top of page

'life rights'

  • Writer: Amanda Riddell
    Amanda Riddell
  • 23 minutes ago
  • 2 min read

Leaving aside the fact that life rights aren't a concept in the Commonwealth, the truth is that the Rashomon Beatles films must be conditional upon script approval. There's no other reason that Paul could have persuaded them to let us finish our draft. Beatles Invade New Zealand! was a giant middle finger to Sam Mendes, but it had some origin of the band bits that he badly wanted to use, so he let me write it. He wasn't predicting that we'd refuse to sell it. He didn't predict that Olivia and Yoko would back us up, and now we're at an impasse that is costing his backers millions. - This is what happens when you make a cash grab: people react. Unlike all the estates of the recent biopics, Paul's in the music business. He owns more songs than he's written. Thousands and thousands of songs. According to ChatGPT, MPL administers around 25,000 songs. He's going to own about 150 more when I sign with him. Michael was in the publishing business too, but those films are backed by his family, rather than some media conglomerate who wants to own the Beatles. - Sony's only making their films because Paul has almost bought back the Beatles. The fundamental issue with their movies is that they need Sir Paul to approve the use of any song from A Hard Days Night forward. They only own the first three albums. There is no altruistic motive, and any talk of how the films are critical to the UK industry are total bunk. You could easily make films that Paul hates with the same $200 million, as long as they don't infringe on his copyrights. You could do a version of the Beatles that only uses rock'n'roll covers. You could do a Rutles-type satire that uses the early hits. You could remake Backbeat. You could do a 1960's drama that is Beatles-adjacent, like that Harvey Weinstein film. To stroke Sam's ego, it could be Waiting For Godot with EMI's studio team in 1968. It could be Cynthia watching as John gets famous and leaves her. It could be a film about Donovan or the Rolling Stones or George Martin. Those are all fantastic options, and I'm just shitting them out so you'll piss off. - It's not impossible to verify my statement: Paul's bought the songs back. Every entertainment journalist needs to run that story, not Sony nonsense. Their film can't exist; the only studio tour will be in Wellington when we're shooting. Peter and I would rather that the media didn't watch us, though, after this travesty.

 
 
 

Recent Posts

See All
Pulling out the big guns

I hadn't really thought that my saga could be defined as torture, but then I read this: Crimes of Torture Act 1989. Part I, Article I: For the purposes of this Convention, the term “torture” means a

 
 
 
To Christopher and Amanda Luxon

We all know the reason that I wasn't forced to change my name is that I have evidence - and people who can corroborate - that I was using that name in 2019 and 2020. I was releasing tracks as Amanda

 
 
 

2 Comments


Amanda Riddell
Amanda Riddell
20 minutes ago

I'm no IP lawyer, but that seems like checkmate. Everything else is merely illegal threats that the studio cooked up to scare us.

Edited
Like
Amanda Riddell
Amanda Riddell
17 minutes ago
Replying to

It's not just the life rights which count; it's the right to use the Beatles branding. Given that I haven't seen a shot that uses the Beatles logo, I'm guessing that those rights were also conditional upon script approval. In essence, they got the right to write a first draft, and turned that into a press release by casting actors. That's disingenuous enough to count as fraud.

Edited
Like
bottom of page