A Los Angeles judge says Universal Music Group (UMG) can keep pursuing a legal battle demanding the return of what the label has called the “first known Beatles recording” from the estate of a famed Abbey Road sound engineer.
In a decision this month, Judge David Cowan ruled that Calderstone Productions — a UMG unit that administers the Beatles catalog — had legal standing to seek to recover the rare tape from the estate of Geoff Emerick, who the label claims stole it decades ago.
Related
Emerick’s estate, which says he rescued a piece of history from destruction, had argued UMG couldn’t show a “chain of title” to prove it was the rightful legal successor to Abbey Road, meaning it lacked ownership rights in the first place.
But in an Oct. 16 ruling, Judge Cowan rejected that argument: “Calderstone shows how the chain of title gives it the right to pursue its underlying conversion claim,” the judge said, using the legal term for the civil law equivalent of theft.
The decision, exclusively reported by Billboard, sets the stage for a trial early next year over the big remaining issue: Whether Abbey Road legally abandoned ownership of the tape. The estate says it was basically thrown away and that Emerick saved it. UMG argues back that it was always company property: “At issue in this action is a highly valuable artifact of rock and roll history that was stolen.”
But before then, the estate is already pushing the judge to reconsider his ruling. In a motion last week, lead counsel Kenneth Fruendlich argued that the decision “rewrites” the decades-old documents at the heart of the case and would create “a manifest injustice.” That motion remains pending.
Neither side immediately returned requests for comment on Judge Cowan’s decision.
Emerick, The Beatles’ chief engineer from 1966 onward, is remembered for helping foster the band’s technically innovative later sound, most notably on the psychedelic, effect-laden Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band. When he died suddenly in 2018, Paul McCartney said he would be “long remembered by connoisseurs of sound.”
When Emerick’s estate searched his home following his death, they found a cultural artifact: a 1962 demo tape, recorded months before the band broke out, with Pete Best rather than Ringo Starr still on the drums. Emerick had worked as a junior engineer at the famed studio during the band’s early years and had apparently held onto that tape for decades.
UMG, which acquired Abbey Road owner EMI in 2012, was alerted to the tape’s existence when it was listed online for sale to “the highest bidder” just weeks after Emerick’s death. After the music giant “demanded its return” and was rebuffed, both sides filed formal petitions in probate court, asking a state judge to confirm them as the rightful owner. The dispute is only over the physical tape; both sides agree UMG is the owner of any rights to the music on it.
The exact historical significance of the disputed tape is hard to determine. UMG calls it the “first known Beatles recording” in court filings, but earlier proto-Beatles recordings certainly exist, such as the famed Decca audition. The tape does potentially capture The Beatles’ first studio session at Abbey Road, and no doubt plays a key part in the early history of the world’s most famous band.
“When you have a band that’s as big as The Beatles, every little snippet that they made is historic and something to be treasured,” Bob Spitz, a well-known Beatles historian, told Billboard earlier this year.
With the dispute over UMG’s chain of title to the tape resolved after this month’s ruling, the upcoming trial will likely turn on whether the tape had been free for the taking many decades earlier.
In its legal filings, Emerick’s estate has argued the tape was sent to a London squash court near Abbey Road that was essentially a garbage dump, where “tapes went to die.” By putting it there, the estate says EMI legally abandoned it. Emerick “rescued” it from destruction, they say, and it “would not exist today” if not for him.
UMG sees things differently. It says the squash court was still company-controlled property, and that a tape sent there was not abandoned but merely “no longer a work in progress.” Its attorneys also say the old tapes were not free for the taking, even if they had been marked for destruction.
“It is obvious that when a recording artist or studio discards an unwanted recording, he or she does not actually mean to ‘abandon’ it to the public domain,” they write. “A novelist who throws away pages from a handwritten first draft of a story cannot possibly intend that a trash-picker can acquire ownership of the draft and publish it himself.”
The courtroom showdown, currently scheduled for January, will be a bench trial before the same probate judge, without the kind of jury that often decides civil trials. Beyond the issue of abandonment, it will likely also touch on whether the entire dispute is past the statute of limitations.
