Duran Duran stars are in a High Court battle with a music publisher over the US rights to some of their biggest hits including Girls On Film, Rio and Hungry Like The Wolf
The Daily Mail UK | By Anthony Joseph | 15th November 2016
The Daily Mail UK | By Anthony Joseph | 15th November 2016
- Simon Le Bon, Nick Rhodes and Roger Taylor at High Court in London
- Trio wish to end agreements with Gloucester Place Music - owned by Sony
- In US law songwriters can call for a reversion of copyrights after 35 years
- But major publisher says its agreements with group are under English laws
Members of Duran Duran, (left to right) Nick Rhodes, Simon Le Bon and Roger Taylor, as they leave the Rolls Building in central London after attending a US copyright hearing
Members of Duran Duran are battling with a major publisher over the US rights to some of their most famous songs.
Simon Le Bon, Nick Rhodes and Roger Taylor were at London's High Court yesterday in a bid to end agreements with Gloucester Place Music - which is owned by American firm Sony/ATV.
Fourth group member John Taylor in the US, while Andrew Taylor is also involved in the case but did not attend court.
Simon Le Bon, Nick Rhodes and Roger Taylor were at London's High Court yesterday in a bid to end agreements with Gloucester Place Music - which is owned by American firm Sony/ATV.
Fourth group member John Taylor in the US, while Andrew Taylor is also involved in the case but did not attend court.
The band released a string of hits, including Girls On Film, Rio and Hungry Like The Wolf, following the release of their debut self-titled record in 1981.
Lawyers for Gloucester Place, which is part of EMI Music Publishing, are asking a judge to declare that the group members have breached music publishing agreements by serving notices to terminate the grant to the company of US copyrights in Duran Duran works.
Under US law, songwriters have 'an inalienable right' to call for a reversion of copyright after 35 years.
But Gloucester Place says the agreements with the group members are governed by English laws of contract.
Lawyers for Gloucester Place, which is part of EMI Music Publishing, are asking a judge to declare that the group members have breached music publishing agreements by serving notices to terminate the grant to the company of US copyrights in Duran Duran works.
Under US law, songwriters have 'an inalienable right' to call for a reversion of copyright after 35 years.
But Gloucester Place says the agreements with the group members are governed by English laws of contract.
If the court agrees, it could prevent the pop group from seeking to take back copyright 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.
Rhodes said: 'We sincerely hope that this cynical attempt to deny us the opportunity offered to all songwriters in the US, to reclaim their copyrights after 35 years, will be dismissed outright by the British courts.'
Experts in copyright law say the case is of importance to all other songwriters subject to contracts similar to those Duran Duran members signed.
Rhodes said: 'We sincerely hope that this cynical attempt to deny us the opportunity offered to all songwriters in the US, to reclaim their copyrights after 35 years, will be dismissed outright by the British courts.'
Experts in copyright law say the case is of importance to all other songwriters subject to contracts similar to those Duran Duran members signed.
The 1980 agreements at the centre of the case were made with the band members personally and all are referred to as 'the writers'.
The group members have all given notice of reversion relying on section 203 of the US Copyright Act 1976, which, their lawyers say, allows for the automatic termination of rights after 35 years.
Ian Mill QC, appearing for Gloucester Place, said: 'My clients entered into contracts and agreed to pay these artistes sums of money both by way of royalties in return for which the artistes promised to give them rights to exploit, subject to the payment of those sums, for the full term of copyright.'
Mr Mill told Chancery Division judge Mr Justice Arnold the issue before the court was 'one of pure contractual construction', and he complained that written submissions on behalf of Duran Duran contained 'intemperate language'.
He argued that, on a correct construction, the terms of the contracts meant that 'these writers have agreed that they will not seek to obtain a reversion of their copyrights under section 203 and they are in breach of contract should they do so'.
The group members have all given notice of reversion relying on section 203 of the US Copyright Act 1976, which, their lawyers say, allows for the automatic termination of rights after 35 years.
Ian Mill QC, appearing for Gloucester Place, said: 'My clients entered into contracts and agreed to pay these artistes sums of money both by way of royalties in return for which the artistes promised to give them rights to exploit, subject to the payment of those sums, for the full term of copyright.'
Mr Mill told Chancery Division judge Mr Justice Arnold the issue before the court was 'one of pure contractual construction', and he complained that written submissions on behalf of Duran Duran contained 'intemperate language'.
He argued that, on a correct construction, the terms of the contracts meant that 'these writers have agreed that they will not seek to obtain a reversion of their copyrights under section 203 and they are in breach of contract should they do so'.
Michael Bloch QC, for the Duran Duran members, argued that the 'shameful' Gloucester Place case was 'as feeble as it is greedy'.
He said the implications of the case were potentially far reaching.
'If the publishers were right, the English court may serve as an offshore haven for any of their ilk who wish to defeat the protective provisions of the US - the principal market for popular music in the English language - or any similar legislation elsewhere,' argued Mr Bloch.
The publishers were asking the court to attribute a meaning to the 'bland language' of the agreements which would be oppressive and controversial and would create 'a precedent to which they have no right.'
Outside court, Rhodes 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 re-balance 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.'
He said the implications of the case were potentially far reaching.
'If the publishers were right, the English court may serve as an offshore haven for any of their ilk who wish to defeat the protective provisions of the US - the principal market for popular music in the English language - or any similar legislation elsewhere,' argued Mr Bloch.
The publishers were asking the court to attribute a meaning to the 'bland language' of the agreements which would be oppressive and controversial and would create 'a precedent to which they have no right.'
Outside court, Rhodes 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 re-balance 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.'