and other artists in an effort to regain control of their masters, finally ending years of closely-watched class-action litigation against major record labels over copyright law’s termination right.
Taken together, the two lawsuits represented a sweeping critique of how the two music giants were allegedly approaching termination rights, which were created in the 1970s as a means of helping correct the imbalance of power between large entertainment companies and individual creators.
That ruling did not decide the merits of the case, but it presented a severe logistical hurdle. Such lawsuits are extremely expensive, and artists typically lack the same kind of legal resources as the major labels who have allegedly denied their termination requests. A class action would have allowed the artists to pool their resources and secure a sweeping decision with only a single set of legal costs.
The UMG ruling was not directly binding on the lawsuit against Sony, which was being handled by a different judge in the same federal district court. But the two cases were filed by the same lawyers and were largely identical, meaning the UMG ruling certainly did not bode well for the Sony case’s chances to be approved as a class action.