“Jem” lost “Technology”

The Jam music publishing house must refuse to use a number of tracks from the Tekhnologiya group and pay compensation to their author Leonid Velichkovsky, the court ruled. The author had an agreement with the Jam structures, but believed that its effect did not apply to the use of songs on the Internet. “Jem” is known for its involvement in disputes over the use of music on the Internet under contracts concluded before the mid-2000s. Market participants hope that the current case may become a precedent for other similar proceedings. But some independent lawyers do not consider the court’s decision justified.

The Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal overturned the decision of the Moscow Arbitration Court on the suit of the musician and co-founder of the Tekhnologiya group Leonid Velichkovsky against the music publishing house Jam. The court forbade “Jem” to use the songs “Everything you want”, “This is war” and a number of other early compositions of “Technology”, authored by Mr. Velichkovsky, a total of 21 tracks, said “Kommersant” managing partner of Semenov & Pevzner Roman Lukyanov, whose company represented the interests of the musician in court. Also, according to him, the court recovered 3.1 million rubles from the label. compensation. Kommersant sent a request to Jam.

Leonid Velichkovsky – Soviet and Russian musician, composer and producer, was a member of the Technology group from 1990 to 1996. The dispute has been pending before the courts since July 2021. By that time, Jam itself had filed 19 lawsuits against Yandex, four lawsuits each against VKontakte and Google (concerning music on YouTube), and one each against Apple, Spotify, Sberzvuk and MTS (see “Kommersant” dated June 25, 2021). Some of them, for example, to VKontakte, are still being considered, disputes with Yandex ended in amicable agreements in 2022.

Mr. Velichkovsky signed an agreement with one of the Jam structures in Eastern Europe, but it did not cover the use of songs on the Internet, Mr. Lukyanov explained. According to him, the plaintiff does not intend to seek the withdrawal of disputed tracks from streaming services, “Leonid understands that when working with labels, they proceed from the presumption of good faith.”

“Jem” is known for disputes with authors under contracts concluded before 2006, says Denis Krauyalis, a lawyer for the Yakovlev and Partners legal group, “but the authors also often “forget” about previously concluded contracts and believe that they have the right to dispose of previously transferred rights” . Kommersant’s interlocutor in the music rights market says that Jam signed many Russian stars in the late 1980s and 1990s, and now all his claims are connected with this particular repertoire. “Many contracts have expired, but they were very different from the current ones and, for example, provided for the transfer of rights to works for life,” he says. This, the interlocutor believes, allows “Jem” to build arguments, “but the fact that the court of second instance recognized the arguments of Mr. Velichkovsky gives hope that other music publishers will be able to win.” The decision of the Court of Appeal corresponds to the practice “more than the decision of the court of first instance”, agrees the managing partner of Ickert & Partners Pavel Ickert.

However, the expert believes that “Jem” acted legitimately, and Mr. Velichkovsky used a loophole in the interpretations. The special author’s authority, which explicitly covered the distribution of songs via the Internet, was codified in 2004, explains Anatoly Semenov, deputy chairman of the RSPP committee on intellectual property. “Some parties are still trying to build on that and claim they didn’t sell the rights to use the songs on the internet,” he said. Mr. Semyonov noted that the Supreme Court resolved the uncertainty back in 2006: according to the decision of the plenum, the distribution via the Internet of songs that were transmitted before 2004 was covered by the right to reproduce and distribute copies.

Yuri Litvinenko