Sting Faces High Court Battle Over The Police's Streaming Royalties
In This Article
HIGHLIGHTS
- Sting has paid over £600,000 to former bandmates Andy Summers and Stewart Copeland amid a legal dispute over unpaid royalties.
- The case, heard in London's High Court, centers on whether streaming income should be included in the band's royalty agreements.
- Summers and Copeland claim they are owed up to £8 million, arguing that streaming should be considered under their existing agreements.
- Sting contends that the agreements only cover physical sales, not streaming, and denies further payments are due.
- The outcome could set a precedent for how streaming royalties are handled in the music industry.
In a legal battle that could reshape the music industry's approach to streaming royalties, Sting has been taken to London's High Court by his former bandmates from The Police, Andy Summers and Stewart Copeland. The dispute revolves around unpaid royalties, with Summers and Copeland alleging they are owed up to £8 million in arranger's fees for the band's iconic hits, including "Roxanne" and "Every Breath You Take."
Background of the Dispute
The legal proceedings began after Summers and Copeland claimed they were underpaid royalties from streaming and download sales. They argue that an oral agreement made in 1977, later formalized in contracts, entitles them to a share of the income generated from The Police's music. This agreement, they assert, includes a 15% arranger's fee for contributions to the band's songs, a point contested by Sting.
Streaming Royalties at the Core
The crux of the case lies in the interpretation of terms like "mechanical income" and "public performance fees" within the context of the modern music industry, where streaming has largely replaced physical sales. Sting's legal team maintains that the 2016 agreement only covers royalties from physical products like vinyl and cassettes, not digital streams. However, Summers and Copeland argue that the language of the agreements should adapt to the industry's evolution, thus including streaming income.
Legal Proceedings and Implications
The court has already seen Sting pay over £600,000 to his former bandmates, acknowledging certain historic underpayments. Yet, Sting disputes the broader claim, arguing that the agreements do not extend to streaming royalties. The case, presided over by Mr. Justice Bright, is expected to conclude soon, with a trial anticipated at a later date.
Potential Industry Impact
This high-profile case could have significant implications for how streaming royalties are distributed among artists and contributors. As streaming continues to dominate music consumption, the outcome may influence future royalty agreements and disputes within the industry.
WHAT THIS MIGHT MEAN
The resolution of this case could set a precedent for how streaming royalties are interpreted in legacy contracts, potentially prompting a wave of similar claims from other artists and contributors. If Summers and Copeland succeed, it may lead to a reevaluation of existing agreements across the music industry, ensuring that streaming income is fairly distributed. Conversely, a ruling in favor of Sting could reinforce the current distinction between physical and digital sales, maintaining the status quo. Legal experts and industry insiders will be closely watching the outcome, as it could redefine financial relationships within the music business.
Images from the Web
Sting Faces High Court Battle Over The Police's Streaming Royalties
In This Article
Marcus Blake| Published HIGHLIGHTS
- Sting has paid over £600,000 to former bandmates Andy Summers and Stewart Copeland amid a legal dispute over unpaid royalties.
- The case, heard in London's High Court, centers on whether streaming income should be included in the band's royalty agreements.
- Summers and Copeland claim they are owed up to £8 million, arguing that streaming should be considered under their existing agreements.
- Sting contends that the agreements only cover physical sales, not streaming, and denies further payments are due.
- The outcome could set a precedent for how streaming royalties are handled in the music industry.
In a legal battle that could reshape the music industry's approach to streaming royalties, Sting has been taken to London's High Court by his former bandmates from The Police, Andy Summers and Stewart Copeland. The dispute revolves around unpaid royalties, with Summers and Copeland alleging they are owed up to £8 million in arranger's fees for the band's iconic hits, including "Roxanne" and "Every Breath You Take."
Background of the Dispute
The legal proceedings began after Summers and Copeland claimed they were underpaid royalties from streaming and download sales. They argue that an oral agreement made in 1977, later formalized in contracts, entitles them to a share of the income generated from The Police's music. This agreement, they assert, includes a 15% arranger's fee for contributions to the band's songs, a point contested by Sting.
Streaming Royalties at the Core
The crux of the case lies in the interpretation of terms like "mechanical income" and "public performance fees" within the context of the modern music industry, where streaming has largely replaced physical sales. Sting's legal team maintains that the 2016 agreement only covers royalties from physical products like vinyl and cassettes, not digital streams. However, Summers and Copeland argue that the language of the agreements should adapt to the industry's evolution, thus including streaming income.
Legal Proceedings and Implications
The court has already seen Sting pay over £600,000 to his former bandmates, acknowledging certain historic underpayments. Yet, Sting disputes the broader claim, arguing that the agreements do not extend to streaming royalties. The case, presided over by Mr. Justice Bright, is expected to conclude soon, with a trial anticipated at a later date.
Potential Industry Impact
This high-profile case could have significant implications for how streaming royalties are distributed among artists and contributors. As streaming continues to dominate music consumption, the outcome may influence future royalty agreements and disputes within the industry.
WHAT THIS MIGHT MEAN
The resolution of this case could set a precedent for how streaming royalties are interpreted in legacy contracts, potentially prompting a wave of similar claims from other artists and contributors. If Summers and Copeland succeed, it may lead to a reevaluation of existing agreements across the music industry, ensuring that streaming income is fairly distributed. Conversely, a ruling in favor of Sting could reinforce the current distinction between physical and digital sales, maintaining the status quo. Legal experts and industry insiders will be closely watching the outcome, as it could redefine financial relationships within the music business.
Images from the Web