Musician Four Tet is taking legal action against his former record label in a trial that could revolutionise streaming rights, reports Chloe Lula.
News spread quickly last autumn when UK musician Kieran Hebden, who performs and produces under the name Four Tet, instigated legal action against his label of 20 years, Domino Records. "It was a timely challenge that amplifies artists' growing frustration in the streaming era," Aneesh Patel, Hebden's lawyer, told me of his decision to single-handedly take the indie giant to court. His plea received accolades across the music industry, and even among the ranks of UK parliament, whose MP Kevin Brennan shared Hebden's tweet from November 21st: "I believe there is an issue with the music industry on how the money is being shared out in the streaming era, and I think it's time for artists to be able to ask for a fairer deal," Hebden wrote. "It's time to try to make changes where we can. I'm not driven by the money, but I have to make a stand when I am experiencing something that's simply unfair."
Hebden's case began as a challenge to the pre-streaming era financial strictures imposed by his contract with Domino. According to their 2001 agreement, which predated streaming services, Hebden is entitled to an 18 percent royalty rate from physical sales and a 50 percent royalty rate from licensing income. The advent of Spotify, Pandora, Apple Music and Amazon Music, however, have added ambiguity to the terms of his remuneration in the years since he signed. With these new sources of revenue, Domino applied the same 18 percent royalty that it did to physical formats. Hebden argues that streaming is not comparable to physical sales, and in fact should be treated as licensing income...Keep reading on Resident Advisor.
News spread quickly last autumn when UK musician Kieran Hebden, who performs and produces under the name Four Tet, instigated legal action against his label of 20 years, Domino Records. "It was a timely challenge that amplifies artists' growing frustration in the streaming era," Aneesh Patel, Hebden's lawyer, told me of his decision to single-handedly take the indie giant to court. His plea received accolades across the music industry, and even among the ranks of UK parliament, whose MP Kevin Brennan shared Hebden's tweet from November 21st: "I believe there is an issue with the music industry on how the money is being shared out in the streaming era, and I think it's time for artists to be able to ask for a fairer deal," Hebden wrote. "It's time to try to make changes where we can. I'm not driven by the money, but I have to make a stand when I am experiencing something that's simply unfair."
Hebden's case began as a challenge to the pre-streaming era financial strictures imposed by his contract with Domino. According to their 2001 agreement, which predated streaming services, Hebden is entitled to an 18 percent royalty rate from physical sales and a 50 percent royalty rate from licensing income. The advent of Spotify, Pandora, Apple Music and Amazon Music, however, have added ambiguity to the terms of his remuneration in the years since he signed. With these new sources of revenue, Domino applied the same 18 percent royalty that it did to physical formats. Hebden argues that streaming is not comparable to physical sales, and in fact should be treated as licensing income...Keep reading on Resident Advisor.