Talk:Apple Corps

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ethos 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Article Merger 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Apple Films 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Son of Dracula (1974 film)]] 

message: 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)
thread_title: Ownership

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks for that. Alexj2002 21:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image:Applecorps.jpg 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Reasons for not promoting 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Nike 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: 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 , 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)
thread_title:  Founding date? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  beatles wrist watch 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Current (?) logo 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Apple logo 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Music