Are Police Bandmates Really Overpaid? Sting's Lawyer Thinks So!
Published: 2025-09-06 16:42:43 | Category: Entertainment
The ongoing feud between Sting and his former bandmates from The Police, Andy Summers and Stewart Copeland, has escalated into a court battle over royalties. Summers and Copeland have filed a lawsuit claiming they are owed millions from Sting's solo work, while Sting's legal team argues that the two are already “substantially overpaid” according to previous agreements.
Last updated: 06 October 2023 (BST)
Key Takeaways
- The lawsuit centres around royalties from Sting's solo songs, including the hit "Every Breath You Take".
- Summers and Copeland allege they are owed millions due to lack of "arranger's fees".
- Sting's lawyers assert that the bandmates are already well-compensated under previous agreements.
- The Police's conflict dates back to their initial split in 1984.
- Sting has enjoyed a successful solo career alongside The Police's legacy.
Background of The Police
The Police, formed in 1977, became a prominent force in rock music. Their style blended reggae, punk, and rock, leading to global hits like "Roxanne," "Message in a Bottle," and "Every Breath You Take." Their music continues to resonate with fans today, and the band has sold over 75 million records worldwide.
The Legal Dispute Explained
In August 2023, Sting received a High Court writ from Summers and Copeland, who claim they are owed millions from the royalties generated by Sting’s solo projects. The lawsuit has drawn attention due to its implications for the financial arrangements made during their time as a band.
Previous Agreements
Initially, the band had an agreement that allowed Summers and Copeland to receive 15% of certain royalties from songs that Sting wrote alone. However, as the music landscape has evolved, especially with the rise of digital streaming, the nature of these agreements has come under scrutiny.
Current Claims by Summers and Copeland
Summers and Copeland are pushing for "arranger's fees" from the digital exploitation of their music. They argue that the original agreement does not adequately compensate them for the income generated through streaming, licensing, and other digital platforms. Their assertion raises questions about how royalties should be shared in the digital age.
Sting's Response
Sting's legal team countered the claims by referring to a 2016 agreement that was made following a previous dispute regarding the use of The Police's music in television and film. They argue that Summers and Copeland are attempting to reinterpret the agreement and label their claims as illegitimate. The lawyers assert that Summers and Copeland have been “substantially overpaid” based on the terms of their prior agreements.
Historical Context of The Police and Their Breakup
After achieving massive success in the early 1980s, The Police disbanded in 1984. Each member pursued solo careers, with Sting achieving notable success, releasing 15 albums and securing multiple Grammy Awards. The band has reunited several times since their breakup, most recently in 2008 for a world tour that celebrated their legacy.
The Impact of Digital Streaming on Royalties
The rise of music streaming services has fundamentally changed how royalties are distributed. In the past, artists received a significant portion of their income from physical sales and radio play. Today, however, streaming has become the dominant platform, leading to complex discussions about fair compensation for all contributors involved in a song’s creation.
The Role of Arranger's Fees
Arranger's fees are payments made to individuals who contribute to the musical arrangement of a song. As digital platforms proliferate, the need for clear agreements regarding these fees has become increasingly important. Summers and Copeland's current claims reflect a broader challenge artists face in adapting to a rapidly evolving music industry.
What Happens Next?
With both parties entrenched in their positions, the future of this legal battle remains uncertain. The court proceedings could set a precedent for how music royalties are handled, especially concerning older bands navigating the complexities of modern music distribution. As the case unfolds, it will be crucial to see how the legal system interprets these historical agreements in light of current industry practices.
Final Thoughts
This feud between Sting and his former bandmates underscores the complexities surrounding music royalties in the digital era. As the case progresses, it may not only affect the parties involved but also have wider implications for artists and their rights in the evolving landscape of the music industry. The ongoing discussions about fair compensation and the interpretation of agreements will likely resonate with many musicians facing similar challenges today.
FAQs
What is the basis of the lawsuit against Sting?
The lawsuit filed by Andy Summers and Stewart Copeland claims that they are owed millions in royalties from Sting's solo work, particularly from digital exploitation and arranger's fees.
What agreements were made regarding royalties in The Police?
Initially, an agreement allowed Summers and Copeland to receive 15% of certain royalties from songs written solely by Sting. This agreement is now being contested in light of digital music changes.
How has digital streaming impacted music royalties?
Digital streaming has changed how royalties are distributed, leading to disputes over fair compensation and the need for updated agreements to reflect new income streams.
What are arranger's fees?
Arranger's fees are payments made to individuals who contribute to the arrangement of a song. They have become a point of contention in the current lawsuit due to the rise of digital music.
What could be the outcome of the legal battle?
The outcome remains uncertain, but it could set a significant precedent for how music royalties are handled, particularly for older bands and their agreements in the digital age.
