Sting is in a battle of wits with his former Police bandmates Stewart Copeland and Andy Summers over millions of pounds worth of unpaid royalties. The dispute centers around "arranger's fees", which were agreed upon by the band back in the late 1970s, but now face challenges under the streaming era.
The case dates back to 2016 when Sting sold his entire songwriting catalogue to Universal for an estimated £221m, sparking a high court battle. Copeland and Summers claim they are owed more than $2m (£1.5m) in arranger's fees, which they believe should apply to streaming revenue. However, Sting disputes this, arguing that the fees only apply to physical products like vinyl and cassettes.
The distinction between streaming and non-streaming royalties is crucial in this era of music where hits like "Every Breath You Take" have been streamed over 3 billion times on Spotify. According to Sting's representative, Robert Howe KC, a "professionally drafted" agreement states that money is owed only on mechanical income "from the manufacture of records".
However, Copeland and Summers argue that the agreements date back to 1977 and include provisions for sharing publishing income from all manner of commercial exploitation. The issue now hinges on whether Sting has correctly accounted for arranger's fees in accordance with the terms of the 2016 settlement agreement.
The high court battle is significant not only for the Police but also for the music industry as a whole, where streaming revenues continue to grow exponentially. A verdict is expected on Thursday, followed by a trial at a later date.
The case dates back to 2016 when Sting sold his entire songwriting catalogue to Universal for an estimated £221m, sparking a high court battle. Copeland and Summers claim they are owed more than $2m (£1.5m) in arranger's fees, which they believe should apply to streaming revenue. However, Sting disputes this, arguing that the fees only apply to physical products like vinyl and cassettes.
The distinction between streaming and non-streaming royalties is crucial in this era of music where hits like "Every Breath You Take" have been streamed over 3 billion times on Spotify. According to Sting's representative, Robert Howe KC, a "professionally drafted" agreement states that money is owed only on mechanical income "from the manufacture of records".
However, Copeland and Summers argue that the agreements date back to 1977 and include provisions for sharing publishing income from all manner of commercial exploitation. The issue now hinges on whether Sting has correctly accounted for arranger's fees in accordance with the terms of the 2016 settlement agreement.
The high court battle is significant not only for the Police but also for the music industry as a whole, where streaming revenues continue to grow exponentially. A verdict is expected on Thursday, followed by a trial at a later date.
Sting's situation is pretty frustrating, you know? They're basically asking for a share of streaming revenue, which makes sense considering how popular their music still is. I mean, £1.5m might not seem like much to some, but it's still a decent chunk of change. And let's be real, the Police have some of the most iconic songs out there - "Every Breath You Take" has been streamed over 3 billion times for crying out loud! 
It just seems unfair that Sting is getting all the money from streaming. The music industry is already a pretty complex beast, so adding this to the mix can get messy quickly...
[Image of a person looking confused, with a clock in the background ticking away]
When you think you've got it all figured out... 
"Arranger's fees" 
Sting thought he dodged a bullet by streaming his way out of paying... 
The music industry is like, "Uh, can we just get paid for our art already?" 
Stewart and Andy are like, "Hey, Sting owes us!" 
. I mean, can't they just get along? Sting sold off his entire catalog and everyone gets a piece of the pie... or should I say, royalties? 
But it seems like he's being a bit stingy (pun intended) when it comes to sharing those "arranger's fees" with his former bandmates. It's like, you guys helped make that music possible, so shouldn't Sting be splitting the costs? 
. I guess we'll just have to wait and see how it all plays out... maybe justice will prevail for these musicians 
he sold his entire catalog for 221m and now cops & summers are like "hold up buddy we got a beef" 
btw who else is hyped to see how this all goes down? 
). But at the same time, it doesn't seem fair to Sting if Copeland and Summers are just going to swoop in and claim they're owed more money after all these years.
. Fingers crossed whoever wins this gets a big ol' payment and can finally settle this drama 
.
. I mean, if we're talking about arranger's fees that were agreed upon back in 1977... shouldn't they still apply to streaming? 
It's all about clarity & making sure everyone knows what's going on 
.
. Either way, it'll be fascinating to see how this plays out! 
It seems like such a simple thing now with streaming being so huge 
. But I guess the agreement from back in 1977 is super important 
. I don't know why Sting thinks he's off the hook though 
. I mean, come on, 3 billion streams of "Every Breath You Take" and he's still trying to say those arranger's fees don't apply? 
I mean, it's like they signed this agreement back in the day that said arranger's fees only applied to physical products but can't Sting just apply that to streaming too? 
you know what's wild about this whole thing? how our perception of time and value changes with technology. like, back in the 70s, when these guys were making music, streaming was basically non-existent... but now, those same songs can get streamed billions of times and it's like the value is just flipped on its head. Sting is stuck on this physical vs digital thing, but Copeland and Summers are trying to say that it's all just a matter of interpretation and how we choose to apply these old agreements to new circumstances. 
. The question is, did Sting account for arranger's fees correctly? It's a big deal not just for the Police but also for the music industry as a whole 
.
I'm so f***ing sick of Sting thinking he can just sell out and forget about everyone else in the band! The guy's been swimming in cash since 2016, and now he's trying to stiff his old mates out of a few million? 
to me. Like, shouldn't arranger's fees be more flexible now that we're in the streaming era? I mean, it's not like vinyl and cassettes are gonna sell themselves out there