George Michael v Sony Music—A Challenge to Artistic Freedom?
Author | Alan Coulthard |
DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1995.tb02047.x |
Published date | 01 September 1995 |
Date | 01 September 1995 |
CASES
George Michael
v
Sony
Music
-
A
Challenge
to
Artistic
Freedom?
Alan
Coulthard
*
Few commercial cases have attracted so much publicity in recent years as that
involving the popular recording artist, George Michael, and his record company,
Sony Music.’ The decision of the High Court, delivered by Jonathan Parker J,
came down firmly in favour of the record company, thus reversing the recent trend
of decisions in favour of the artist.2 However, it is likely that the story
is
far from
over as an appeal has already been l~dged.~ In the meantime, the entire record
industry awaits the appeal with bated breath, as a decision in favour of the artist
will have profound ramifications on the way that European record companies
currently do bu~iness.~
The
facts
The facts of the
George
Michael
case are ~omplex.~ Briefly, in March
1982
an
unknown pop group,
‘Wham!
,’
whose members were a young singer-songwriter,6
George Michael, and his partner Andrew Ridgeley, entered into a
recording agreement with a record company called Innervision (‘The Innervision
Agreement’). Following some success with their first album, which reached
number one in the national charts, a dispute arose between Wham! and their record
company which led to legal action being taken in October
1983.
One of the claims
made was that this agreement was in unreasonable restraint of trade. Innervision
had a licensing deal with the defendant,7 one of the
UK’s
major record
*Barrister, King’s College, London.
Panuyiotou
and
Others
v
Sony
Music Entertainment
(UK)
Lrd
[1994]
EMLR
229.
I
am indebted to
George Michael’s lawyer, Mr Cyril Glasser of Sheridans, for providing me with a copy of the
judgment in advance of the case being reported (High Court Transcript,
21
June
1994).
See, for example,
ZlT
v
Holly
Johnson
[1993]
EMLR
61,
Silvertone Records Ltd
v
MountJield
&
Others
[1993]
EMLR
152
and
O’Sullivan
v
M.A.M.
[1984] 3
WLR
448.
Notice of Appeal dated
8
August
1994.
Mr Michael’s application for an expedited hearing by the
Court of Appeal was rejected and the appeal is now due to be heard in February
19%.
Although the case has been viewed as exceptional
in
the music industry, the fear that the Court of
Appeal could lay down some rules of more general application,
or
could open the door to EC scrutiny
of recording contracts, must still
be
a worry for record companies.
This
may be why record companies
do not seem to have changed their practices as a result of this decision and have not treated the decision
as a clear vindication of the duration of their contracts.
The judgment runs to
200
pages in the EMLR Report and the headnote alone is
16
pages long. The
reader should refer to this headnote,
[1994]
EMLR
229, 244,
for a comprehensive summary of the
facts. This comment will only summarise the facts in
so
far as they were relevant to the legal
conclusions reached.
Mr Michael is also a songwriter whose songs are published by Momson-Leahy Music. However, the
validity of Mr Michael’s publishing contracts was not at issue in this case. Indeed, his publisher, Mr
Leahy, gave evidence on Mr Michael’s behalf.
To be precise, the contract was with CBS
(UK)
Ltd, whose business was taken over by the Sony
Entertainment group in
1988.
For the purposes of this comment, CBS (UK) Ltd will also be referred to
as ‘the defendant.’
0
The Modem Law Review Limited
1995
(MLR
585,
September). Published by Blackwell Publishers,
108
Cowley Road, Oxford
OX4
1JF
and
238
Main
Street,
Cambridge,
MA
02142,
USA.
73
1
To continue reading
Request your trial