Squabbles: Lennon/McCartney or McCartney/Lennon - And Does It Matter?

In the most recent edition of Esquire magazine, Sir Paul McCartney reflects on a long and storied career as a singer-songwriter and performer for The Beatles, with Wings, and as a solo artist.  Although McCartney is reportedly the second richest recording artist (and richest male), having a net worth estimated at $660 million, many may find it surprising that McCartney cares about the songwriting credit order attributed to The Beatles songs McCartney co-wrote with fellow Beatle John Lennon. In the two creative-creator centric intellectual property disciplines (copyrights and patents), the listed order of copyright owners or patentees is legally irrelevant concerning the separate rights of the owners/patentees.

For a copyright, the co-writers/co-owners individually enjoy all the rights set forth in 17 U.S.C. § 106, so that any, all, or a subset of all co-writers/co-owners may exploit the work by further reproductions, etc. Likewise, for a patent, each co-inventor may "practice" the invention (e.g., manufacture) or license the subject matter to another party.

However, the differences lie in what is owed to the co-creators upon successful exploitation.  For a copyright, each co-writer/co-owner owes the other co-writers/co-owners an accounting of the profits generated through the right(s) exploited (or be subject to litigation).  Conversely, for a patent, each co-inventor may separately make or license the subject matter without accounting for any profits to the other co-inventor(s).

So why the fuss from McCartney concerning whether a song is identified as a Lennon-McCartney work or a McCartney-Lennon work?  In the grand scheme, the publishing royalties will be no different - every penny will still be divided between McCartney and Lennon's estate.

As with many similar issues, there are multiple considerations at issue.  Ego is rather obvious - upon Lennon's murder, the other co-writer was no longer in the picture.  Yet, Lennon's estate (via Yoko Ono), and a rather divisive ego at that, blocked several attempts by McCartney to correct a perceived error in the attribution order.

As McCartney recalls, early on, The Beatles and management agreed that any song predominantly written by one and brought to the other for "polishing" or "completion" would be specifically attributed in the album liner notes as [predominant writer] hyphen [polisher].  However, this preferred nomenclature convention did not materialize, and rather the alphabetical Lennon-McCartney label was the go-to form of songwriting attribution.

Upon Lennon's death, and in subsequent years (e.g., The Beatles Anthology Series), McCartney tried to reclaim this preferred naming convention, only to be obstructed by Ono.  McCartney identified the hit single "Yesterday" as a good example, noting that Lennon had absolutely nothing to do with writing the song, yet, the song is attributed to Lennon-McCartney and not to (McCartney's preference) McCartney-Lennon.

Related to issues of ego is perception, such as the public's perception that attribution order has significance.  It is likely that is the reason the individual Beatles agreed to the songwriting naming convention identified above is because of their own naive (mis)conception of the significance of naming attribution order.

Like many of the songwriting tandems in popular music over the last 50 years, such as Jagger-Richards (The Rolling Stones), John-Taupin (Elton John), Simon-Garfunkel, Plant-Page (Led Zeppelin), Simmons-Stanley (KISS), and Bon Jovi-Sambora (Bon Jovi), the first mentioned person seems to capture much of the songwriting attention.  This is probably due to an issue not particularly noticed (the primacy effect) - the strongest impression made on the mind of a viewer/reader based on the first item listed.

However, most interestingly, McCartney points out a legitimate gripe regarding technology.  In particular, McCartney notes that when an individual downloads, streams, or a song selected from an existing digital library, often the display is too small to fully display multi-writer attribution (or does so intermittently).  Consequently, using The Beatles as an example, on a smartphone or iPad display, The Beatles song "Yesterday" may be attributable only to John Lennon or John Lennon (and perhaps) Paul McCartney a few seconds later. Thus, at least in McCartney's view, younger generations may be misinformed or misled as to the appropriate songwriting credits, or frustrated by the bounce between one co-writer and the other(s) co-writer(s).  Thus, younger generations may be deprived of some knowledge, history, and searchable keywords that could link-up Lennon-McCartney with other valuable or culturally significant songs.

As someone who enjoys trivia and completeness of information, I can sympathize with McCartney's lament as a threshold matter.  However, given the younger generations Internet acumen, it seems unlikely that a user would not have such information readily available in just a few clicks or taps.  Alternatively, younger generations may simply not care enough to want to know/learn about the artist, esp. in an age when popular music is more disposable than ever before.

While McCartney's concerns possess some merit, the degree of import seems rather low.  Publishing royalties remain unaffected by the naming order; and the fame of The Beatles nearly negates any inverted (or lack of) attribution, as many folks will supplement their listening experience by browsing for information abut the artist (e.g., via Wikipedia).  As with so many things surrounding the surviving members of The Beatles and managers of the Lennon and Harrison estates this really descends into a Paul v. Oko battle of wills, wits, and strong-willed personalities.

King of Pop - And The (Un)Credited

Over the course of the last week, many music and entertainment outlets briefly observed the sixth anniversary of Michael Jackson's death. Love him or despise him (because of his music or behavior), the majority of credit for the King of Pop's album "Thriller" was shared between Jackson and producer Quincy Jones. Being the shrewd businessmen that they were, esp. Jones, Jones-and-Jackson utilized many talented musicians and songwriters to craft what may be the "perfect" studio release in music history (and certainly the most-successful),^[1] including the credited use of several members of the band Toto (Steve Lukather, David Paich, Steve & Jeff Porcaro), composer and producer David Foster, Paul McCartney, and Jackson's sisters LaToya and Janet. However, and arguably the most significant musical contribution was the uncredited writing, arrangement, and solo provided by Eddie Van Halen on the song/single "Beat It". As the story goes, Van Halen (the band) is on a brief recording/touring hiatus, with three-of-the-four band members scattered to the winds. Eddie Van Halen (EVH) is alone at his home recording studio (later dubbed "5150", which is the California criminal code for the criminally insane) and receives a telephone call. Immediately on pick-up, the connection is fuzzy and nearly inaudible. An unfamiliar voice asks "Is this Eddie?" After several unpleasant responses by EVH, the unfamiliar voices identifies himself as Quincy Jones, and asks if EVH would like to play a solo on one of Jackson's songs. With his brother, the lead singer, and the bassist unavailable for consultation, EVH agrees to contribute, figuring he will do it for free, uncredited, no messy royalties to discuss (or split), and no one would be the wiser. The wishiest of wishful thoughts.

As the third single from what was becoming a pop-cultural juggernaut (Thriller), "Beat It" strayed from the R&B and pop playbook Jackson had been so successful with as a member of the Jackson 5 and during the infancy of his solo career. With Toto's guitarist Steve Lukather providing a tasty lead riff and underlying rhythm guitar, EVH's "trademark" squeals and screeches from his striped Frankenstein "strat" provided one of the more memorable guitar solos on pop-radio in the 1980s. More importantly, it was the "sound" of 80s guitar-power included on a pop-single, and gave hard rock and album-oriented rock radio stations, as well as the caucasian-rock-band-centric MTV, permission to play a young black man's song as part of the rock rotation. "Beat It" help propel "Thriller" into the phenomenon that it became.

Notably, this would not be the last time that EVH contributed uncredited music to a pop-culture success. In 1985, EVH's guitar (sounds) found its way into the film "Back to the Future" as music used to scare George McFly into submitting to the suggestions of a "robot".^[2] Unless EVH is (and has been) lying to fans for decades, his work on Jackson's "Beat It" and "Back to the Future" were not only uncredited but also uncompensated. The thought that EVH made nary a cent from either contribution is a bit mind-boggling, given the record sales and ticket/rental sales each has logged in the three-decades since each was released.

Jackson (and video director John Landis) would later pay a small (double) homage to EVH and "Back to the Future", having young Macaulay Culkin strap-on an Ernie Ball Music Man (EBMM) Wolfgang model guitar designed by and for EVH and hit a power chord akin to the one hit by Michael J. Fox in "BTTF" in the intro of the song/video "Black or White".

In the "small world" category, Jackson himself contributed uncredited backing vocals to the Doobie Brothers 1978 release Minute By Minute (on songs "What a Fool Believes", "Here to Love You", and "Minute By Minute"), working with future Van Halen collaborators producer Ted Templeman and Doobie Michael McDonald (sharing a co-writing credit on the 1984 Top 15 single "I'll Wait" from the album 1984). Later, Jackson would be credited with backing vocals on the #2 hit-single by Rockwell "Somebody's Watching Me".

Jackson and EVH's uncredited contributions are consistent with the occasional uncredited contributions of mega-popular artists, including Mick Jagger's famous uncredited backing vocals on Carly Simon's hit-single "You're So Vain".^[3] Of course, when you are the type of recording stars that Jagger, EVH, and Jackson (at the time of working with the Doobies), getting another co-writing and publishing credit may be less of a reward than the work itself (maybe). OTOH, these guys passed up A LOT of money by not getting those credits.

Footnotes

1. According to the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), Jackson's "Thriller" is tied with The Eagles' "Their Greatest Hits, 1971-1975" with certified sales of 29 million copies. However, "Thriller" is an original studio release (1982), while "Their Greatest Hits" is a compilation of The Eagles biggest hits, thereby supporting the distinction as most-successful studio release. Also notable, "Thriller" has not been certified Aug. 2009, while "Their Greatest Hits" has not been certified since Jan. 2006. It is highly likely that each is now over 30 million in certified sales. 2. Back to the Future / EVH 3. You're So Vain

Swift v. The World (It Only Seems That Way)

So, last week, Taylor Swift was using her muscle to first call-out and then praise global-behemoth Apple Inc. once the Cupertino, CA company fell into line with her way of thinking (on royalty payments during the trial-period of Apple's new streaming service).  This week, Swift is on the outs with photographers (and photographers on the outs with her - I sense a song coming from this episode). Apparently, Swift and at least one photographer disagree on whether the photographer is wholly restricted or selectively restricted in using a photo more than once (taken during the "1989 World Tour").  The photographer claims that each photo can be used only once and that the copyright ownership is retained by Firefly Entertainment (Swift's label) presumptively under a "work made for hire" provision in the contract.  Conversely, Swift claims that while each photo may be used only once, additional uses may be provided by submission for approval to Firefly Entertainment, and that the copyright ownership is retained by the photographer (and no "work made for hire" situation ensues).  Obviously, without the executed agreement between the parties, it is difficult to guess which side has the best or better argument(s).  However, "work made for hire" (WMFH) situations are usually very clearly denoted in such agreements, using the specific language from the statute to make it clear that the photographer is being hired by the performing artist for a specific purpose, for a specific (enhanced) fee, and with copyright ownership clearly aligned into the portfolio of the performing artist.  The confusion of whether the photographer is or is not operating under the WMFH provision is, well, confusing.

What may not be readily apparent is that this is not really a fight over copyright issues (or, at the least, the copyright issues are secondary and subservient to a larger set of issues).  Consider: the images captured by the photographer are of Taylor Swift, not of the stage set-up, costumes, band and back-up singers, or the like.  All individuals, famous or not, have the common law right of publicity - the right to exploit his/her name, image, or likeness (aka, NIL rights), or prohibit exploitation by others.  It is a non-federalized form of intellectual property, but tends to be a companion to trademark litigation cases and/or other forms of unfair competition.  And despite these cases not generally grabbing the headlines the way a good patent, trademark, or copyright row grabs, these cases are often more interesting and fairly important (esp. for the entertainer or athlete involved).  In the case of someone as famous as Swift, the ability to exploit and protect against against undesirable (or perhaps over) exploitation makes this form of intellectual property particularly useful for individuals with an established and branded identity.

Right of publicity, and esp. the NIL issue, has grabbed headlines recently with the litigation spurred by former collegiate athletes Sam Keller (Arizona St. quarterback) and Ed O'Bannon (UCLA basketball center) and the class of current and former  collegiate athletes each represented in suing the NCAA and EA Sports.  Although the cases were different, each touched on the right of athletes to exploit their NIL rights.  In Keller et al., the plaintiffs successfully sued EA Sports, surviving an appeal, for its use of collegiate NIL in their popular (and realistic) collegiate video games.  After surviving the EA Sports appeal, the NCAA settled with the Keller plaintiffs for $20 million.  In O'Bannon et al., the plaintiffs successfully sued based on an anti-trust claim that collegiate athletes were not allowed by the NCAA and its member institutions to individually or collectively negotiate with EA Sports (the advantageous beneficiary of amateurism concepts) for pecuniary gain in the use of collegiate athletes' NIL.  Because EA Sports and the NCAA had negotiated the use of NILs of collegiate athletes for a sizeable licensing sum, there is established value in the NILs of the athletes.  By cutting out the athletes, and by denying the athletes a cut of the licensing fee royalty, the plaintiffs alleged that the actions of EA Sports and the NCAA were anti-competitive and a restraint on commercial trade.  This case was also sent up for appeal before the Ninth Circuit, with a decision looming.

Accordingly, rights of publicity and NIL issues are of considerable importance, esp. when the prospect of others free-riding and making a considerable profit.  While it may appear such celebs are on a power trip, protecting one's valuable NIL in the age of electronic media is a harrowing but necessary proposition.