< Back to latest news & events

News

Madonna Producer Succeeds in Royalty Appeal Against Warner Music

April 2019

A New York appeals court has held that Shep Pettibone, the producer of Madonna’s 1990 hit “Vogue” is entitled to back royalties from Warner Music Group, following a dispute over an indemnity provision in an agreement.

Background to Dispute

In 2012, a music company, VMG Salsoul LLC sued Pettibone and Warner for copyright infringement, arguing that Pettibone had copied a portion of the song “Love Break” and used it without permission in “Vogue”. Warner and Pettibone were successful in defeating this claim. However, Warner withheld over $500,000 in royalties due to Pettibone to offset the legal fees in defending the claim.

In April 2017, Pettibone brought a claim against WB Music Corp and Warner Music Group publishing division ‘Warner / Chappell’, claiming that the label and publisher had unfairly withheld his royalty payments.

Pettibone’s complaint was dismissed, with the court finding that the agreement with Warner provided that Pettibone’s royalty payments should be used to pay Warner’s attorney fees. A New York appeals court held on 17th April 2019 that Pettibone was not responsible for paying Warner’s legal fees in the copyright infringement case.

Contract with Warner

The section of the agreement dealing with the indemnity stated as follows;

“Each party will indemnify the other against any loss or damage (including court costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees) due to a breach of this agreement by that party which results in a judgment against the other party or which is settled with the other party’s prior written consent (not to be unreasonably withheld). In addition, [Pettibone’s] indemnity shall extend to the “deductible” under [Warner’s] errors-and-omissions policy without regard to judgment or settlement. Each party is entitled to be notified of any action against the other brought with respect to [the song “Vogue”], and to participate in the defense thereof by counsel of its choice, at its sole cost and expense”

Decision on Appeal

The appeals court found that under New York law, which governs the agreement, an indemnification provision cannot be enforced unless the intention to impose such an obligation is “unambiguous”.

The court held that the agreement was “pock-marked with ambiguity” and that on reading It appeared that the agreement provided that each party will pay their own costs and fees. The withheld royalties are estimated to be almost $1 million.

Advice for businesses

This case clearly illustrates that any legal agreement with a third party whether that be a supplier, customer or consultant should be as clear as possible to give effect to the aims of the business and legally enforceable. Without clarity in legal agreements (or poorly drafted indemnity provisions such as this), businesses can find themselves in similar positions– having to pay out large sums of money for issues that could have been avoided with careful legal drafting.

If you would like further advice on your legal agreements or copyright law issues please get in touch.

This update was prepared by HGF IP Solicitors Chris Robinson.  If you would like further advice on this or any other matter, please contact Chris.  Alternatively, you can contact your usual HGF representative or visit our Contact Page to get in touch with your nearest HGF office.

Latest updates

The EPO Board of Appeal comments on the scope of the morality exclusion from patentability

The recent decision, T1553/22 of the Board of Appeal required the Board to consider the scope of the exclusions from patentability under Article 53(a) EPC. The invention in this case …

Read article

PRESS RELEASE: HGF Announces Promotion of Nine New Partners Following CBPE Investment

HGF is proud to announce the promotion of nine new partners across the firm, marking a significant milestone following private investment from CBPE in October 2024. These promotions follow the …

Read article

HGF named as Intellectual Property Firm of the Year (Leeds) at the Legal Insider Awards

We are proud to announce that HGF has been recognised as the Intellectual Property Firm of the Year – Leeds 2025 – by the Legal Insider! This acknowledgment is a …

Read article
Event - 3rd June 2025

Salzburg Seminar: Patents, trademarks, intellectual property rights – how startups can act strategically

Young companies make many important decisions during the start-up phase. One of the most important questions is: How do I deal strategically with innovations, ideas, and brand development? Those who …

Event details

IP Ingredients: Why are food tech patent applications in Europe falling?

Number of European patent applications and grants in Food Chemistry In March 2025 the European Patent Office (EPO) published its Patent Index 2024 – an analysis of the number of …

Read article

Re-defining Design Protection in the European Union – What it means for your business

On 1 May 2025, the first phase of the European Union’s long-anticipated design law reforms come into effect, with the second phase of changes being brought in on 1 July …

Read article

HGF partners with Rowan Patents to drive innovation in patent drafting

HGF has partnered with Rowan Patents, now part of Clarivate, to enhance and streamline our patent drafting process to continue delivering superior client service. With a continued focus on innovation …

Read article