I Am the Walrus.—No. I Am!: Can Paul McCartney Transpose the Ubiquitous "Lennon/McCartney" Songwriting Credit to Read "McCartney/Lennon?" An Exploration of the Surviving Beatle's Attempt to Re-Write Music Lore, as it Pertains to the Bundle of Intellectual Property Rights

Abstract

This Comment will explore the myriad of legal issues surrounding the "can of worms" as Ono has described it, that McCartney has opened. In weighing each party's potential claims and defenses, there are at least three areas of law which deserve consideration: copyright law, trademark law, and the common law right of publicity.

Tying together the three areas of law, is an intangible not typically present in the usual infringement dispute. That intangible can best be described as lore, or more precisely, Beatles lore. This Comment will propose that the goodwill associated with that lore, and its delicate nature, is the straw that stirs any potential causes of action or defenses related to this dispute into one concoction. In achieving their unparalleled success, a history of the Beatles was written, and any attempt to rewrite that history could unleash an effect that would be detrimental to Beatles lore and diminish its great value. The mere transposition of the names Lennon and McCartney could specifically be the type of revisionist act that causes such an adverse effect. That effect will continually be weighed as this Comment explores the issues which surround the potential litigation for the hypothetical yet extremely plausible Estate of Lennon v. McCartney case described herein. Part II of this Comment will focus on the history and background of the areas of law mentioned above. Part III will apply that law to the facts of this hypothetical case. Part IV will consider relevant future trends, and Part V will conclude the Comment.