MovieChat Forums > Danny Collins (2015) Discussion > Who owns the rights to these Lennon song...

Who owns the rights to these Lennon songs?

posted 9 years ago by lavender1905
13 replies | jump to latest

Could not stop thinking about this whenever they played one of them. It's not often you hear them in a movie and I wasn't too happy to hear them in such a corny piece of garbage.

As one of those "narrow, rapidly dying boomers" or whatever we've been called 😃, I cannot imagine that Yoko needed money. I'll only forgive if it went to Julian.....and then still grudgingly. These songs meant a lot in my life.

[–] kjperes13 9 years ago

This article makes it seem that Yoko owns everything.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/epic-rights-secures-john-lennon-712579

Just curious...how exactly are you angry about his music being used in a movie about a man who got a letter from John Lennon in real life? Whose music would you suggest
they use?

[–] tzogas 9 years ago

Could not stop thinking about this whenever they played one of them.

I thought about that, too. A fairly quick Google check states that his widow Yoko Ono owns the rights to all post-Beatle John Lennon songs.

It's not often you hear them in a movie and I wasn't too happy to hear them in such a corny piece of garbage.

corny piece of garbage

Perhaps a documentary of the evils of Communism would have been a better venue.

As one of those "narrow, rapidly dying boomers" or whatever we've been called 😃, I cannot imagine that Yoko needed money.

Not sure why you are adding a boo-hoo about the negative perception of your generation held by some, but no, certainly it's not money she needs. Perhaps she approved of releasing these songs so that they might carry his legacy to yet another generation. After all, as his wife, I would assume that she knew him in a way that none of us ever will - and believed that John would have approved of her decision. From the things he said, it appears that he placed an enormous amount of trust in her; she was his partner in all things. The connection they shared is to be envied by all of the lovers, dare I say dreamers, of this world.

I'll only forgive if it went to Julian.....and then still grudgingly. These songs meant a lot in my life.

grudgingly

I can't imagine that they meant anything to you at all, at least not in the spirit in which those songs appeared to have been written. Listen to them again most carefully; perhaps it's time to take stock of your life, as Danny Collins did, as we all could do. It's never too late.

**Have an A1 day**

[–] tzogas 9 years ago

And ps lavender1905, I'm not trying to troll you. John Lennon's music means many things to many people, and/but I think there's a sort of concept that, ultimately, the rights to his music "belong" to this entire planet; his music belongs to the world. Having say over who has the legal right to distribute it as a commercial item, however, is a matter that has been entrusted to his family, which is likely the most appropriate thing to do. And again, from the things that Lennon said, I cannot see him as a person who would extend forgiveness "grudgingly", least of all for the things which do not beg forgiveness at all.

Yoko Ono committed no crimes, here. She is John Lennon's widow, doing the best she can in the situation she was placed in by the actions of another person. And I think at least one of the best ways we can honor Lennon's life and legacy is to respect the woman who was such a major inspiration to him in the first place.

**Have an A1 day**

[–] lavender1905 9 years ago

Hi tzogas, how are you doing?

Just wanted to thank you for looking into that "who owns the rights" question and for your thoughtful comments.

I was a little confused about some of them ( "documentary on the evils of communism" ?? )

Certainly you put a lot more thought into this than I did, I admit my remarks were very off-the-cuff and I am sort of surprised that anyone even read them.

I also appreciate that you are not one of the legion of knee-jerk Yoko-bashers. Kind of like you say, anyone with respect for John ought to respect his choice of life partner.

So I'm not going to defend or retract my first impression of this movie (or respond to trolls who don't know the meaning of a smiley face, **NOT YOU!!** I mean like the one who posted on this thread before you did). I just did not put that much thought into it.

This probably should go into a thread of it's own, but I would like to share with you and other Beatles/Lennon fans another movie I came across that you all might enjoy. It is in Spanish, but for people who can deal with that I think you are in for a treat. it is called "Living Is Easy With Eyes Closed" ("Vivir es Facil con los Ojos Cerrados"). Set in Spain in 1966, an English teacher picks up two hitchhikers on his quest to meet John Lennon. A beautiful movie that could only possibly be improved by a little more music? I hope people will like it.

You have a good one too, tzogas 😄

[–] tzogas 9 years ago

Thank you for your lovely response, lavender1905! And I will return later today after my (split)shift is over; then I will have the time to offer a more detailed reply. I'm looking forward to it. :)
'Till then.

**Have an A1 day**

[–] tzogas 9 years ago

Hi tzogas, how are you doing?

Quite alright, thank you for asking!

Just wanted to thank you for looking into that "who owns the rights" question and for your thoughtful comments.

You are very welcome, and thank you for perceiving my comments as thoughtful. My friends have been known to occasionally become impatient with me for “going too deep”; “reading too much into things” and “thinking too much”.

Unfortunately, this only serves to send me into a deep contemplation of how anyone can ever possibly do too much thinking; especially with all of the problems needing to be solved in the world today. However, I refrain from also questioning them on this; their heads hurt too much already. But if one more of them sends me a Facebook post with another simplistic feel-good pithy little message (I call them “fridge magnets”) about “insert world problem here” without a backup (and defensible) personal philosophy, I think my head is going to explode. (edit for clarity: It's frustrating to see people give lip-service to concepts and ideals which deserve discussion and contemplation. We've gotten to the point we are by not thinking about what we say, and not examining how we arrive(d) at our opinions/beliefs.)

I was a little confused about some of them ( "documentary on the evils of communism" ?? )

You're going to need backstory on this one:
1) Many years ago, I watched an old documentary on John Lennon's and Yoko Ono's “Bed-In” (remember?). I believe it was in black-and-white, and the interviewer seemed, well, unsympathetic to their intentions and actions. I don't remember him saying so directly.....but it was in his mannerisms, his tone of voice (subtly sarcastic, almost mocking) and there was an air of insinuation about him.

I could feel it, even through the dead pixels of television. I was only a kid, just starting to percieve the ways of adults. I got a little confused – I thought, “Aren't interviewers just there to ask questions? Is the couple in the bed really doing something wrong?”

And then John rescued me from my confusion by asking the interviewer why he was being such an a-hole. At that point, I knew it wasn't just me. This interviewer was representing for the Establishment, and his interview was slanted so as to provoke John and Yoko. It was the first time I realized that it was “ok” not to trust (or at least to question) the man in the suit and tie. Before that, to me, the suit and tie uniform was a signal of “respectability” and “responsibility”. That day, I learned who was more deserving of my respect. An honest, plain-talking couple who were hurting no one with their actions and expression of protest.

My point is, the Establishment needed to discredit John Lennon, Yoko Ono, and their beliefs as “corny garbage”, as you put it. The Establishment needed everybody to just “grow up” and “start being adults” and STOP “believing in fairy tales” (of a peaceful earth). He is dead now, and as you might know, this world is not anywhere near the better for it. In fact, perhaps this movie has arrived right on time. Could you not feel anything of John Lennon's spirit in this “corny” movie? A little bit of his presence, however light-hearted? I know I did – right from the moment Danny Collins begins to comprehend what he holds in his hands, and “Imagine” starts to play. This song, decades old, censored from the radio in the days following 9/11......and to me it was brand-new.....once again.

I wish everyone could feel as I did at that moment. For me, the scene did what I sincerely believe it was intended to do. It brought John Lennon back for a single moment. I try to make that moment stay – as we all wish wonderful moments would. Ah, perhaps all that sounds corny to you as well, but hey, not everything hits every mark in every person, every time. Just thought you should know that for some people, that moment was there for them, and sorry it didn't do the same for you. Reading you call it “corny garbage” brought back the memory of that old interviewer, and I worried that you'd lost whatever it was that meant so much to you in Lennon's music, and that you'd become cynical. That would be a waste, I think. Why did I “worry”? I can't say at the moment. I guess I'll have to think on **that**...some more.

To sum up #1: Had the Establishment succeeded in making a complete mockery out of these two people, I could possibly see an alternate future in which we would be watching anti-Communist propoganda with Lennon's music playing in the background as some kind of evil joke.

and

2) I'm a bit of a smart-ass.

Certainly you put a lot more thought into this than I did, I admit my remarks were very off-the-cuff and I am sort of surprised that anyone even read them.

I am a surprising person. I've been criticized on here for my, uh, “varying tone” - but I believe that people are like diamonds; they have many sides and facets, and they change depending on how the light is hitting them at the moment. Your post seemed worth it to respond to. And I believe somewhat in serendipity. I have a desire to learn from others, and I'd like to believe I have something to offer in return.

I also appreciate that you are not one of the legion of knee-jerk Yoko-bashers. Kind of like you say, anyone with respect for John ought to respect his choice of life partner.

Let me be clear: I think Yoko Ono deserves respect first and foremost because she is a human being. I suggested that she deserved respect as John Lennon's wife because this is the context in which we the world in general were introduced to her, and knew her in that context from that point onwards. Before she was his wife, she was a conceptual artist, I believe, with her own thing going on at the time.

I grew up in an environment which welcomed any chance to bash Ono, or any famous woman, for any reason. Once I was out from under the influence of that community, I began to learn to truly think for myself – including questioning the “Yoko hate”. Such are the consequences of “thinking too much”. Le sigh c'est la vie.

So I'm not going to defend or retract my first impression of this movie (or respond to trolls who don't know the meaning of a smiley face, **NOT YOU!!** I mean like the one who posted on this thread before you did).

You know, it's funny......I posted that second comment without ever having seen your response to that person. As per #2 above, I am well aware that I can risk getting off on the wrong foot with people who do not know me very well. Alternatively, sometimes people simply misunderstand me because perhaps they've become accustomed to people thinking the worst of them – most especially when meeting on the web. That second post was a prophylactic measure against such a possibility.

I just did not put that much thought into it.

At least no one could accuse you of “thinking too much” - which doesn't feel quite as good as people may think it might. :)

Thanks for the movie suggestion – I may look into it. :)

Ta.

**Have an A1 day**

[–] Newton820 9 years ago

These songs were Lennon's gift to the world. In some respects, hearing them in a movie like this may be the only exposure younger generations get to such songs, even if it is a film you regard as corny.

Personally, I can only recall one instance of hearing 'imagine' in film or t.v. (though Im sure there's more), and that was during an episode of Quantum leap when I was a teenager. I can't decide whether that show or that episode was corny or not due to my age at the time, but it was powerful enough to stick with me. That was my own personal exposure, good or bad, corny or not, I thank whoever gave permission for it to be used.

I respect that you want to protect the legacy of songs that meant a lot in your life, but I think you're being a little bit too precious in this instance.

[–] rkhen 8 years ago

Generation X (since apparently our generations are relevant here. And it's been said that my generation understood John better than his own. All I know is, dude has been important in my life since the beginning. But I don't own him, in any sense, though Yoko does, in some senses.)

Anyway; to get back to the thread topic: as I was watching this movie and enjoying the recognition of so many great John songs -- sung by John, even!! -- I couldn't stop thinking, "How the hell could they AFFORD this?!?" I have no idea, but I suspect Yoko liked the film's concept and gave them a break, just like Paul liked "I Am Sam" and let them cover a whole sheaf of the Lennon/McCartney catalogue for a song. (Sorry; couldn't resist.)

[–] pacinoyes 8 years ago

"but I suspect Yoko liked the film's concept and gave them a break" believe she actually loved the film itself and charged them nothing. If I'm remembering the story correctly........they showed it to her early and outlined songs they wanted etc.

[–] franzkabuki 8 years ago

A few Lennon songs used were pretty much "corny garbage" as well - and made worse by the on-the-nose way they were used to accentuate the stuff on screen.

"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan

[–] billytyner 8 years ago

Yoko but her philosophy has always been she doesn't want them in a "museum," she wants them interacting with the world and putting them in places where others might discover them who otherwise might not. It's not about money at all. and it doesn't have to be some serious piece, either, "Oh My Love" is featured in "Little Darlings" (the Kristy McNichol movie) from 1980 when John was still alive, so he wasn't adverse to allowing them to be in commercial projects and this certainly fits nicely.

[–] jsl_99 8 years ago

Solo Lennon songs pop up in movies from time to time. It's The Beatles songs that appear less on movie soundtracks. And if they do a lot of times they are cover versions. Perhaps acquiring the rights to a Beatle song is much more pricey than a solo Beatle song.

[–] billytyner 8 years ago

It's not really price about the Beatles songs, Apple owns the actual recording of the songs, the performance, so Paul, Ringo, and the John Lennon and George Harrison estates have to sign off it to use their actual voices and recorded performance and they rarely do that, a cover of the songs you don't have to have get the Beatles permission at all, so that means you can sidestep them if you want to use the song, that's when you just have to buy it from Michael Jackson/Sony. In the 80's, Yoko Ono approved "Revolution" to be used in a Nike commercial and the other Beatles went nuts and sued Nike saying Yoko alone was not enough to authorize using the actual recording of the song. That being said, "Happiness is a Warm Gun" was used in a Michael Moore movie, maybe the Columbine one, and they all must have signed off on that. Other than that, I can't think of a Beatles performance being used in a movie, although there have been many covers used.