Yoko Ono is mulling legal options

[shyGirl]

http://abbeyrd.best.vwh.net/news/927backintheuscd.html

From Abbeyrd's Webpage:

"This week's People magazine (with the Osbournes on the cover) has a short item saying that Yoko Ono is mulling legal options in the switching of composer credits on the Back In The US CD."

------------------
http://www.beatlelinks.net/ubb/smilies/rocknroll.gif

Song of the moment-Wonderful Christmastime

shyGirl's Hideout (http://www.geocities.com/smw15/index.html)

"I get shy when they start to stare."

[Harbidge]

What's wrong with the credits?

------------------
Paul is Dead - the Conclusive Evidence (http://members.fortunecity.co.uk/paulisdead) - Officially the BEST website on the internet regarding the entire 'Paul is Dead' saga. Listing 300+ clues that are backed up with images and soundclips, this is THE place to go to learn everything about the worlds greatest rock and roll conspiracy.

Introducing the Beatles Authentification Guide (http://introducing.cjb.net) - Introducing the Beatles is the most counterfeited LP in modern recording history. Nearly every copy that turns up of this LP turns out to be fake. Come here to learn of all the mistakes the bootleggers made to determine whether or not your copy is real or fake.

[Tim]

He's flipped them to read McCartney-Lennon .

------------------
Tim
http://www.beatlelinks.net/ubb/smilies/churchill.gif
Tim Brent's Yellow Submarine Page (http://www.geocities.com/timbrent.geo)
The Beatles' Record Advertisements (http://members.tripod.co.uk/seltaeb)
The Beatles' Record Covers Yahoo! Club (http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/beatlesrecordcovers)
The Beatles Video Theatre (http://timbrent.tripod.com)

[Magill]

OMG...http://www.beatlelinks.net/ubb/smilies/images/icons/rolleyes.gif

------------------
I'm dreaming of a White Album, just like the ones I use to know..

[beatlewho01-02]

That's just hilarioushttp://www.beatlelinks.net/ubb/smilies/laugh7.gif

------------------
"Don't cry
Don't raise your eye
It's only teenage wasteland."
The Who's Baba O'Riley

[beatlegirl9977]

Jeez... WHY?? It's not like it was changed from Lennon-McCartney to MCCARTNEY and then in teeny tiny letters, Lennon or anything...

Egos at work, I guess...

------------------
Beatlegirl's World (http://beatlegirl.tripod.com) -- Home of fan fics "The Beatles: Live at 12 Cold Creek Street" and "Days in the Life"

[jtal909]

Yeah, Yoko, lighten up.
Nobody is going to think any less of John Lennon if his name is second.

------------------
"Why don't you say it in your famous James Mason impersonation?" www.billyshearsband.com (http://www.billyshearsband.com)

[jule]

I have at least a couple of competing views on this:

1. Yoko's business life is lived, in part, in effort to preserve the memory and work of John Lennon, and it makes sense she would take issue with this switch. (If not his widow, who?)

2. It could seem in poor form (by Paul) to switch the order when the other actual named party has no way to consent.

3. It's been Lennon-McCartney for about 40 (plus) years. It doesn't seem too unreasonable to me to let Paul have the lead for the next 40, and then switch back again, and so on and so on.

http://www.beatlelinks.net/ubb/smilies/peace.gif

jule



------------------
"Imagine all the people sharing all the world." --John and Yoko

[Tim]

I also doubt Sony Music cares much for Paul's doing that either.....

------------------
Tim
http://www.beatlelinks.net/ubb/smilies/churchill.gif
Tim Brent's Yellow Submarine Page (http://www.geocities.com/timbrent.geo)
The Beatles' Record Advertisements (http://members.tripod.co.uk/seltaeb)
The Beatles' Record Covers Yahoo! Club (http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/beatlesrecordcovers)
The Beatles Video Theatre (http://timbrent.tripod.com)

[This Message Has Been Edited By Tim On December 04, 2002 08:45 PM]

[Apple Scruff]

In a way, I can *sort* of look at it from Yoko's perspective...she lost John and since then has kept herself loyally maintaining his legacy as a way of "carrying the torch" they both once held together. So, in other words, she wants to see John's memory preserved the way it would have been if he was alive. Its a little hard for people who haven't lost their spouse or significant other the way Yoko did to understand. Its a totally different scenario when these are famous, high-profile people. Yes, it does seem petty to us, but what if people did think less of John? That is what Yoko is thinking about, no doubt.

I was reading a biography on David Geffen a few months back and remember something I read in there about Yoko. After John died, according to Geffen, she became extremely hysterical if ANYTHING bad was written about him in any articles. She just couldn't deal with it, and from then on became nearly neurotic about making sure nothing offensive about her husband be printed. Of course, a lot has been. And Yoko is obviously aware of everything. I think she isn't doing this so much for power as for her attachment to John and his memory.

I remember reading in MOJO magazine- the Lennon special edition, 2000- where Yoko said she used a little stop watch to record how much time the people from the Beatles Anthology gave to John in the videos, and made them aware that he was noticably shorter than the rest of the guys. Her quote was: "I'm good for John on that level." Or something like that.

Yoko is one of those people that is highly misunderstood and a *bit* eccentric (as was her husband), but I think she is generally a good person with flaws, like everyone else. I'm sure whatever happens, its not going to be anything to lose sleep over.http://www.beatlelinks.net/ubb/smilies/images/icons/smile.gif

------------------
"The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams." ~Eleanor Roosevelt

[This Message Has Been Edited By Apple Scruff On December 04, 2002 09:26 PM]

[This Message Has Been Edited By Apple Scruff On December 04, 2002 09:27 PM]

[Lynner]

Does she even have a legal leg to stand on in this case? I mean, it's not like John's estate would get any less money and it's not like his name is being removed.
Look, I love John just as much as the next person - wait, I'm a huge Beatles fan, I love him more than the next person, but I don't see how this is a slam against him. If Paul wants his name first, let him.

It's rather like when friends refer to me and my husband as "Bob and Lynn". Do I get mad because it's not "Lynn and Bob"? NO. As long as it's not "Bob and what's her name" images/icons/wink.gif I'm happy that I'm an acknowledged person.

[Rellevart]

Originally Posted By Lynner:
It's rather like when friends refer to me and my husband as "Bob and Lynn". Do I get mad because it's not "Lynn and Bob"? NO. As long as it's not "Bob and what's her name" <font size="2" face="Tahoma, Arial, sans-serif">I thought it was "Lynn and what's HIS name"? images/icons/wink.gif

Again, I think maybe people are trying to stir up trouble here where none really exists. The press is so negative these days that it really doesn't make me want to read papers and magazines anymore....

[bitagirl]

Originally Posted By Apple Scruff:


I remember reading in MOJO magazine- the Lennon special edition, 2000- where Yoko said she used a little stop watch to record how much time the people from the Beatles Anthology gave to John in the videos, and made them aware that he was noticably shorter than the rest of the guys. Her quote was: "I'm good for John on that level." Or something like that.

IMG]http://www.beatlelinks.net/ubb/smilies/images/icons/smile.gif[/IMG]

<font size="2" face="Tahoma, Arial, sans-serif">Yeah, I guess...but really timing the anthology? I watched it and I didn't sit here and think...my my couldn't they put John in there a little more?! (Well, of course I always say that, being i'm a Johnny girl) I like Yoko's thought patterns a lot, but sometimes I think she takes it a little to the extreme...I mean they weren't r ying to forget her husband or anything...

[Tim]

Originally Posted By Lynner:
Does she even have a legal leg to stand on in this case? I mean, it's not like John's estate would get any less money and it's not like his name is being removed.
Look, I love John just as much as the next person - wait, I'm a huge Beatles fan, I love him more than the next person, but I don't see how this is a slam against him. If Paul wants his name first, let him.

It's rather like when friends refer to me and my husband as "Bob and Lynn". Do I get mad because it's not "Lynn and Bob"? NO. As long as it's not "Bob and what's her name" images/icons/wink.gif I'm happy that I'm an acknowledged person.<font size="2" face="Tahoma, Arial, sans-serif">I also think there is a problem with Sony as when the copyrights were registered,etc. it would be as "Lennon-McCartney", and would need permission of copyright holders Sony Music to approve of changing it.

[Rellevart]

Originally Posted By Tim:
would need permission of copyright holders Sony Music to approve of changing it.<font size="2" face="Tahoma, Arial, sans-serif">I question that because, well, Paul HAS changed it on his CD, and I doubt highly that he did something like that without knowing all the ins and outs of the legalities of the situation.

[Lynner]

Originally Posted By Rellevart:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Tahoma, Arial, sans-serif">Quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Tahoma, Arial, sans-serif">Originally Posted By Tim:
would need permission of copyright holders Sony Music to approve of changing it.<font size="2" face="Tahoma, Arial, sans-serif">I question that because, well, Paul HAS changed it on his CD, and I doubt highly that he did something like that without knowing all the ins and outs of the legalities of the situation.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Tahoma, Arial, sans-serif">Maybe he has gotten permission already. Besides wouldn't somebody along the line know whether or not they could change their name order legally?

[shyGirl]

Here's an article I found on it:

Paul McCartney has sparked another Beatles feud with the release of his live album, Back in the U.S.. Against the wishes of John Lennon's widow, Yoko Ono, the nineteen Beatles songs included on the two-disc set are credited to "Paul McCartney and John Lennon" rather than the traditional "Lennon/McCartney."
"What he did was absolutely inappropriate," says Ono's lawyer, Peter Shukat. "John and Paul had an agreement. This is very petty." Adds Ono, "John and Paul often disagreed on which songs were written by whom. If John was here now, they could fight it out, or maybe they could never agree. But the important point is that John has to be here. He is not."

Ono says Lennon and McCartney decided to credit all of their Beatles music to Lennon/McCartney almost forty years ago. McCartney disputes that claim. He would not comment for this story, but his spokesman, Geoff Baker, says that the two Beatles "had agreed in the Sixties that they could switch the names whenever they felt like it." (McCartney first made this claim in the Beatles' Anthology book, published in 2000, twenty years after Lennon's death.)

McCartney's contract with Capitol gives him control over the wording of the credits on his solo albums. In fact, five Beatles songs on his 1976 Wings Over America live album are credited to McCartney/Lennon. But for releases on the Beatle's Apple label, the surviving band members or their estates would have to unanimously approve any change to the credits.

This is precisely why the battle over who wrote what heated up in 1996, when the CD booklet for the Anthology 3 album was being written. McCartney's lawyer and brother-in-law, John Eastman, demanded that eighteen songs -- including "Blackbird," "Get Back" and "Hey Jude" -- be credited solely to McCartney, with Lennon's name omitted entirely. But George Harrison, Ringo Starr and Ono unanimously refused McCartney's bid, and Eastman later wrote a letter apologizing for his "zeal" and claiming he had acted "without Paul McCartney's instructions."

Writer David Sheff, who conducted a 1980 Q&A with Lennon for Playboy magazine, says the battle over authorship amounts to more than a spat between McCartney and Yoko. "Paul is rewriting history," says Sheff, who spoke with Lennon at length about how each Beatles song was written, including "Eleanor Rigby." Says Sheff, "There's something about 'Lennon/McCartney' that means more than just whose name comes first. For Beatles fans, this switch dishonors something that is cherished by so many people."

In an interview with Rolling Stone last year, McCartney revealed that the real sore spot may have been a decades-old bruise to his ego. "The minute John died, there started to be a revisionism," he said. "There were strange quotes, like, 'John was the only one in the Beatles.' Or 'Paul booked the studio.' Like John was the real genius, and I was just the guy who sang 'Yesterday.'"

Ono says that McCartney might be doing his own legacy more harm than good by trying to take credit for these nineteen songs. "If those songs are credited to McCartney/Lennon, and the rest of the 200 or so are credited to Lennon/McCartney, people may think that Paul wrote those songs and John wrote the rest," she says. "When the suggestion was first made by Paul, I said, 'This is like opening a Pandora's box, Paul. Don't do it.' I still stand by that statement."

[Apple Scruff]

This whole thing is very strange. My feeling is...let them do whatever they do and work it out the way they have to. I have nothing to say against either Yoko or Paul. I respect both of them in different ways. I do think, from my own observation, that Paul seems like the little brother who feels he isn't getting all the attention. And that couldn't be further from the truth. John was...its hard to say, really. He was such a persona in himself that anyone would probably feel that way next to him, in some form or another. But Paul should be one of the least to feel so, if you ask me.

Its like a sibling rivalry. My final decision would probably be to let Paul have it the way he wants it, but then I wouldn't want to know what would happen next. They'll work it out. images/icons/wink.gif This is one of those other things that makes it so tragic John isn't here...

[leonardobeat]

Paul is jealous graemlins/shakehead4.gif

[Inner Groover]

Firstly,i've followed Paul's career since 1976 and own all his solo work + bootlegs. I have always believed that Yoko was and is a sharp,devisive character who played a large part in the demise of the Beatles. Julian Lennon had to buy one of John's guitars in an auction because Yoko refused to pass on the instrument to his son!This is just one example of Yoko's difficult and at times petty nature but on this occasion i agree with her views on this subject.The Lennon and McCartney back catalogue is the most important and revered in the history of popular music {over 1 billion sales worldwide} and has been identified as Lennon and McCartney for over thirty years by everyone throughout the world.So why suddenly change the order after all this time? I have a sneaking suspicion that Paul used this release to get back{no pun intended}at Yoko over the Yesterday authorship controversy when she refused Paul's request years ago to change the name order for this song which was very much a solo McCartney effort.I just don't see why this change is necessary and agree that it is inappropriate when John can't express his personal view on the matter.

[EasternBird]

Thanks for the article, shyGirl! It was very interesting. Especially this:

Originally Posted By shyGirl:
This is precisely why the battle over who wrote what heated up in 1996, when the CD booklet for the Anthology 3 album was being written. McCartney's lawyer and brother-in-law, John Eastman, demanded that eighteen songs -- including "Blackbird," "Get Back" and "Hey Jude" -- be credited solely to McCartney, with Lennon's name omitted entirely. But George Harrison, Ringo Starr and Ono unanimously refused McCartney's bid, and Eastman later wrote a letter apologizing for his "zeal" and claiming he had acted "without Paul McCartney's instructions." <font size="2" face="Tahoma, Arial, sans-serif">Wow...if that's true, I'm glad the others didn't give in. Once a "Lennon/McCartney" song has been released, it's pretty ridiculous to drop John's name entirely from the songwriting credits over 30 years later (even if John & Paul were basically writing their songs separately in the late '60s). BUT...


McCartney's contract with Capitol gives him control over the wording of the credits on his solo albums. In fact, five Beatles songs on his 1976 Wings Over America live album are credited to McCartney/Lennon. But for releases on the Beatle's Apple label, the surviving band members or their estates would have to unanimously approve any change to the credits.
<font size="2" face="Tahoma, Arial, sans-serif">Since "Back in the U.S." is a Capitol release, wouldn't the same standard apply as it did for "Wings Over America?" If so, I don't think Yoko has a case. And more importantly, if John didn't raise a fuss over the "Wings Over America" credits, why would she think John is being slighted now? As long as John's name is included in the credits, I don't think the order makes much difference.

[Nerk Sister]

[/QUOTE]And more importantly, if John didn't raise a fuss over the "Wings Over America" credits, why would she think John is being slighted now? As long as John's name is included in the credits, I don't think the order makes much difference.[/QB][/QUOTE]

I agree.

I will probably get attacked for saying this but I think this all boils down to one thing. Paul has had a good year and a lot of press recently. Yoko wants equal time and this is a way to get it.
After it came out in the press about Yoko not being invited to Linda's memorial service, Julian gave an interview in Beatlefan where he said basically not to think that was an accident that got in the press, that Yoko always wanted equal press coverage. I think he's right.

[Fly]

I will probably get attacked for saying this but I think this all boils down to one thing. Paul has had a good year and a lot of press recently. Yoko wants equal time and this is a way to get it.
After it came out in the press about Yoko not being invited to Linda's memorial service, Julian gave an interview in Beatlefan where he said basically not to think that was an accident that got in the press, that Yoko always wanted equal press coverage. I think he's right.<font size="2" face="Tahoma, Arial, sans-serif">Whatever. That's true about most celebrities any way, including Paul McCartney. I think this whole discussion is unfairly biased. Most people here don't like Yoko and don't understand her actions or reasons for things, so this won't be any different.

I think people need to chill out and give her a break. Yoko is a part of "Beatle history" regardless of how much people like to deny it or persecute her. Deal with it. That's her husband, and she has the right to fight or disagree with anything that will affect his name one way or the other, even if Paul is involved. He isn't God, nor is she. Personally, the whole thing is rather petty. I would rather see it as Lennon/McCartney as it was originally for these past decades, but it wouldn't bug me too much either way.

[AmericanBeatle]

Actually, I thought there was one song that Lennon and McCartney did change to read "McCartney/Lennon" back before the band broke up.
Is that true, or is there something in my tea?

On another note, didn't Paul get credit for Give Peace a Chance even though he wasn't even in the same hemisphere when it was written?

All in all, I don't trust anything that Yoko does or her reason for doing them. I mean, look at the Let It Be tapes. Can anyone honestly say that she didn't do her best to widen the chasm that already existed between the Lads? Oh, well, that's an old point and not worth rehashing. To be fair, I agree, even though I am a Paul fan, that it could be a bit of "Hey, Look at Me!" syndrome going on since John has become almost the sainted genius behind the Beatles since his death.
Who knows.
There are two left now, so let's enjoy 'em while we got 'em!
In the end, it doesn't really affect the music which will be good for now and always.

[Lynner]

Originally Posted By AmericanBeatle:

There are two left now, so let's enjoy 'em while we got 'em!
In the end, it doesn't really affect the music which will be good for now and always.<font size="2" face="Tahoma, Arial, sans-serif">Hear hear!

Welcome aboard, by the way!

[lennon4]

I wonder if that bit about the Anthology session was true. I doubt Paul wanted it that way, but if he did...that's pretty sad. Honestly, though...he'd be pissed if his name were dropped from all John's songs. But, I digress...lol

-lennon4

[shyGirl]

This is someone's commentary but I thought it was interesting so I thought I'd share it. It's from FoxNews.com:

Yoko Still Gets the Last Laugh With Paul

You want to know why Paul McCartney has changed the byline of the Beatles songs he "wrote" to McCartney/Lennon from Lennon/McCartney? It's a great story and I'm sorry I'm getting to explain it so late after the release of McCartney's new Back in the U.S. album, but we've been preoccupied with other matters.

Since Michael Jackson bought the Beatles catalog in 1983, McCartney has been furious with him, and rightly so. But the root of McCartney's anger comes from the 1927 Songwriting Act.

That act, as I've explained many times before, gives heirs of a songwriter all the rights to his or her music once the original copyrights run out. It doesn't matter if they've been sold to someone else. If the songwriter died during the copyright term, once the term runs out the new owner loses the rights and they revert back to the heirs.

This means that because John Lennon died, it didn't matter that the rights to the songs were with Michael Jackson. Once the copyrights had to be renewed, Jackson lost Lennon's portion; they reverted to Yoko Ono and her son, Sean.

The Beatles songs were under 28-year copyright protection. So songs in 1962 had to be renewed in 1990, and so on. When they were renewed, Lennon's ownership — which had been sold to Jackson — started going to Yoko. It was not lost on McCartney.

This meant that because John was dead, he was no longer under Jackson's agreement. McCartney, however, was. To this day, half of his portion of royalties from the Beatles catalog goes to Jackson (or now, Sony/ATV Music Publishing).

This accounts for 19 songs Paul says he was the primary writer on. Accordingly, since he feels that he's being ripped off, McCartney switched the songwriting credits on those songs for his solo albums. I guess he felt he might as well get something out of it.

Who really knows what the agreement was between Paul and John? Were the songs always supposed to be listed as "Lennon and McCartney"? Changing them seems disrespectful, especially since Lennon is dead and can't speak for himself.

But McCartney has not respected Lennon's wishes since before the Beatles broke up. In 1969, McCartney himself may have actually been responsible for breaking the group up when he went behind Lennon's back and bought a huge amount of stock in Northern Songs Ltd., their publisher. The two had always agreed to have an equal investment in the company.

When it was revealed, Lennon was so angered that, according to Steven Gaines in the best of the Beatles books, The Love You Make, he stormed out of a meeting and didn't return.

When I asked Paul about this in 1990, if he had any regret about it, he said: "No. I was investing in myself."

So Yoko cleans up no matter who sings the Beatles songs now. All she can do is thank McCartney, frankly, for re-recording them on the new album.

As for Back in the U.S., I was surprised when I finally caught up with it how good it was, and how supple McCartney's voice sounded on several tracks including "The Long and Winding Road" and "Every Night." I am assuming it's not computer-enhanced; in the live show it sounded just as good.

[Siobhan]

That's quite interesting, I didn't know that Yoko had the rights to John's half of the copyright. Thanks shygirl! graemlins/smile1.gif

[Lynner]

Interesting commentary - I wonder if Julian is entitled to anything? I can understand why Paul is unhappy with what's going on with the royalties situation, but unfortunately, there's not a heck of a lot he can do.