By Gabriel Princewill-
The group, Duran Duran attempt to fend off a bid by publishers Gloucester Place Music was unsuccessful at the high court today.
Owned by the US business Sony/ATV, The judgement prevents them terminating copyright agreements related to their first three albums.
In a bitter blow to the group, a judge ruled that English laws of contract forbid them from seeking to reclaim rights over their own works. This is because they voluntarily gave up any copyright agreement when initially signing them over to the publishers.
Precedent
The ruling sets a precedent that would prevent other UK songwriter bringing an end to longstanding contracts that allow a music publishing company to exploit their work.
Group’s members that includes Simon Le Bon, Nick Rhodes, Roger Taylor, John Taylor, and former member Andrew Taylor were all gutted by the ruling. However, the essence of contract law , based on the legal tenets of offer and acceptance, makes any agreement between two parties binding. Contract law is not fairness law, it isn’t about fairness.
AD: Capeesh Restaurant
It assumes the parties who assent to the terms of their agreement implicitly deem the agreement fair. This assumption is inherently flawed because of the potential for exploitation and the possibility of duress in many circumstances. However, it is paradoxically justified when considering the importance of setting consistent benchmarks in judging cases. Legal principles always take into account the valued notion of precedence, whereby all future cases with materially similar facts are treated the same way.
According to this long established reasoning of contracts, and its underpinning ingredient of setting consistent precedents, any agreement once made and verified, is binding. The courts may be well advised to review some aspects of contract law to account for duress and exploitation in order to give effect to the real and plausible intentions of the parties at the time of an agreement. This will undoubtedly be contentious for the legal field, but worthy of exploration.
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.
AD: Oysterian Sea Food Restaurant And Bar
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 Interpretation Correct
In his summation, the presiding judge concluded that ‘’ 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.”
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
Unsuspecting Teenagers
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.
“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.”
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 issue 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’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.”