Music Licensing Arbitration
1. Nature of Music Licensing Agreements
Music licensing agreements typically involve:
Synchronization licenses (music in films/ads)
Mechanical licenses (reproduction of music)
Performance licenses (public performance/broadcast)
Digital/streaming licenses
Publishing agreements
Parties include:
Composers and artists
Music publishers
Record labels
Streaming platforms
These agreements often contain arbitration clauses for dispute resolution.
2. Arbitrability of Music Licensing Disputes
(A) Arbitrable Matters
Royalty disputes
Breach of licensing agreements
Revenue-sharing conflicts
Scope of license (territory, duration, usage)
(B) Non-Arbitrable Matters
Copyright validity or registration
Criminal piracy issues
Public enforcement matters
The distinction is governed by:
Tomolugen Holdings Ltd v Silica Investors Ltd
Introduced the rights in rem vs rights in personam test.
Licensing disputes (contractual) are arbitrable.
3. Key Case Laws
(1) Tomolugen Holdings Ltd v Silica Investors Ltd
Established arbitrability framework.
Music licensing disputes fall within private contractual rights.
(2) I-Admin (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Hong Ying Ting
Strengthened protection of confidential information.
Relevant for:
Unreleased tracks
Royalty data
(3) Coco v A.N. Clark (Engineers) Ltd
Established test for breach of confidence.
Applied to:
Musical compositions
Licensing negotiations
(4) Faccenda Chicken Ltd v Fowler
Distinguished between:
Trade secrets and general skill
Relevant for disputes involving:
Artists leaving labels or publishers
(5) Insigma Technology Co Ltd v Alstom Technology Ltd
Affirmed party autonomy.
Important for cross-border music licensing agreements.
(6) Rals International Pte Ltd v Cassa di Risparmio di Parma e Piacenza SpA
Confirmed separability doctrine.
Arbitration clause survives even if licensing agreement is disputed.
(7) BTY v BUA
Reinforced confidentiality in arbitration.
Critical for protecting:
Royalty structures
Commercial strategies
4. Common Music Licensing Disputes
(1) Royalty Disputes
Underpayment or non-payment of royalties
Incorrect accounting by labels or platforms
(2) Scope of License
Unauthorized use beyond agreed terms
Territorial or platform violations
(3) Ownership Conflicts
Disputes between composers, publishers, and labels
(4) Digital Streaming Issues
Revenue sharing with platforms
Licensing terms for global streaming
5. Key Legal Principles
(A) Party Autonomy
Parties choose:
Arbitrators
Governing law
Seat of arbitration
Supported by Insigma Technology Co Ltd v Alstom Technology Ltd
(B) Separability
Arbitration clause remains valid independently
Established in Rals International Pte Ltd v Cassa di Risparmio di Parma e Piacenza SpA
(C) Confidentiality
Essential for:
Royalty data
Licensing terms
Protected by BTY v BUA
(D) Protection of Musical Works
Confidentiality and trade secret principles apply
Based on Coco v A.N. Clark (Engineers) Ltd
6. Advantages of Arbitration in Music Licensing
(1) Confidentiality
Protects sensitive financial and creative data
(2) Expertise
Arbitrators with IP and music industry knowledge
(3) Speed
Faster resolution compared to litigation
(4) Cross-Border Enforcement
Awards enforceable under the New York Convention
7. Challenges in Music Licensing Arbitration
(1) Multiparty Agreements
Multiple stakeholders (artists, labels, publishers)
(2) IP Validity Issues
Cannot decide copyright validity
(3) Complex Royalty Structures
Difficult accounting and auditing issues
(4) Parallel Proceedings
Arbitration and court cases may coexist
8. Remedies Available
Arbitral tribunals may grant:
Damages (unpaid royalties)
Account of profits
Injunctions (restrict unauthorized use)
Specific performance
However, enforcement against third parties may require court intervention.
9. Singapore’s Position
Singapore is a preferred venue for music licensing arbitration due to:
Strong pro-arbitration legal framework
Judicial support for arbitration
Efficient enforcement of awards
Supported by jurisprudence such as:
Tomolugen Holdings Ltd v Silica Investors Ltd
I-Admin (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Hong Ying Ting
Conclusion
Music licensing arbitration provides an effective mechanism for resolving disputes in a global and highly commercialised industry. While limitations exist—particularly regarding IP validity—arbitration remains highly suitable for resolving contractual, royalty, and licensing disputes.
Singapore’s arbitration-friendly framework ensures:
Efficient dispute resolution
Protection of commercial interests
Global enforceability
RELATED Blog
comments