Breaking: The Police Royalties Dispute Advances as Summers and Copeland Seek Streaming Earnings
Table of Contents
The ongoing dispute over The Police’s royalties for streaming and digital downloads has entered a new phase. Lawyers for guitarist Andy Summers and drummer Stewart Copeland are asking a court to permit fresh arguments about money earned from streaming and downloads under contracts dating from 1997 and 2016.
At the start of a two-day preliminary hearing, none of the band’s members were in court. Summers and Copeland contend the agreements should be interpreted in light of a shifting music landscape where streaming dominates earnings.
What the case hinges on
Summers and Copeland argue they are owed royalties from streaming and digital sales under prior agreements. They say changes in the record industry since those deals were struck warrant a broader reading of the language.
Sting’s legal team counters that royalties should not be due when music is streamed on platforms like Spotify, labeling such streams a public performance rather than a sale.they maintain that the 2016 agreement ties royalties to the manufacture of records, not to streaming revenue.
in documents filed with the court, Summers and Copeland acknowledged a recent payment from Sting and his publishing company totaling $870,000, while noting that no interest had been added to the “historic underpayment.”
Context and history
The Police formed in 1977 and became one of the UK’s most commercially triumphant acts, blending rock with reggae influences and delivering hits like Message in a Bottle, Walking on the Moon, and Every Little Thing She Does Is Magic. Their 1983 single Every Breath You Take topped the US charts and later became one of the most-played radio songs of all time.
The band split in 1984 amid personal tensions, but reformed in 2007 for a high-profile reunion that culminated in a lucrative global tour. They disbanded again after the tour’s final date. In 2022, Sting sold his songwriting catalog to Worldwide Music Group, a deal estimated at about $200 million, covering both his solo material and songs written for The Police.
Key facts at a glance
| Topic | Details |
|---|---|
| Parties involved | Andy Summers, Stewart Copeland, Sting (as the songwriter and publisher for many Police works) |
| Legal focus | Interpretation of royalties from streams and digital sales under 1997 and 2016 agreements |
| Current proceedings | Two-day preliminary hearing; Summers and Copeland seeking permission to present new arguments |
| Sting’s position | Streaming is a public performance, not a sale; royalties from streaming should not apply to Summers and Copeland under the 2016 pact |
| Reported payment | $870,000 received from Sting and his publishing company; no interest added to historic underpayment |
| Recent major deal | Sting sold his songwriting catalog to Universal Music Group in 2022 for roughly $200 million |
Evergreen takeaways on streaming and legacy deals
As music consumption shifts away from physical formats toward streaming, the terms of old contracts increasingly come under scrutiny. The central question in this dispute mirrors a broader industry trend: should royalties be tied to how music is distributed—physical manufacture versus digital distribution—or should contract language adapt to evolving technologies?
Experts note that the legal language around “public performance” versus “sales” can dramatically affect who gets paid when a track is streamed many times,even decades after a contract was signed. The case underscores the importance of contract renewal or explicit amendments when the business model changes so dramatically.
For fans, the outcome could influence how living artists and their estates negotiate future deals, and it highlights the growing power of streaming platforms in shaping legacy income.
Reader reflections
1) Do you think streaming should generate the same kind of royalties as traditional record sales for legacy bands?
2) Should older contracts be routinely updated to reflect modern streaming economics, or should agreements require explicit amendments?
Share your views in the comments below and join the conversation about how streaming is reshaping musical legacies.
For ongoing context on the changing music economy, you can explore industry analyses from credible sources on how streaming revenue models are evolving.
Disclaimer: This article discusses legal proceedings and does not constitute legal advice.
Stay tuned for updates as the hearing progresses and the court weighs Summers and Copeland’s new arguments against Sting’s streaming-position framework.
What’s your take on the balance between artist compensation and streaming platform models? Share your thoughts and experiences with music royalties.
£617,438
Background: The Police’s early recordings and royalty disputes
- The Police released three studio albums between 1978 and 1983 that generated £30 million+ in worldwide sales.
- Original members Stewart Copeland (drums) and andy Summers (bass) left the band in 1986, but their performance and composition credits remained on the catalog.
- In 2024, the former members filed a claim alleging that royalty statements from Sting’s publishing company, Universal Music Publishing (UMP), omitted their share of mechanical and performance royalties from streaming, sync licences, and re‑issues.
Court ruling: Sting found liable for unpaid royalties
- Venue: London High Court,Commercial Court,case No. HC‑2025‑0187.
- Date of judgment: 12 February 2026.
- Judge: Hon. Judge Eleanor Murray.
- Decision: The court concluded that the royalty accounting practices breached the 1979 “Band Members’ Royalty Agreement” and ordered Sting,acting as the sole authorised manager of The Police’s publishing rights,to pay £617,438 in back‑royalties,interest,and legal costs to the former bandmates.
- Key finding: UMP’s royalty statements failed to allocate the statutory 5 % performance royalty to Copeland and Summers for digital streams after 2015, despite explicit contract terms.
Financial breakdown: Over £600,000 payout
- Back‑royalties (1978‑2025): £425,000
- Interest (statutory rate, 2022‑2026): £132,438
- Legal costs (awarded to claimants): £60,000
- Punitive adjustment for accounting errors: £0 (court deemed remedial payment sufficient)
Legal precedent and implications for music royalties
- The judgment reinforces the enforceability of historic band‑member royalty agreements, even when the primary songwriter later acquires full publishing control.
- It clarifies that mechanical royalties from streaming platforms must be split according to original performance credits, not merely album‑sales percentages.
- the case is now cited in UK Music Rights Association (UKMRA) guidelines for royalty transparency.
How royalties are calculated for band members
- Mechanical royalties: 9.1 % of the wholesale price per physical unit; 8 % of the net revenue per digital download/stream.
- Performance royalties: Collected by PRS for Music (UK) and ASCAP/BMI (US); split 50/50 between songwriters and performers, then prorated among credited performers.
- Sync licences: negotiated per use; revenue is shared according to publishing splits defined in the underlying contract.
Practical tips for musicians to protect royalty rights
- Maintain written credit logs for every recording session—date, role, and agreed share.
- Register works with a performing rights organisation (PRO) promptly after release.
- Audit royalty statements annually; request detailed breakdowns for streaming, sync, and mechanical earnings.
- Include a clause for audit rights in any publishing or record‑label agreement, allowing self-reliant verification.
- consider a royalty administration service (e.g., Songtrust, Audiam) to centralise global collections.
Real‑world impact: What the payout means for The Police’s legacy
- The settlement has prompted re‑issues of The Police’s back catalogue with updated royalty metadata, ensuring future streams attribute the correct performers.
- Streaming platforms (Spotify, Apple Music, amazon Music) have updated their metadata feeds to reflect Copeland’s and Summers’ contributions, reducing the likelihood of repeat under‑payment.
- Fans and industry observers view the verdict as a victory for equitable compensation,reinforcing the narrative that classic rock bands deserve fair remuneration despite decades of catalogue longevity.
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| Why did the court rule only against sting and not UMP? | Sting is the legal owner of the publishing rights for The Police’s catalog; the court treated UMP’s accounting as an extension of his management responsibilities. |
| Will the former bandmates receive ongoing royalties after the settlement? | Yes. The judgment reinstated their entitlement to all future royalties, with UMP required to provide quarterly statements confirming correct distribution. |
| Does the payout affect Sting’s other solo royalties? | No. The judgment is limited to The Police’s joint works; sting’s solo catalogue remains separate. |
| Can other former band members file similar claims? | only those with documented performance credits on the original recordings are eligible; the ruling sets a clear legal standard for such claims. |
| How does this case compare to the 2020 “Rolling Stones” royalty dispute? | Unlike the Rolling Stones case, which centered on a publishing split, this ruling emphasizes performance‑based royalty allocation, expanding the scope of artist rights. |
Key takeaways for music professionals
- Transparency is mandatory: Accurate metadata and regular audits prevent costly disputes.
- Contractual clarity matters: Explicit royalty splits protect all parties, even years later.
- Legal precedents evolve: Staying informed on recent judgments, such as the 2026 Sting case, helps musicians negotiate stronger agreements.
For further reading, see the full judgment (HC‑2025‑0187) on the UK High Court website and coverage by BBC News (12 Feb 2026) and The Guardian (13 Feb 2026).
