Paul McCartney accused of forum-shopping in Beatles copyright case

Sony/ATV Publishing has accused singer-songwriter  Sir Paul McCartney of forum-shopping in his copyright claim against the company.

In January, WIPR  reported that the former member of The Beatles had filed a lawsuit asking for a declaratory judgment of no breach of contract over copyright for songs by the band.

The case, which was filed at the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, concerns tracks jointly composed by McCartney and the late John Lennon from 1962 to 1971.

McCartney and Lennon assigned their copyright to music publishers during that time, and Sony/ATV Publishing acquired copyright from two of the publishers involved.

In 2008, McCartney asked the US Copyright Office for termination notices to reclaim his copyright for songs such as “Love Me Do”, “PS I Love You” and “All You Need Is Love”.

The suit concerns McCartney’s rights to terminate the copyright interests he transferred between 1962 and 1971.

Now, Sony/ATV Publishing is attempting to crush the copyright claim.

Donald Zakarin, chair of Pryor Cashman’s litigation group and representative of Sony/ATV, filed a letter with the court on Monday, March 13.

Zakarin alleged that McCartney’s claim was premature, as it “asserts unripe claims involving unsettled questions of UK law”.

He went on to add that the case should be dismissed pending the outcome of a UK case of “first impression” involving substantially the same issues.

“Plaintiff, apparently concerned about a recent decision from a UK trial court which is currently being appealed, Gloucester Place Music v Le Bon … also seeks a declaration that his notices do not constitute a breach of contract,” said Zakarin.

In February, UK pop band Duran Duran were granted leave by an English High Court justice to appeal against a copyright judgment handed down by the court in December last year.

Gloucester Place Music sought to prevent Duran Duran from exercising their statutory right under US copyright law to terminate the music publisher’s ability to collect royalties on some of their earliest songs after 35 years.

The court backed Gloucester in the December judgment.

“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,” claimed Zakarin.

He added that McCartney is forum-shopping—and if UK law was “firmly established”, a decision from the US court would be “unnecessary”.

“This court should apply its discretion, dismiss this case, and allow the UK court to determine relevant issues of UK contract law.”