Contract Analysis: Paul McCartney vs. Victor Willis, Coursework Example

Copyrights play a considerable role in the world of music. In this case, both complainants, Victor Willis and Paul McCartney understood fully the importance of the Copyright Acts, which was effected in 1978 January. Copyright’s law came to protect the original owners of creativity, who I believe had suffered long enough. Even though the applicants relied on different grounds in both cases, it is also true to state that both of them sought copyright grant termination. Before indulging fully in analyzing the two case scenarios, it is essential to note that publishing contract deals that generate extra profits to the artists are one of the primary reasons the artist enters into a valid contract with the publishers. However, to protect the artists, the law allows the regaining back the grants to the artists from the publishers after the expiry of 35 years. The artist is obliged to inform the publishers of their decision to regain or to terminate the contract.

Similarly, both cases have separate reasons for termination. First and foremost, Victor Willis, one of the Village people music group partners, decided to look for termination of share transfers who acted independently minus the other group members being brought on board. This point is crucial; firstly, Victor Willis understood his rights and the law in which, by law, termination of the copyright contract only one of the joint members is enough to terminate the copyright contract. Section 203 is what Victor Willis relied on. In this case, this section gives the advantage that in the lapse of 35 years, an artist can regain back his or her copyrights grants such as transfers. In this matter, the ruling of the court set a binding precedent, which I firmly believe was done in accordance with the. Whereas the authors or the artist will always claim certain matters according to Copyrights, the publishers also have their rights, and they also have various grounds for arguing in terms of termination.  The Copyrights Act should be applauded because, in as much as there is a contractual relationship between the publisher and the author, both parties have their argumentative standpoint in legal suits.

Additionally, Paul McCartney also had the same intention of termination; although he suffered a significant blow, I acknowledge that he was arguing from the right end of the law. McCartney relied on section 304, in which artists are allowed to send the reasons for the termination of copyright to the publishers five years before attaining the age of 56. In regards, McCartney being a joint singer with Lennon. Had McCartney been aware of the full procedures before seeking the declaratory judgment against Sony/ATV, then definitely Sony could not have rebutted by suing for the breach of contract although he had the hopes of winning the termination decision. In this case, the court pronounced itself at its best.

In comparison, therefore, Victor Willis relied on section 204, which McCartney could not rely on since songs were way before 1978 and therefore, if he could raise it, the case could not proceed from the word go. However, it is to be agreed that in both cases, the complainants acted independently; I mean each of them sought without minding about the perspectives or minds of their counterparts, they still went ahead to seek for copyright grant termination. The Duran Duran worsened the jurisdiction situation, and that’s why McCartney had some difficulties in succeeding on the onset. Even if some fingers have been pointed to Paul McCartney, he did as per the law. Section 304 part c, which gives the living right to make notices to the publishers of their termination, was fully satisfied by McCartney where he had several times notified Sony/ATV about his notice to terminate the transfer rights between him and his partner in Beatles. Maybe among the main reasons why Victor Willis’s case did not have challenges was because of the period in which he had written his songs, unlike McCartney’s songs, which were way before the copyrights Act was amended.

Equally both, Willis and McCartney were within their legal rights to seek termination. These two cases have significant impacts as far as the law regarding copyrights is concerned. Both cases have their own grounds for determination and somewhat shows how deciding copyright cases could be challenging. McCartney’s swift on his notices from 2008 to 2015 has been seen to be why he underwent challenges, unlike Willis, who wanted to show that he needed no one to terminate the contract. These cases, therefore, have shown how publishing could be facing challenges and as such, before the duo that is the author and the publisher enter into a copyright contract, the essentials and the language used should be detailed not lead to ambiguities.