This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/music/2016/dec/02/reflex-action-duran-duran-lose-court-battle-over-song-rights
The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 2 | Version 3 |
|---|---|
| Reflex action: Duran Duran lose court battle over song rights Reflex action: Duran Duran lose court battle over song rights | |
| (about 1 hour later) | |
| Members of the pop group Duran Duran have lost a high court battle over US rights to some of their most famous songs. | Members of the pop group Duran Duran have lost a high court battle over US rights to some of their most famous songs. |
| They failed to fight off a bid by the publishers Gloucester Place Music, ultimately owned by the US business Sony/ATV, to prevent them terminating copyright agreements related to their first three albums. | They failed to fight off a bid by the publishers Gloucester Place Music, ultimately owned by the US business Sony/ATV, to prevent them terminating copyright agreements related to their first three albums. |
| A judge ruled that English laws of contract barred them from seeking to reclaim rights over their own works. | A judge ruled that English laws of contract barred them from seeking to reclaim rights over their own works. |
| The ruling is being seen as a test case that could affect other UK songwriters who want to end longstanding contracts that allow a music publishing company to exploit their work. | The ruling is being seen as a test case that could affect other UK songwriters who want to end longstanding contracts that allow a music publishing company to exploit their work. |
| It came as a blow to the group’s members, Simon Le Bon, Nick Rhodes, Roger Taylor and John Taylor, and its former member Andrew Taylor. | It came as a blow to the group’s members, Simon Le Bon, Nick Rhodes, Roger Taylor and John Taylor, and its former member Andrew Taylor. |
| Gloucester Place Music argued in court that the band had breached music publishing agreements by serving notices to terminate the grant to the company of US copyrights in their first three albums – Duran Duran, Rio, and Seven and the Ragged Tiger – plus A View to a Kill, the Bond film title track. | Gloucester Place Music argued in court that the band had breached music publishing agreements by serving notices to terminate the grant to the company of US copyrights in their first three albums – Duran Duran, Rio, and Seven and the Ragged Tiger – plus A View to a Kill, the Bond film title track. |
| The notices were served under US copyright laws that give songwriters “an inalienable right” to call for a reversion of copyright after 35 years. | The notices were served under US copyright laws that give songwriters “an inalienable right” to call for a reversion of copyright after 35 years. |
| Gloucester Place lawyers contended the group members’ agreements were governed by English laws of contract and prevented them seeking to reclaim copyright. Mr Justice Arnold agreed. | Gloucester Place lawyers contended the group members’ agreements were governed by English laws of contract and prevented them seeking to reclaim copyright. Mr Justice Arnold agreed. |
| He said the arguments were “finely balanced” but in the end, “not without hesitation, I have come to the conclusion that the [Gloucester Place] interpretation of the agreements is the correct one”. | He said the arguments were “finely balanced” but in the end, “not without hesitation, I have come to the conclusion that the [Gloucester Place] interpretation of the agreements is the correct one”. |
| He added: “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.” | He added: “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.” |
| After the ruling the group’s founding member and keyboardist, Rhodes, said: “We signed a publishing agreement as unsuspecting teenagers, over three decades ago, when just starting out and when we knew no better. | After the ruling the group’s founding member and keyboardist, Rhodes, said: “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. | “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. | “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 judgment sets a very bad precedent for all songwriters of our era and so we are deciding how properly to proceed.” | “We are shocked that English contract law is being used to overturn artists’ rights in another territory. If left untested, this judgment sets a very bad precedent for all songwriters of our era and so we are deciding how properly to proceed.” |
| Le Bon added: “What 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. | Le Bon added: “What 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. | “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. |
| “Sony/ATV’s conduct has left a bitter taste with us for sure, and I know that other artists in similar positions will be as outraged and saddened as we are. We are hopeful this judgment will not be allowed to stand.” | “Sony/ATV’s conduct has left a bitter taste with us for sure, and I know that other artists in similar positions will be as outraged and saddened as we are. We are hopeful this judgment will not be allowed to stand.” |
| The case is of wide importance because other UK songwriters have signed similar agreements with the big publishing companies. | The case is of wide importance because other UK songwriters have signed similar agreements with the big publishing companies. |
| When the case was heard last month at London’s high court, Rhodes was among group members present and described the Gloucester Place legal action as “a cynical attempt to deny us the opportunity offered to all songwriters in the US, to reclaim their copyrights after 35 years”. | When the case was heard last month at London’s high court, Rhodes was among group members present and described the Gloucester Place legal action as “a cynical attempt to deny us the opportunity offered to all songwriters in the US, to reclaim their copyrights after 35 years”. |
| He said: “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. | He said: “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. | “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.” | “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.” |
| None of the group members was in court as the judge, sitting in the high court chancery division, announced the law was on the side of the claimant publishers. | None of the group members was in court as the judge, sitting in the high court chancery division, announced the law was on the side of the claimant publishers. |
| The judge concluded that the language of the copyright agreements made by the group members with Gloucester Place “would have conveyed to a reasonable person having the relevant background knowledge that the parties’ intention was that the ‘entire copyrights’ in the compositions should vest, and remain vested, in the claimant for the ‘full term’ of the copyrights”. | The judge concluded that the language of the copyright agreements made by the group members with Gloucester Place “would have conveyed to a reasonable person having the relevant background knowledge that the parties’ intention was that the ‘entire copyrights’ in the compositions should vest, and remain vested, in the claimant for the ‘full term’ of the copyrights”. |
| He added: “That implicitly precludes the group members from exercising rights under US law which have the result that the claimant’s ownership of the copyrights is brought to an end prior to their expiry.” | He added: “That implicitly precludes the group members from exercising rights under US law which have the result that the claimant’s ownership of the copyrights is brought to an end prior to their expiry.” |