Talk:Apple Corps

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Apple Corps was a Music good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
August 23, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed
WikiProject The Beatles (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This Apple Records/Apple Corps-related article is within the scope of WikiProject The Beatles, which focuses on improving coverage of English rock band The Beatles and related topics on Wikipedia. Users who are willing to participate in the project should visit the project page, where they can join and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article was the project collaboration on at least one previous occasion.
WikiProject Companies (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)[edit]

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)


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?-- 12:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


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[edit]

As 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)


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[edit]

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[edit] 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?[edit]

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.

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?[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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. -- (talk) 22:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

beatles wrist watch[edit]

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, —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


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)


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 (talk) 03:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


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 (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)