Spotify has won a significant court case filed by Eminem’s publisher, Eight Mile Style, which accused the streaming giant of improperly streaming the rapper’s songs without the necessary licenses.
The lawsuit, initiated in 2019, claimed that Spotify failed to correctly license some of Eminem’s most popular tracks, such as Lose Yourself and Without Me, which had been streamed billions of times.
Eight Mile Style sought £30 million in damages, arguing that Eminem had never received full payments for these streams.
Despite acknowledging that Spotify did not possess the correct licenses to stream Eminem’s songs, a Tennessee judge ruled that Spotify would not be liable for any lost royalties.
If copyright infringement had been proven, the judge determined that the responsibility would fall on Kobalt Music Group, the company that handled royalty collection for Eminem’s publisher.
The case highlighted the complexities of music rights in the era of digital streaming, where various parties are involved in administering rights and collecting payments.
In its lawsuit, Eight Mile Style accused Spotify of misleading practices, claiming the company falsely stated it had licenses for 243 Eminem songs. It also alleged that Spotify made arbitrary payments for songs that had been streamed millions of times, with the payments representing only a fraction of what was owed.
Interestingly, Eminem himself was not directly involved in the lawsuit and only learned of it after it was filed. His publicist expressed surprise at the legal action, noting that the star’s music remained available on Spotify throughout the case.
Spotify, in its defense, blamed Kobalt Music Publishing, asserting that Kobalt misled Spotify into believing it had control over Eight Mile Style’s catalog when it did not.
Spotify further argued that Eight Mile had never questioned the streaming rights or payments until the lawsuit was filed. The streaming company claimed that Eight Mile’s behavior—accepting royalty payments without objecting for years—contradicted the lawsuit’s claims.
Eight Mile Style rejected these allegations as baseless, and the case dragged on for several years with legal arguments over the finer points of copyright law and licensing agreements.
At one point, the proceedings were delayed as lawyers debated whether Spotify’s CEO, Daniel Ek, would be required to testify. Although the judge initially ruled that Ek would be deposed, the case ultimately moved forward with a summary judgment, avoiding a full trial.
In her ruling on August 15, Judge Aleta A. Trauger found that Spotify should not be held responsible for any damages. She noted that while Kobalt was authorized to collect royalties for Eminem’s music, it was not authorized to license the songs in the U.S. and Canada.
Licensing rights had been transferred in 2009 to Bridgeport Music, a company affiliated with Eight Mile Style. However, Eight Mile failed to notify third parties, including Spotify, about this change in licensing rights.
Judge Trauger criticized Eight Mile Style for not sending Spotify a cease-and-desist letter or taking steps to clarify the licensing situation.
She suggested that the company’s actions may have been a strategic attempt to extract more money from Spotify through claims of copyright infringement.
The judge emphasized that Eight Mile Style had multiple opportunities to resolve the issue but chose not to, implying that being seen as a victim of infringement was more profitable than functioning as a standard licensor.
The court acknowledged that Spotify’s agreement with Kobalt did not include a definitive database of songs that could or could not be streamed. Kobalt explained that such a list would quickly become outdated due to the constantly changing nature of its catalog.
This ambiguity, according to the judge, made it plausible that Spotify might have been genuinely confused about which rights it held.
Despite the complexities of the case, one aspect of Spotify’s contract with Kobalt was clear: it protected Spotify from liability for copyright claims related to any works administered by Kobalt.
As a result, Kobalt will be responsible for covering the legal fees accrued over the five-year legal battle, which could be a substantial financial sum.
