Sting is facing a high-stakes legal challenge from his former Police bandmates, Andy Summers and Stewart Copeland, who are accusing him of missing royalties tied to the band’s work. The case has been filed in London’s High Court and centers on the long-running dispute over who should benefit from the income generated by The Police’s music.
The lawsuit, filed under general commercial contracts and arrangements, names Sting, whose full name is Gordon Matthew Sumner, and his company Magnetic Publishing Limited as defendants. The writ was personally served on Sting in what marks a firm turning point in a feud that has simmered for years. Summers and Copeland allege they are owed millions in lost royalties, arguing that they contributed to the band’s success and should receive a fair share of the earnings.
A source close to the matter described the situation as an escalating issue that had previously seen lawyers attempt to negotiate a settlement out of court, but talks stalled. With negotiations failing to reach a resolution, Summers and Copeland chose to pursue the case through the courts, seeking significant damages tied to what they view as their rightful share of revenue.
The dispute centers on the financial success of The Police’s catalog, particularly the band’s biggest hits. Sting is reported to earn a substantial amount each year from royalties tied to the song “Every Breath You Take.” Released in 1983, the track remains one of the era’s most successful singles. However, the matter is not solely about the song’s popularity; it also touches on the broader issue of songwriting credits and publishing rights. The allegation is that the song’s credits were attributed solely to Sting, leaving Summers and Copeland without a direct claim to the lucrative publishing earnings generated by the track. A spokesperson for Sting denied that the action was related to “Every Breath You Take” and offered no further comment on the specifics of the case.
The Police rose to fame after forming in London in 1977, quickly evolving from their punk roots into a global new-wave phenomenon. Their rise culminated in a string of chart-topping albums and singles, including a US number-one hit with “Every Breath You Take.” Despite their on-stage chemistry and commercial success, tensions behind the scenes have reportedly lingered, and the reunion tour in the mid-2000s did little to fully resolve creative and financial disagreements that have persisted over the years.
Now, the High Court will decide the merits of Summers and Copeland’s claim and what it means for the band’s legacy. A ruling could have broader implications for how royalties and credits are managed in long-running groups, potentially affecting both performers and writers in similar situations across the music industry.
As the case unfolds, representatives for Summers and Copeland have not publicly commented beyond emphasizing the substantial nature of the damages they seek, while Sting’s side has maintained that the action is not about the song in question and declined further comment. Parade’s team has reached out to the parties for responses, with no immediate word available.
This legal battle arrives at a moment when The Police’s legacy remains strong, with enduring fan interest in their catalog and a renewed spotlight on how iconic songs are credited and monetized. While disputes like this cast a shadow, they also raise important conversations about fairness and recognition for all members who contributed to a band’s enduring success. If resolved constructively, the case could lead to clearer standards for credit and publishing decisions in decades-spanning collaborations and help ensure that the legacies of bands like The Police are preserved in a way that reflects everyone’s contributions.
Summary: A High Court dispute over missing royalties pits Sting against his former Police bandmates over publishing and songwriting credits tied to the band’s enduring hits, including “Every Breath You Take.” The outcome could influence how royalties are allocated in long-running bands and shape the future handling of credits for key contributors.
Note: This piece focuses on the legal development and its potential implications for musicians and publishing rights, aiming to provide context and forward-looking insight rather than sensational detail. If you’re following this story, look for updates on the court proceedings and any statements from the parties involved.