Talk:Apple Corps

Ethos

It seems to me that this article is more in line with the Apple today (faceless machine for collecting royalties) than the bizarre creature it started out as. It really needs some 60s perspective - the "western communism" quote, the mountain of demo tapes, the Magic Alex saga, the Apple Boutique give away, Krishna and David Peel records, the drink and drugs etc etc. Some of these have seperate pages, but IMHO the Apple article itself presents it as a soul-less boring corporation!

[I know, I ought to do it myself but it'll have to go on the bottom of a very long todo list!] --kingboyk 03:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Apple Films

I've created a stub article on Apple Films. Additions and improvements are most welcome. --kingboyk 19:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

From my fandom of T.Rex and relating to the film "Born To Boogie", I understand that Apple Films was Ringo Starr's "personal" project. Is there any citable evidence for this? (I would suggest that the word of Marc Bolan, recorded or otherwise, is not evidence - his take on "Beauty is Truth" meant that he said what was at the time apt, not necassarily accurate!)LessHeard vanU 12:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Circumstancial evidence would support it... aside from George's Concert for Bangladesh, the only other 2 films I know of involved Ringo. As for a more reliable quote... it's been over 15 years since I read widely on the Beatles, but now you mention it I think one of the major bios talks about this. (Maybe Peter Brown?). --kingboyk 20:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Article Merger

I am planning to merge in the articles on Apple Films, Electronics and Studio. This will make the Apple Corps article longer and more interesting, and remove 3 short articles from the database. --kingboyk 20:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Done, and wow, I think it's a lot better. I'm not merging Apple Records though, I'm firmly of the belief that should be in a seperate article. I'm also leaving Apple Boutique seperate as it was quite notable and famous by itself and is a good, standalone article. --kingboyk 21:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Apple Films

Did Apple Films make any movies other than the 2 listed here?

Oh, and, does anybody else read this talk page? I seem to be talking to myself! :-) --kingboyk 13:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Son of Dracula (1974 film)

Well, I've learnt something new today, thanks to a recent edit! I didn't know that Apple Films made a Dracula movie starring Ringo and Nilsson. Nor had I heard of "Rapple" (RCA/Apple). Thanks for that. --kingboyk 19:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Ownership

This does not say who owns it now, does Maccartney still own this joint or not? Is mcaratney involved in suing itunes? is he the greedy sob doingh that? or noghtt?--203.208.102.224 12:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Applecorps.jpg

Good Article nomination for this is on hold at the moment due to the above image not having either source infomation or a fair use rationale. If this is not corrected within 7 days, the article may be failed. Alexj2002 09:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I've added a fair use rationale. I don't know where the image came from but this I believe is irrelevant. The copyright is owned by Apple Corps, end of story. The scanner can assert no copyright in it. --kingboyk 14:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Alexj2002 21:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for not promoting

As 203.208.102.224 noted, the article does not explain the current ownership situation of Apple Corps. This is a major omission and the article can therefore not become a good article. Some additional information on how the company arrived at its current ownership situation or the revenues/worth of the company would also benefit the article. Cedars 06:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. The article doesn't say the company was sold nor that there was any change in status, because there wasn't :) It's still owned by The Beatles/wives. I'll update it to reflect that. Revenues could be obtained from Companies House i imagine but I think that would cost money, which I don't have. --kingboyk 09:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Nike

Seems like there should be something about the Nike use of "Revolution" in a commercial and the subsequent cancellation of that commercial.Nick 20:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

That was more a Northern Songs issue than an Apple issue wasn't it? (not a rhetorical question) --kingboyk 14:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It was both. And yet neither. There were (and always are) two separate sets of rights for any use of music in a film, TV show or commercial. The rights of the music publisher/songwriters (in this case handled by Sony/ATV Music - which owns Northern Songs). And the rights of the owners/controllers of the recording (EMI Records.) Nike needed licenses covering both sets of rights for the commercial. Sony/ATV granted rights - it did not - and does not - need any permission from the writers/Lennon Estate to do that. Apple does not own the Beatles recordings. EMI does. And its North American subsidiary Capitol at that time (1987) had freedom to grant such licenses in North America. Which it did. A subsequent negotiation between EMI and Apple changed things so that while EMI continues to be sole owners of the recordings - it cannot make any deals exploiting the recordings without the express prior approval of Apple - which represents the four parties (currently: Paul, Ringo and the Estates of John and George) whose performances are heard on the recordings. (See: Nike,_Inc.#Beatles_song) Davidpatrick 14:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand about the rights issue, and therefore failed to see how Apple could be involved. We could perhaps mention the EMI deal here but on the whole it looks to me like the Nike issue is a bit too peripheral to be in the Apple article. --kingboyk 15:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Citation for Matt Fury's Father's Group Apple Corp

Can someone please provide a reference for the sentence regarding the above mentioned bit in the section on Apple Publishing? I have never heard of this and -should we know who Matt Fury is, because I certainly don't.

Sources

beatlemoney.com has a selection of quotations from press clippings and books about the early days of Apple Corps. --kingboyk 19:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Founding date?

I remember reading quite a few times that especially Paul, most interested in their financial affairs, NEMS and stuff, said in a number of interviews that Apple "had been around for ages" due to that attempt at dodging taxes, before they tried to "get hold of it" themselves and make use of it due to Brian's death in the summer of '67. Kind of like it had been sitting in the corner for years without anyone knowing what it could be good for until Paul attempted to replace Brian as their manager and this lead to the final concept of Apple as

something like a charity organisation for artists. According to [1], Apple was nothing but a mere renaming of Beatles, Ltd. and that Apple took very long before getting an own office, that is "not until the autumn of 1967", "in September". Also, how could there be an additional Apple boutique in 1967 if Apple wasn't founded before 1968? --Tlatosmd 17:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The Company was founded on 20 June 1963, according to Companies House. http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/b63b351051c362eb45373bc8fc3bdf06/compdetails

Companies House doesn't publish name changes on the web entry that happened more than 20 years ago. So the date of a name change from "Beatles" to "Apple" is not available however if this entity was in fact "The Beatles" in one sense the Beatles never broke up since really the company number is what matters, all they did was change their name to "Apple". This does conflict with the date of "formation" of 1968 quoted in the article.

How does these people have the right to sue apple?

They just want money and apple's logo is in the shape of an apple but still, its not original; many things have apples as logos and you can't sue someone for that. Apples appear all the time in nature, and these retarded people think they can sue anyone who shows an apple on anything. They're not worried about their trademark, they just want money! And the only company big enough to offer them any is Apple, Inc. I am 100% mac and I hate this corp from now on and I think Apple deserves their money back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uber-Awesomeness (talk • contribs) 00:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

See trademark law. --Joshua Issac (talk) 20:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Apple Corp has been a household, internationally renowned company by the greatest band in the world since years before Steve Jobs and some other guy decided to call their tiny garage workshop Apple Computers. It would be like some small apple farmer wanting to start a company called Coca Cola for his apple juice and not expect some litigation from an international company that already has that name. I doubt you'd ever see any as generous licensing agreement from Coca Cola as has been granted by Apple Corp to Apple Computers. And if we stick to the metaphor, by the time the above uninformed post was made our not-so-small-anymore apple farmer Jobs had started to produce a cola, even though his former licensing agreement had expressively forbid him to do so, and was hence sued again.

In short, there's really no reason to feel sorry for Apple Computers with how generously Apple Corp has responded to them over the years. If Jobs and the other guy had called their company Coca Cola or Disney, no Mac computer would've ever been produced because their garage workshop woulda been crushed before they even knew what hit them. --37.80.56.240 (talk) 22:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

beatles wrist watch

i have a beatles watch, with all 4 heads acting as the second hand. wind-up. i cant find it any where on the inter-net. made by the apple corps. 1989. is there any history to this, and any value to collectors? works and looks great. ty, randy4343147@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.74.65.136 (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Congratulations! Keep it! --79.220.19.63 (talk) 19:36, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Current (?) logo

The press page for The Beatles: Rock Band has a slightly different Apple Corps logo. Is it worth updating the logo to that version? Trivialist (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Apple logo

But apples logo is almost the same because its only an apple and its name is exactly the same. This is apple corp and macs apple is just called apple —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.31.254 (talk) 03:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Music

Michael Jackson owned much of the Beatles music. But now he is dead. So does Apple own it or is it part of MJ's estate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.77.60.127 (talk) 05:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

MJ had already sold the catalog to Sony before he died. He used the remaining 25% as collateral for a loan with the current status unknown of the last 25%. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Parent

I see Apple Inc. as parent. Aren't the 4 Beatles the only shareholders of Apple Corp.? warpozio (talk) 12:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Two entirely different companies. Apple Corps was founded mainly as a music publisher in the UK around 1967/68, whereas Apple Inc. (then Apple Computers) was founded almost a decade later by totally different people in the USA to make computers, when Apple Corps from the UK was already a huge multi-national company and internationally household name. Hence, Apple Corps has sued Apple Computers aka Apple Inc. several times over the years on grounds of trademark infringement, because the two companies have nothing to do with each other outside of that Jobs and Wozniak stole the name.

Apple Inc. has never "bought" Apple Corps to become a "parent", all that happened is that from 1981-2007, Apple Corp from the UK only sold Apple Computers a license so Steve Jobs could still use the name that he'd stolen, as long as his company didn't get into music in any way (an agreement under which a percentage of all the profits made by Job's company went directly to Apple Corps every year 1981-2007 to compensate them for Jobs's infringement). Several suits related to breach of contract followed, due to Apple computers being able to play MIDI, or due to releasing the iPod or starting iTunes, as they'd promised in 1981 to stay out of music but kept infringing on that agreement.

The only "change" that occured in 2007 is that Job's company has now bought the full trademark, *NOT* Apple Corps as a company! This new deal has pretty much reversed the former agreement: Now, Apple Corps is paying Job's company for the right to use the name. But again: Job's former company doesn't "own" Apple Corps, which is still owned solidly by the two surviving Beatles, the estates of the two deceased ones, and EMI (the latter now in turn being owned by Sony/ATV). --2003:71:4E07:BB23:9163:E32E:3FE1:A5D3 (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

What did and does Apple own?

This article as well as The Beatles#Song catalogue make it sound like all that Apple has ever owned of The Beatles's own works were three films (MMT, Yellow Submarine, and Let it Be) and maybe a few books via Apple Publishing/Apple Books. What about the Anthology (documentary series, CD box, book)? Why did already all the Beatles studio albums of the 1987/88 CD releases from 1965's Help onwards carry the green Apple logo, as well as the Past Masters singles collection? (Note how this is clearly different from how the article currently states that Beatles albums only began carrying the Apple logo from 1968 onwards, which would make either the YS soundtrack or the White Album the first.) All the home video releases I've seen of Help also have the Apple logo either at the start or end. Finally, are there any relations between Apple and HandMade Films, maybe even including PythonMusic? None of that is addressed in the article so far. --2003:71:4F24:A24:D80C:D58A:ED3C:E955 (talk) 17:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

This issue is addressed a little more comprehensively in Apple Records: "Apple Records was officially founded by the group after their return from India in 1968 as another sub-division of Apple Corps. At this time, the Beatles were contracted to EMI. In a new distribution deal, EMI and its US subsidiary Capitol Records agreed to distribute Apple Records until 1976, while EMI retained ownership of their recordings. Beatles recordings issued in the United Kingdom on the Apple label carried Parlophone catalogue numbers, while US issues carried Capitol catalogue numbers. Apple Records owns the rights to all of the Beatles' videos and movie clips, and the rights to recordings of other artists signed to the label." So 1) Apple don't own right the to the Beatles' recordings because the group were already under contract with EMI; 2) Their later records wore the Apple label due to negotiations with EMI (who probably didn't care what was printed on the label, so long as the money kept coming in), and 3) Apple do or did own the copyrights to works by other artists on the label.

HandMade Films wouldn't be mentioned here because it was founded by George Harrison and a business partner and had no connection whatsoever (that I am aware of, at least) with Apple Corps. --kingboyk (talk) 22:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

McCartney's Faulty Memory

There's a section in the article quoting Paul McCartney about the painting that inspired the Apple logo in 1967.

In my garden at Cavendish Avenue, which was a 100-year-old house I’d bought, Robert was a frequent visitor. One day he got hold of a Magritte he thought I’d love. Being Robert, he would just get it and bring it. I was out in the garden with some friends. I think I was filming Mary Hopkin with a film crew, just getting her to sing live in the garden, with bees and flies buzzing around, high summer. We were in the long grass, very beautiful, very country-like. We were out in the garden and Robert didn’t want to interrupt, so when we went back in the big door from the garden to the living room, there on the table he’d just propped up this little Magritte. It was of a green apple. That became the basis of the Apple logo. Across the painting Magritte had written in that beautiful handwriting of his ‘Au revoir’. And Robert had split. I thought that was the coolest thing anyone’s ever done with me".

McCartney must've misremembered, because in 1967 Mary Hopkin was an unknown 17 year old living in Pontardawe who had yet to appear on Opportunity Knocks and gain McCartney's attention. Perhaps he was filming with Hopkin when he got the inspiration for the logo - her 'Those Were The Days' was among the first Apple singles in August 1968 and I currently can't find any earlier examples of the logo than that month, but the year is most certainly wrong. Is there a consensus on what to do when a quote can't be right? Humbledaisy (talk) 13:48, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@Humbledaisy: To answer your last question, I don't know. I think consensus in such a case would probably be formed for the specific case, either by discussion or being bold and then discussing if reverted. IMHO: Ideally you'd find sources which present an alternate story and present both. Another approach is to delete the quote altogether - it's an anecdote, an arguably excessively long quote, and from a book that's not about Apple nor even about the designer of the logo! I'd be perfectly happy with this solution, quite honestly. Otherwise, you might note the inconsistency in a footnote (at the risk of somebody claiming that is original research, so probably not this option).

I think it's definitely worth looking into to see if there are more sources, though, as it' such an iconic logo there must be reliable sources which cover it and the article would benefit from it.

Thinking aloud: Hopkin's first single was APPLE 2 (i.e., early; August 1968) so it's plausible that Paul was working with her whilst the logo was still undesigned, but probably not in summer 1967. The article also says that trademarks were registered in January 1968. When exactly was Mary on Opportunity Knocks? Presumably Paul didn't meet her until '68 as Apple Records says "Apple Records was officially founded by the group after their return from India in 1968 as another sub-division of Apple Corps". All very confusing! --kingboyk (talk) 22:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)