The Police in court: Sting sued by former bandmates over royalty payouts

The members of The Police, the legendary British rock band formed in 1977, are in the news again, this time in court. Stewart Copeland (drummer) and Andy Summers (guitarist) have sued Sting, accusing him of not paying them correctly the royalties derived from the digital exploitation of the band's catalogue.

At the centre of the dispute are the publishing rights, i.e. those that arise automatically from the creation of a musical work and which belong to its author. These coexist with phonographic rights, which belong to the producer of the recording. While publishing rights generate income from the reproduction of the works in radio, streaming, concerts, television or cinema, phonographic rights correspond to the use of the recording itself.

In the case of The Police, Sting is listed as the author of most of the songs. Some of the famous ones are "Every Breath You Take," "Roxanne" or "Message in a Bottle". However, since 1977, there had been agreements - some verbal, some written - that gave Copeland and Summers a percentage share of publishing revenues. These pacts were renegotiated in 1981, revised in 1997 and adjusted again in 2016, in the wake of increasing exploitation of the songs in film and television. Today, the former members allege that Sting has not paid them what is due for digital use of the songs, while the singer's defence claims that he has complied and even overpaid them.

The difference between publishing rights and phonographic rights can be understood with a simple example: in order to use the song "Every Breath You Take" by The Police in a film, the producers must obtain two different authorisations. On the one hand, that of the author of the musical work (Sting, in his capacity as composer), which corresponds to publishing rights. On the other hand, the producer of the recording or phonogram (the record company that fixed the performance on a medium), which relates to phonographic rights. In other words, the same song generates two separate layers of rights that must be licensed. This explains why, in practice, using music in audiovisual or commercial projects often involves complex negotiations and costs that need to be budgeted for.

The case highlights the importance of clear and up-to-date contracts, especially in an industry where technology and business models are constantly changing. Verbal agreements, while valid, are difficult to prove and create long-term disputes.

In our experience, this type of dispute can be avoided with strategic management of copyright and related rights, anticipating new forms of exploitation (digital, streaming, audiovisual synchronisation, etc.) and periodically reviewing contracts.

Javier Sabido, Manager of the Intellectual Property Area of ECIJA Chile