The High Court has delivered its judgment in the long-running dispute concerning the exploitation of music by the short-lived, but immensely successful band, the Jimi Hendrix Experience.

The case was being keenly watched by members of the music industry as it considered the effect of industry-standard agreements, signed decades ago, in which artists granted their consent for producers to exploit their recordings, long before the streaming age.

The position of the estates of two band members, Noel Redding and Mitch Mitchell, was that such agreements “simply do not extend to the radically different modes of digital exploitation which underpin [the music industry’s] current business model”. Sony Music Entertainment Ltd (Sony Music), meanwhile, had warned that were such an argument to prevail, it would “throw the industry into chaos”, leaving deals done with “virtually every 1960s and 1970s artist, from the Beatles to the Berlin Philharmonic…vulnerable to retrospective attack”.

Ultimately, the Court found in favour of Sony Music. Much of its reasoning turned on a careful and thorough examination of the recording agreement originally signed by Mitchell, Redding and Hendrix and their producers. In that regard, the judgment is a helpful reminder of the principles of contractual interpretation.

It is also worth noting that the claimants did not seek to set aside the recording agreement on the basis that it was unfair. Whilst it was pointed out at trial that Mr Redding and Mr Mitchell both died in relative poverty, and the Judge noted that “it may be said that [the recording agreement’s] terms were unfair to the Band Members. It may even be that its terms can be described in even more trenchant form”, he stressed that he was bound to construe the recording agreement “as it was entered into”.

On that basis, the Judge found that the agreement was clear and unequivocal that the original producers would own the copyright in the recordings without temporal or territorial limitation. As such, any claim resting on Mr Redding and Mr Mitchell’s position as rightsholders in the relevant works (and, by extension, through a valid chain of title, their estates) failed.

As for the question of whether the consents granted by Redding and Mitchell for their performances to be exploited by the producers extended to digital streaming decades later, again the Court turned to the wording of the agreement which stated explicitly that:

The Producers shall have the following rights in respect of any sound recordings made hereunder:-

[…]

(ii) the sole and exclusive rights to manufacture/sell lease assign licence distribute or otherwise use or dispose of the said sound recordings and records tapes or other reproductions by any method now known or hereafter to be known made therefrom at such prices and under such labels and trade names as the Producers shall think fit [our emphasis].

In this agreement the “Producers” were the band’s co-managers Chas Chandler and Mike Jeffery. Describing the clause as “very wide” the judge held that it was not confined to physical methods of reproduction. Therefore, particularly given its reference to methods “now known or hereafter known”, it could be construed as extending to streaming and digital downloads.

Accordingly, the Court held that since Redding and Mitchell had validly granted their consent to such exploitation (bearing in mind also questions such as the standard of consent, its duration, and assignability) any claim based on the infringement of their performers’ property rights also failed.

Finally, notwithstanding its findings on the proper construction of the agreement, the Court also held that the claims failed because of earlier agreements signed by Redding and Mitchell containing releases and covenants not to sue in relation to the recordings, as well as discontinuances filed in proceedings in New York concerning the same subject matter.

To read the judgment in full, click here.