MJ zelf op het idee had gebracht om de rechten van die liedjes te kopen (in de periode van Ebony and Ivory). Zo van: "Wat zou nu een goede investering zijn ?" "Alle Beatle liedjes kopen!". En toen deed ie het nog ook

quote:

Op woensdag 8 juni 2005 13:50 schreef Dos37 het volgende:
ik koop ze denk ik

quote:

Op woensdag 8 juni 2005 13:52 schreef Frollo het volgende:
Anders gaan we ff met de pet rond voor Jane?

quote:

Back in 1963, the Beatles gave their publishing rights to Northern Songs, a company created by their manager, Brian Epstein, and a music publisher, Dick James. Northern Songs went public in 1965, and John Lennon and Paul McCartney each had 15% of the company's shares, while Dick James and the company's chairman, Charles Silver, held a controlling 37.5% of shares. In 1969, James and Silver sold Northern Songs and its assets to the Associated Television Corporation (ATV).

In 1985, ATV's music catalog was sold, and Michael Jackson was the high bidder. Jacko paid a reported $47 million for the publishing rights to somewhere between 159 to 260 Beatles songs. A decade later, Jackson and Sony merged their music publishing businesses. Since 1995, Jackson and Sony/ATV Music Publishing have jointly owned most of the Beatles songs.

While the Jackson-Sony collection includes practically all of the Beatles' greatest hits, they don't have every little thing. Paul McCartney bought the rights to "Love Me Do," "Please, Please Me," "P.S. I Love You," and "Tell Me Why." Northern Songs never owned these early tunes, so they weren't included in the ATV deal.

In the past few years, the media has speculated that Jacko may need to sell the Beatles' rights to pay for his extravagant lifestyle and mounting legal costs. Sony reports that Jackson used his half of the Beatles' catalog as collateral for a loan from the music company. If Jackson defaults on the loan, Sony has the right to buy his share. In 2001, Jackson stated: "The Beatles catalogue is not for sale, has not been for sale and will never be for sale." But who knows? Maybe he'll try to take a sad song and make it better by cashing in.

Bron

quote:

Op woensdag 8 juni 2005 20:12 schreef nipeng het volgende:
Straks gaat hij Beatles covers uitbrengen om snel cash te genereren.

quote:

[...]

When transferring copyright rights to the Music Publisher, there exist an agreement for royalties to the writing unit, (composer and lyricist), leaving the publisher to issue licenses for the music's use. This contractually allows the mechanical reproduction by license on CD's and tapes, the synchronization license to merge with film and video, and live performance licensing, among other areas.

A royalty is passed back to the writing unit on basically a per unit basis from the publisher, or at times the publishers agent, if used to license the work. One such agent that is widely used is the Harry Fox Agency. Other royalties are involved in the music business such as for the performing artist who receives a royalty for his work on the piece. In addition, royalties or bonuses are paid to other artist that actually perform the composition with the artist, based on the number of sales to the public.

Songwriters can negotiate for the retention of the copyright on their songs, which would entitle them to more of the royalties paid on a published work. It has become more prevalent for artist to be the composer, publisher and performer, thus receiving royalties from all aspects of the songs use. Typically the revenues are divided fifty percent to the publisher and fifty percent to the songwriter. A writing unit that has a separate composer and lyricist would split the fifty percent royalty given to them.

[...]

quote:

Op woensdag 8 juni 2005 20:43 schreef mcintosh het volgende:
Zouden die rechten nog zoveel waard zijn??

quote:

Op woensdag 8 juni 2005 20:41 schreef Zanderrr het volgende:
Hier staan ook nog meer details: http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/08/news/newsmakers/jackson_loan/

quote:

[...]

Jackson, 46, acquired the Beatles song catalog in 1985 for $47.5 million, outbidding ex-Beatle Paul McCartney. Jackson then sold a piece of his stake to Sony (Research) a decade later, creating a joint venture called Sony/ATV Music Publishing. The venture is now believed to be worth more than $400 million.

Song catalogs have become hugely lucrative in the last two decades due to the compact disc boom, rising sales of Internet downloads, and movie studios and advertisers willing to pay royalties to use hit songs in film scores and commercials.

Jackson, through Sony/ATV, owns all but a small selection of the Fab Four's compositions, including megahits like "Yesterday," "Let It Be," and "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band." He does not, however, own the actual sound recordings; those rights are held by EMI's Capitol Records.

Royalty arrangements can be quite complicated. Basically, Jackson and Sony receive a fee each time one of the Beatles songs is played on the radio or a Beatles album is sold. Industry royalty rates for single-song plays can run under 10 cents, while rights holders typically earn a small percentage on each album sold.

It's hardly chump change: the small amounts add up to millions of dollars in revenues a year.

[...]

quote:

Op zaterdag 11 juni 2005 16:16 schreef gijsbert2002 het volgende:
Hebben jullie je alleen wel gerealiseerd, dat die rechten niet zo heel lang meer iets waard zullen zijn? De rechten op muziek vervallen na 50 jaar.

Dat betekend dat de eerste beatles nummers over 10 jaar alweer roaltyfree worden. 500mln $ is best wel veel voor iets wat maar een jaar of vijftien veel opbrengt daarna nog een beetje, maar steeds verder afnemend. Ik vraag me echt af, of je daar in die relatief korte tijd nog winst op kunt maken.