TMZ

Our TV Shows

Got a Tip?

Call TMZ at (888) 847-9869 or Click Here

Jackson's Beatles Songs -- Let it Be

9/14/2009 7:55 AM PDT BY TMZ STAFF

Jackson's Beatles Songs -- Let it BeMichael Jackson's publishing catalog will not be sold to pump up the assets in the estate, according to sources familiar with the probate.

We're told several family members are questioning why the estate appears, as one put it, "in the red." Sources knowledgeable with the estate acknowledge a "huge amount of debt" as creditors claims continue to come in.

But, we're told, in the end, if all the assets were sold the estate would definitely be flush with cash. HOWEVER, sources say the publishing catalog -- notably the Beatles' songs -- will not go on the auction block. Sources say it's an asset that is worth way more to Jackson's kids in the long run than the cash it would generate now.

The honchos in the estate, we're told, are confident it will be fueled by an influx of cash over the next year or two -- the amount of time it will take to wrap probate up.

Until probate ends, family members will have to make due with their allowances.

180 COMMENTS

No Avatar
91.

Della    

I think you are misinformed about how Michael purchased that catalog. Paul had the chance to purchase it. He asked Yoko to split the cost and she would not. They both thought the price was too steep.

I hope the Jackson family is not allowed to sell Michael's stake in Sony/ATV. He went through hell to hold onto that for his children's future. I know that there are private investment firms putting out feelers and so far Branca says it's not for sale, which is a good thing.


1868 days ago
92.

susan    

The rights already reverted to Yoko on John's portion in the '90's. Paul's portion will start reverting back to him in 9 years. Why would Yoko spend any money on something she already owns and got for free, and why would Paul spend any money when he will start getting his portion back for free starting in 9 years? Harrison's estate will also start getting theirs back for free because he is now deceased.



94. They need to sell it back to Paul McCartney and Yoko Ono for whatever multi-millions they can agree on; they were dealt out of ownership of the Lennon-McCartney songbook by incompetent management in the first place, and then when it finally comes up for sale, MJ snatched it away despite Paul being a "friend." It would be the right thing to do rather than the greed thing, and of course, the family probably won't do that.

Posted at 3:41PM on Sep 14th 2009 by Raejean



Read more: http://www.tmz.com/2009/09/14/michael-jackson-beatles-songs-estate-probate-kids-publishing-rights/7#comments#ixzz0R71kqQNG

1868 days ago
93.

susan    

The price had nothing to do with Yoko's decision. Under the law, the rights were going to start reverting back in the '90's. She got John's portion for free a decade later.


95. I think you are misinformed about how Michael purchased that catalog. Paul had the chance to purchase it. He asked Yoko to split the cost and she would not. They both thought the price was too steep.

I hope the Jackson family is not allowed to sell Michael's stake in Sony/ATV. He went through hell to hold onto that for his children's future. I know that there are private investment firms putting out feelers and so far Branca says it's not for sale, which is a good thing.




Posted at 3:47PM on Sep 14th 2009 by Della



Read more: http://www.tmz.com/2009/09/14/michael-jackson-beatles-songs-estate-probate-kids-publishing-rights/7#ixzz0R72yPqOg

1868 days ago
94.

susan    

And you were answered. I state the catalogue had over 500,000 songs in it.



80. Jeez, Susan lighten up.

I am discussing what Michael holds as far as music. Sony does manage Michael's catalot of music and does not own it.I am aware that the Sony/ATV Catalog and Michael's music are not connected.

I am saying that his estate or the trust hold his share of what he owned.

The article above discusses the Beatles songs. All I said was doesn't his ownership in the Sony/ATV Catalog have other music in it.

While my guitar weeps.. that is what I was trying to say.


Posted at 1:11PM on Sep 14th 2009 by Della



Read more: http://www.tmz.com/2009/09/14/michael-jackson-beatles-songs-estate-probate-kids-publishing-rights/6#comments#ixzz0R73VruFv

1868 days ago
95.

liz    

yes, I think Taylor Swift is included in the Sony'ATV catalog. Michael's music is totally seperate in his own company, mijac or something like that.

They better never sell that Sony/ATV catalog, that is what has kept him and his family afloat financially ever since they got it. Not his music.

1868 days ago
96.

susan    

They don't own the rights to her music. She pays them a fee to manage it. Latter day artists all own their own rights. People from the 40's, 50's and 60's never realized the value in it or were swindled out of their rights by bad management. The Beatles included, who tried to regain control of their music publishing rights after Brian Epstein died, but got screwed up by bad management.


101. yes, I think Taylor Swift is included in the Sony'ATV catalog. Michael's music is totally seperate in his own company, mijac or something like that.

They better never sell that Sony/ATV catalog, that is what has kept him and his family afloat financially ever since they got it. Not his music.

Posted at 4:03PM on Sep 14th 2009 by jeri



Read more: http://www.tmz.com/2009/09/14/michael-jackson-beatles-songs-estate-probate-kids-publishing-rights/7#comments#ixzz0R75M2WKw

1868 days ago
97.

Lila    

It's totally amazing how pathetic it is for those that choose to come on here and spread their venom. All they have to say is stupid remarks that nobody believes or think is funny. It really speaks volumes of what low self-esteem they have, this must be the only way they can feel better about themselves. SO SAD. For all those that "hate" MJ so much, why do you bother reading everything that is posted about him. Seems to be that you are more obsessed with him than anyone else.

1868 days ago
98.

Della    



When Associated Television Corporation (aka ATV) put the publishing rights to its catalog of 4,000 titles (including most of the Lennon-McCartney Beatles songs) up for sale, Jackson was immediately interested. McCartney, not so much. He initially felt it would just be too expensive. Besides, no matter who owned them, he'd still be getting a cut of the royalties on those Beatles songs. At one point, he tried to get Yoko Ono to make a joint bid with him, but she declined. In the end, McCartney became a serious bidder, and dropped out only when Jackson's bid hit $43.5-million.

For Macca, it may well have been more matter of principle than of price. As he told London's Daily Mirror, "The annoying thing is I have to pay to play some of my own songs. Each time I want to sing 'Hey Jude' I have to pay." It was enough to irrevocably strain the relationship between the two onetime friends and collaborators.

1868 days ago
99.

Della    

Lila-

Not sure who you are speaking to, but I am and always have been a fan of Michael's. I have been here trying to research and find out what happened to him

So as far as I can see, no one is spewing venom about Michael on this board at this time.

there are haters out there who come here spewing hate.

I am not one of them. Susan and I seem to have a disagreement about facts.

Not that it really matters, because Michael is not here, and the family has and the estate have control at this point, so our arguing is a moot point anyway.

Justice for Michael Joseph Jackson

1868 days ago
100.

susan    

The Beatles make more money each and every year. There will always be new way to deliver music, a new way to market it, new venues. The catalogue is timeless. They are the Beethovens and Mozarts of the 20th century. Last I heard, Mozart and Beethoven were still selling pretty well, several hundred years later.

I don't see any other 20 century artist that has high school and college courses being taught about them. Here they are, 46 years later, and not skipping a beat. The big difference is now their music spans all generations, from the young to the old. The Beatles are not going anywhere in our lifetime or future lifetimes.


29. The Beatles catalog must be close to or has already past its
prime income producing level. Although they are icons, they are icons
from about 40 years ago. And, like it or not, even icons eventually
lose their marketshare. The recent release of their enhanced music is
an example of the catalog's worth, but it's also evidence of marketing
options that running low.

The key to the catalog's worth is it's ability to generate large
profits. That doesn't come from people buying the music, but from
intense marketing deals, like the one going on now. Trouble is, there
are only so many of those left. And after that, the catalog will have
reached its max value.

1868 days ago
101.

francis    

Maybe this damn catalog was the real reason why he was killed?
I hope the family never let the catalog to be sold to anyone.
The catalog should be left to his children.
RIP Michael Jackson.

1868 days ago
102.

susan    

That's wrong info. Paul never put in a bid. In fact, when the catalogue came on the selling block, MJ's lawyers called Paul's people to see if he would be bidding on it, and they were told no. There was extensive articles written on this whole thing by all the players involved. Googling it or going on to the worst site like wikpedia, where people post wrong info all the time, is not going to cut it.

Paul didn't have a right to be angry that someone else bought it because he couldn't swing it at the time. However, where he was 100% right to be angry was Two fold: After MJ bought them, he called him several times to get an increase on the songwriting royalties, for him, Lennon and Harrison, as they were still at the slave wages of the 60's, when artists were getting screwed. MJ laughed him off and slapped them all the face, while MJ was going on about righting the wrongs on some of the music he now owned where the artists were concerned. The second item that Paul was justified in was the way the Beatles music was being used in mindless commercials and devaluing their worth. At one time, an actual Beatle recording of Revolution was used on a Nike commercial. No one has the right to use actual Beatle recordings, without the permission of Apple, which is the Beatles. They sued and it was pulled off the air. The Beatles to this day, have only allowed their actual recordings to be used twice in commercial ventures. The first was Cirque de Solei Love and now Rock Band, and they are partners in both.

105.

When Associated Television Corporation (aka ATV) put the publishing rights to its catalog of 4,000 titles (including most of the Lennon-McCartney Beatles songs) up for sale, Jackson was immediately interested. McCartney, not so much. He initially felt it would just be too expensive. Besides, no matter who owned them, he'd still be getting a cut of the royalties on those Beatles songs. At one point, he tried to get Yoko Ono to make a joint bid with him, but she declined. In the end, McCartney became a serious bidder, and dropped out only when Jackson's bid hit $43.5-million.

For Macca, it may well have been more matter of principle than of price. As he told London's Daily Mirror, "The annoying thing is I have to pay to play some of my own songs. Each time I want to sing 'Hey Jude' I have to pay." It was enough to irrevocably strain the relationship between the two onetime friends and collaborators.



Posted at 4:27PM on Sep 14th 2009 by Della



Read more: http://www.tmz.com/2009/09/14/michael-jackson-beatles-songs-estate-probate-kids-publishing-rights/7#comments#ixzz0R7CdB5JM

1868 days ago
103.

Anita    

there is one thing I have read about is that MJ said he would never sell the beatles catalog to no one. that is not for sell

1868 days ago
104.

Patty    

This is a very wise decision. What is most important now is the future for Michael's children.

1868 days ago
105.

BillieJeanJackson    

Susan,

I served as legal guardian to a minor for 10 years. I had to submit a budget, which the court could approve, item by item. If the minor needed anything else I had to submit to the court in advance for approval. After he reached age of majority,(usually as dictated in the will) my part ended, but he still had to submit to probate court a budget annually. Until the case was out of probate.

If I would have made a purchase with his money not approved, I was told I would have to pay it back personally. I know this pertains to minors, but Katherine had to submit a budget to the courts to receive the allowance she is receiving, and if she needs addition funds they would have to be approved.

The guardian that was assigned to the children makes the financial decision on the money for them, with court approval, until the estate is out of probate. And that could take years. And yes the court can dictate where every penny goes. Because at the present time they are receiving a living allowance, not the final payout.

Not every estate is cleared out of probate in a timely manner. Every law suit and creditor must be satisfied before they can get the moneys released.

The living trust that is PRIVATE will then dictate who receives what. This part of it we will probably never know. At that time other Jackson family members may receive moneys MJ set for them.

The case I was involved in lasted 15 years. There was a lot of legal wrangling, but attorney fees were capped, which was good, it didn't eat up the principal, But if they are not capped this could go on forever. I believe Branca & McClain get 10% fee, which is about normal for estate lawyers. So the more $$ they make for the estate, the more they will make.

I did not take payment, because the child was my Grandson. It was my daughters estate. But I could have received an annual payment from the estate for those 10 years. I chose not to.

But the rest of my family wasn't trying to live off my daughter estate either, as the Jacksons seem to be doing.

The Courts can order anyone living at havenhurst to pay rent and food if they want to. Because they are not one of 4 people allowed to receive moneys for living allowances. The Judge has full control for now.

1868 days ago
Previous 15 Comments | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | Most Recent | Next 15 Comments

Around The Web