Comments on: Michael Jackson and the Beatles Copyrights

By: Sobha Singh

Sobha Singh — Sat, 05 Nov 2011 12:15:55 +0000

I’m a simple man, but reading the article and the comments made me cringe. to even consider to achieve 5% of what MJ did would be outstanding; charitable work, song writing, choreography, advertising, business acquisition, etc etc. No matter what, he holds so many records you could write a book about him just on that.

Yet what gets me is, whatever is said in the media…thats what is followed. The US and UK have no respect when it come to fame, and the public are blind to see its all money making.

R.I.P Michael, thanks you for all your hard work, and please stop these fools writing about things they will never have the answer too.

By: Denise

Denise — Tue, 26 Apr 2011 08:07:27 +0000

I heard that Michael Jackson’s kindness was taken for weakness so they tried and later the truth did come out about the Welfare Queen of a mother who used her ill son suffering from cancer, that Michael Jackson took time to visit and make a wish come true, when no one else gave a care, and findings later reported briefly that the mother had a pattern of being deceitful with money. Michael Jackson was found not guilty after he fought back. However, as per usual, anything news that put Michael in a positive way, never received over a day’s attention.

By: production engineer

production engineer — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 03:34:55 +0000

Merry Christmas, everyone! Yay.

Gene, thank you for this article. Would you please comment on BG’s comment (# 14) if you have any info? I’m curious what became of that renegotiation.

Michael is quirky, yes, but he didn’t abuse those kids. There were two major cases against him. The first one, he settled out of court for fear of defamation. The second case angered him, so he chose to fight it in court, regardless of the defamation, to send a clear message to anyone else trying to pull that sort of thing. One of the children (I don’t remember which case) later admitted that the story was completely fabricated. However, this received almost no media attention. I believe the story ran for one day (I saw it on the news once), and that was the last I heard of it.

Michael, may you moonwalk in heaven. See you there, buddy.

By: Gene Quinn

Gene Quinn — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 22:49:28 +0000

Kendrick-

Why don’t you enlighten all of us as to the “real” facts.

I would also point out that it is likely legally impossible to defame Michael Jackson. His affinity for children in a non-healthy way is well documented. It is impossible to defame someone when they have a negative reputation, and by and large that is the reputation of Michael Jackson whether we choose to acknowledge it or not. He was a brilliant artist and a quirky individual. To divorce his quirks from the man is to ignore truth.

The facts in this article are widely known to be true, so I wait with baited breadth at the real story. Please also provide your sources so they can be verified by all those reading.

-Gene

By: Kendrick

Kendrick — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 21:05:15 +0000

I happened upon this article while looking for information on Jackson’s Anti-Gravity device. This article would make interesting reading in such Tabloid Publications as TMZ, National Inquirer, The Sun or some other such gutter rag which rely on maligning to garner attention. After having read Gene Quinn’s intelligent and highly informative articles I was amazed at Renee C. Quinn’s injection of personal opinion, hearsay and a subtle attempt gone wrong to defame a dead man.

To add insult to the readers, the writer has not done her fact checking on the negotiation and Jackson’s acquisition of the Catalog. This smacks of copy & paste journalism, a lazy writer rather than a worthwhile contributor to a professional organization providing accurate and informative business information. On a scale of zero to five, this article gets a zero. Content = zero, Accuracy = zero. Professionalism = less than zero.

By: BG

BG — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 12:54:02 +0000

Thank you for your very informative article on Michael Jackson and the Beatles’ Copyrights. It had been said that Michael Jackson would regain control of his masters held by Sony in 2011, although various reports on the actual date have varied. At this point in time Sony has the publishing and distribution rights to Jackson’s music as I understand it. There has been a new deal between Sony and the Estate of Michael Jackson within the last few days, which covers a period up to at least 2017. I have very little knowledge of copyright or entertainment law but this deal seems to mean either one of two things. The first is that Sony’s publishing and distribution rights over Michael Jackson’s music recorded while Jackson was under contract to Sony will continue until at least 2017 and/or Sony did indeed take up the option to purchase any remaining shares Jackson held in Sony/ATV after his death. Would be interested to have your opinion on this. Thank you.

By: asf

asf — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 19:26:15 +0000

This person states a good case, but he failed to note that Jackson owns the copyrights to the Beatles library. I hate to say this, but MJ is probably receiving royalties from the Beatles “1″. I know that comes as a shock to some. But you must also realize that it was Paul McCartney who urged Jackson to buy copyrights, though Paul didn’t think that he’d buy the Beatles.

by the way…..Chris: what do you mean hes not the king of pop? well MJ better than the beatles thats for sure! MCIAHEL JACKSON IS THE KING OF POP!! DEAL WITH IT!!!!!

By: Gene Quinn

Gene Quinn — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 17:26:15 +0000

Kabraun-

In the US the songwriters do not have the ability to veto the ability to use the song. They do have a right to share in proceeds, but no veto power.

-Gene

By: Kabraun

Kabraun — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 06:29:39 +0000

Here in the US, can the publishing rights-holders decide whether a song can be used, say, in a hemorrhoid commercial? -Or do the original songwriters still have a right to veto the use?

By: SoCalGal

SoCalGal — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 00:10:41 +0000

Chris, you are so out-numbered that your opinion doesn’t even matter. Not even a little bit.