AAL Insight: The Legalities of Musicality

Feb 10, 2018

Written By Jack J Collins, Editor of AllAboutLaw.co.uk

A landmark case surrounding the rights to some of the most famous songs in pop history continues to rage on, as British glam rock group Duran Duran seek legal action over the US rights to their music.

In December, the band lost a high court battle regarding the US rights to many of their most famous songs, which include ‘Hungry Like the Wolf’, ‘Rio’ and ‘Girls on Film’. This was against the band’s publishers, Gloucester Place Music, who are owned in a broader sense by the American company Sony/ATV.

December’s court case came about after the band attempted to serve notices to their publishers last year, which would have terminate the grant of US copyrights to the company, allowing the band to retain and perhaps profit from these rights.

The music in question was from Duran Duran’s first three albums – Duran Duran, Rio, and Seven and the Ragged Tiger – as well as for the Birmingham-based quartet’s Bond film theme tune – A View to a Kill.

These notices were presented to the publishers under the concept that US copyright laws would apply to the music. These copyright laws give songwriters “an inalienable right” to call for a reversion of contractually agreed copyright after 35 years.

However, Gloucester Place Music were unimpressed by the notices. They argued that this serving of notices had actually breached the contractually agreed publishing agreements because the agreements were governed by British laws of contract, which prevent artists from seeking the reclamation of copyright; rather than the US laws which Duran Duran were trying to enact to their advantage.

The judge, Mr Justice Arnold, came to the conclusion that he ultimately agreed with the lawyers of the publishing company. Whilst he noted that the situation was ‘finely balanced’, he stated that “not without hesitation, I have come to the conclusion that the [Gloucester Place] interpretation of the agreements is the correct one”.

His statement added that: “I conclude that [the group members] have acted in breach of the agreements by serving the notices, or, where they have not yet taken effect, will do so if they are not withdrawn.”

The current and former members of Duran Duran – lead singer Simon Le Bon, keyboard player Nick Rhodes, bassist John Taylor, and drummer Roger Taylor, as well as former guitarist Andrew Taylor – have stated that the original court decision was a blow to their hopes.

Talking to the Guardian, Rhodes stated that: “We signed a publishing agreement as unsuspecting teenagers, over three decades ago, when just starting out and when we knew no better.

“Today, we are told that language in that agreement allows our long-time publishers, Sony/ATV, to override our statutory rights under US law.

“This gives wealthy publishing companies carte blanche to take advantage of the songwriters who built their fortune over many years, and strips songwriters of their right to rebalance this reward.

“We are shocked that English contract law is being used to overturn artists’ rights in another territory. If left untested, this judgement sets a very bad precedent for all songwriters of our era and so we are deciding how properly to proceed.”

Le Bon was even more scathing towards his former employers, questioning why any “artist would ever want to sign to a company like Sony/ATV as this is how they treat songwriters with whom they have enjoyed tremendous success for many years? We issued termination notices for our copyrights in the US believing it simply a formality. After all, it’s the law in America.

“Sony/ATV has earned a tremendous amount of money from us over the years. Working to find a way to do us out of our rights feels like the ugly and old-fashioned face of imperialist, corporate greed. I thought the acceptability of this type of treatment of artists was long gone – but it seems I was wrong.”

The importance of the case should not be underestimated, as this is something which is in no means individual to the band in question. In fact, there are a host of UK songwriters tethered to similar agreements with US based labels who will now feel that their own songwriting and copyright credentials will be under threat in the future.

On this note, Rhodes stated that “US copyright law clearly states that songwriters are permitted to apply for a reversion of their copyrights after a 35-year period. This provision was instigated to help rebalance the often unfair deals which artists sign early in their careers when they have little choice to try to get their first break, with no negotiating power and virtually no understanding of what their copyrights really mean for the future.

“When we registered a request, in 2014, for the reversion of our eligible copyrights in America, we understood it to be a formality. Regrettably, Sony/ATV have decided to challenge our rights under the premise of a contractual technicality in the UK and have elected to take legal action against us. We felt we had absolutely no choice but to stand up for ourselves, and indeed all other artists, who are likely to suffer similar circumstances.”

Whilst the judge fell on the side of the publishing company in the first instance of the case, the group are hopeful that their appeal will gain higher traction, especially with the raised profile of the case in the media which has occurred on the back of the high court decision.

Earlier this month, Mr Justice Arnold gave permission for an appeal against the decision which he made against the group in December. Whilst no date has yet been set for the hearing, the group have made a point of highlighting how important the appeal is for them. With so many UK songwriters in similar positions, the case has now become a watershed moment for many of the creative community and especially for songwriters outside of the US.

Rhodes was once again the spokesperson for the group, and he stated that: “We are relieved and grateful that we have been given the opportunity to appeal this case because the consequences are wide-reaching and profound for us and all other artists.

“In his judgment Mr Justice Arnold stated that his decision was not made without hesitation; we were heartened by this sentiment because we felt it was an acknowledgement that something was truly flawed about the premise and reality of what is at stake.

“We remain hopeful that the ultimate outcome will be fair and measured to take into account and support our case and all artists’ rights.” It is clear that this case has become elevated to a level beyond its original scope, and that no longer is it simply a case of Duran Duran wanting to be given their due.

In fact, it’s now an exceptionally important case for the future of US-UK publishing in the music industry, and especially for those songwriters already tied to agreements which, later down the line, will affect their ability to glean monetary value from the creations they have already developed and released.

As such, Duran Duran’s appeal will no doubt have the eyes of the music world upon it when the time comes, and songwriters everywhere will be hoping they have the legal firepower to make it count this time, and set a precedent whereupon creators will be given the legal rights to safeguarding their precious work.

Commercial Insights