Affiliate Disclosure
If you buy through our links, we may get a commission. Read our ethics policy.

Spotify slapped with $1.6B copyright lawsuit over songs by The Doors, Tom Petty, others

Spotify co-founder and CEO Daniel Ek. | Source: Spotify

Last updated

Spotify last week was hit with a $1.6 billion lawsuit leveled by Wixen Music Publishing, a music publisher that alleges the streaming music giant is using thousands of songs from its catalog without a license and compensation.

Wixen in a lawsuit filed in California federal court claims Spotify failed to obtain proper licenses to distribute tens of thousands of songs, according to The Hollywood Reporter. The publisher seeks damages of at least $1.6 billion plus injunctive relief.

As noted by the report, Wixen administers song compositions by Tom Petty, Zach De La Rocha and Tom Morello of Rage Against the Machine, Dan Auerbach of The Black Keys, Steely Dan's Donald Fagen, Rivers Cuomo of Weezer, David Cassidy, Neil Young, Sonic Youth's Kim Gordon and Stevie Nicks, among others.

"Spotify brazenly disregards United States Copyright law and has committed willful, ongoing copyright infringement," the complaint reads. "Wixen notified Spotify that it had neither obtained a direct or compulsory mechanical license for the use of the Works."

The lawsuit stems from a $43 million settlement Spotify agreed to pay to end a 2015 class action led by David Lowery and Melissa Ferrick. Similar to the Wixen case, members of the Lowery and Ferrick class alleged Spotify failed to adequately pay mechanical licenses, or royalties, for streamed song compositions.

Last September, Wixen broke rank and objected to the settlement, a move Spotify questioned in a letter submitted to court on Friday. Lawyers for Spotify note Wixen's administrative agreements allow the publisher to negotiate licensing deals, but the terms do not specifically mention rights to litigate on behalf of the songwriters it represents.

Instead of waiting for a ruling on the matter, Wixen initiated the suit reported on today.

Spotify is no stranger to legal overtures having faced lawsuits ranging from alleged improper media attribution to royalty disputes. Most recently, two suits lodged in July accuse the streaming firm of failing to obtain compulsory licenses under Section 115 of the U.S. Copyright Act. Under current law, streaming firms like Spotify are not required to negotiate royalty deals with publishers, but they must issue a notice of intention to obtain a compulsory license.

Licensing is a sticky wicket for streaming music players including Apple, which markets its own product under the Apple Music banner. With vast catalogs spanning major studios to third-party aggregators, streaming firms must find ways to properly identify and credit songwriters whose works are streamed to paying customers.

Apple last month was slapped with a lawsuit from musician Bryan Eich, who claims the company "engaged in a systematic process of infringement" in streaming two albums. Specifically, Eich alleges Apple failed to serve a notice of intent to obtain compulsory licenses for his recordings as mandated by law.



17 Comments

bitmod 11 Years · 267 comments

1.6 billion... lmfao
So they are saying every single Spotify user has ONLY been playing their small handful of artists 24/7/365 for years and years... 
Ok then... have fun with that and proving damages. 

When the greedy music execs and artists are done cannibalizing their fans and tech companies... how much are they going to make when everyone just starts pirating their music again? Or listening to local music, or one of the hundred thousand other ways to enjoy free music that they get zero profit from... 

Gotta laugh at all the big headlines "Artist X is making a statement and pulling their music from streaming service X"... then a few months and missing hundreds of thousand bucks later - the library suddenly shows up again.

bestkeptsecret 13 Years · 4289 comments

@Bitmod, they always have to start off with a huge number and then settle for less. That's standard.


Again, I fail to understand how a company, whose only business is streaming licenced music can screw up on getting the adequate clearances.

robertwalter 9 Years · 276 comments

@Bitmod, they always have to start off with a huge number and then settle for less. That's standard.


Again, I fail to understand how a company, whose only business is streaming licenced music can screw up on getting the adequate clearances.

Maybe the business model doesn’t work if you pursue clearances in good faith. 

Perhaps the guys running the company had a model of build a company that pays really well until it is found out that it’s not sustainable?

bshank 7 Years · 257 comments

These are some very big names. It’s not Bryan Eichs couple of songs nobody knows. Looks like Spotify might have finally finished sabatoging themselves.

coxnvox7 7 Years · 5 comments

With vast catalogs spanning major studios to third-party aggregators, streaming firms must find ways to properly identify and credit songwriters whose works are streamed to paying customers.

From what I understand, it normally requires a call or email to one agency to "properly identify and credit songwriters." It is not hard...Spotify simply chooses not to do it, then hope that the songwriters and their publishers either do not find out, or do not have the means to challenge Spotify in court. In some cases, Spotify will pay when they are confronted, but often only after withholding the proper payments for years. I have enjoyed the service a few times, but after hearing of their treatment of songwriters, I'm done.