Battle of the Bands: Legal Issues Artists and Bands Commonly Run Into

Tweet

Introduction

Musical artists and bands experience something unique to a relatively small group of people in American society: fame.  Fame can be slow and steady or incredibly swift.  For many artists, fame inevitably leads to life on the road, wealth, and a spotlight on their personal lives.  These experiences can lead to complicated dynamics between artists and bands.  Throughout the years, society has seen public break-ups—and reconciliations—of many American and European bands.  The drama on and off the stage often leads to the courtroom.

Common Legal Issues Bands Face

Whether it be weighing in on inter-band disputes between band members or resolving legal action pursued by artists against outside sources, the courtroom is no stranger to these kinds of quarrels.  The Beatles have had no less than five different lawsuits filed in European courts.  Courtney Love, the widow of the infamous Nirvana band member Kurt Cobain, was embattled in a years-long battle with fellow Nirvana members Dave Grohl and Krist Novoselic surrounding the band’s status as a limited liability company, its finances, and the Nirvana name.  90s European boy band Oasis, formed by two brothers, has had public spats for decades.  Luckily for Oasis fans, the spat seemed to have settled, as the band announced an Oasis Live tour in 2025.

Although many bands have had legal battles throughout the years concerning countless issues across the board, typical disputes that are litigated time and time again include intellectual property, management and financial responsibilities, and business disputes.

Intellectual Property – The Fight for Trademark Rights

The creation of original content will almost always implicate copyright and trademark law.  Artists and bands directly rely on the profits from their content, so obtaining copyright and trademark rights over their original songs and music can be critical to maintaining their livelihood.  Additionally, bands and artists that reach a large amount of fame will often profit off the use and ownership of their names, logos, and other identifying markers of the band.  Because of this, trademarks have been heavily litigated among rock stars.

A trademark is “any word, name, symbol, or design” used to identify and distinguish the goods or services of one producer from those of another.  Trademarks are protected under intellectual property rights.  The Lanham Act, established by Congress in 1946, provides a system for national trademark registration.  If a trademark is approved, the Act allows a nationwide awareness of protected content.  There are two requirements a mark must meet to be eligible for protection under the Lanham Act: (1) the mark must be used in commerce, and (2) it must be distinctive.

Given the numerous types of content that fall under the definition of a trademark, many bands opt to file for trademarks on both their names and a design.  It is difficult to imagine a world that does not recognize the infamous red lips and tongue that identify The Rolling Stones.  The band trademarked this design in the 1970s, protecting the image as their own personal trademark in the UK, Australia, and the United States.  Their band name has also been trademarked.

With their notorious fame and celebrity for over six decades, The Rolling Stones wisely decided to trademark both their band name and corresponding image.  Without the protection of a trademark, The Rolling Stones would have little legal recourse against any impermissible reproduction of their name or image, allowing others to use, publish, or profit from either.  However, even with trademark protections, issues have been shown to arise within feuding bands and band members.

Pink Floyd

British rock band, Pink Floyd, encountered this exact issue in 1986 when their main singer and bass guitarist, Roger Waters, sued his bandmates David Gilmour and Nick Mason.  After a long, dramatic, and contentious tour, Waters quit the band in 1985.  Waters claimed he needed to leave the band so he “could express [his] ideas unfettered.” Assuming that Pink Floyd would disband completely without him, Waters was shocked when the remaining band members continued making music and began working on a Pink Floyd record without him.  Waters quickly took his former bandmates to court to prevent them from using the name “Pink Floyd.”  Waters infamously claimed the group was a “spent force of creativity,” and the group was at risk of ruining the band’s legacy if they continued to use the Pink Floyd name without Waters in the band.  The legal battle lasted two years and was eventually settled outside of court.  Waters was interviewed by BBC in 2013 and admitted his fault in the suit, conceding, “I was wrong! Of course I was. Who cares?”  However, Pink Floyd is not the only band to fall victim to these types of disputes.

ABBA

ABBA, the ever-remaining popular Swedish pop band, filed suit against an ABBA tribute band in 2021.  The tribute band, named Abba Mania, promoted itself as “The Original Tribute from London’s West End!” and had been touring in Europe and the United States under that name.  ABBA sued Abba Mania for their use of the trademarked “ABBA” name without permission.  At the time of the lawsuit, ABBA had sold an estimated 385 million records.  ABBA has also been cited as one of the first musical groups to use music videos to promote its music.  More recently, ABBA’s songs have resurged online, gaining a newfound audience in Gen Z and making waves with ABBA “challenges” on TikTok.  Given this international and continuing fame, it is easy to see why ABBA sought damages from the tribute band that, as ABBA claims, was making money off ABBA’s trademarked name and likeness.  ABBA’s lawyers accused Abba Mania’s managers of “parasitic and bad-faith conduct” by “trading off ABBA’s goodwill and cachet in promoting Abba Mania.”  A month and a half later, ABBA settled the suit with Abba Mania.

Management & Financial Disputes

Disputes between band members involving their name and image are not the only disputes that arise and lead to legal action.  Bands typically have an array of team members behind them planning tours, scheduling press, and managing their money and profits.  Ultimately, a great form of trust must be established between the band members and their managers to remain successful.  If and when this trust is broken, a common type of litigation tends to surface: the breach of fiduciary duty.

A fiduciary, also known as a “principal,” is a person who is required to act honestly, in good faith, and in the best interests of another person, their “agent,” because a fiduciary relationship exists between them.  This relationship exists when the principal acts for the benefit of their agent, which, in turn, causes their agent to place special faith, confidence, and trust in the principal.  Fiduciary relationships may exist in a variety of circumstances, but typical examples of a fiduciary relationship are between an attorney and their client, a trustee and beneficiary, or a physician and a patient.  In recognizing a fiduciary relationship, courts will consider whether the disputing parties have a relationship where a “special confidence” in the principal exists that bounds the principal to act in good faith in regard to their agent.

Where a fiduciary relationship exists, a breach of a “duty” within that relationship can lead to litigation.  A breach of fiduciary duty claim is essentially a claim of professional malpractice or negligence.  These claims allege that the principal failed to act in good faith in relation to their agent and did not act with their agent’s best interests in mind.

Although courts have not directly acknowledged whether a fiduciary relationship exists between a personal manager and their artists, or even between the artists themselves, that has not worn out litigation amongst bands, artists, and their managers when a disagreement arises.

Fleetwood Mac

Fleetwood Mac is a band that has been at the forefront of American news stories for years.  From breakups to affairs, the band has seen its fair share of strife.  Lead guitarist and co-lead vocalist Lindsey Buckingham dated fellow band member Stevie Nicks, and the pair broke up right after the group released their beloved album Rumours in 1977.  The pair’s break-up inspired several songs on the album.  Other band members Christine McVie and John McVie, who were married at the time of making Rumours, later divorced after Christine admitted to an affair with the band’s lighting technician, whom she wrote “You Make Loving Fun” about (another song on Rumours).  Despite the behind-the-scenes turmoil, Rumours sold over 40 million copies and remains one of the highest-grossing albums of all time.

Unfortunately, the personal relationship conflicts within the band remained in the limelight throughout the years.  In 2018, Lindsey Buckingham sued the band after being fired by the band’s other members.  Buckingham’s lawsuit alleged the band members, among other claims, breached their fiduciary duty to him.  Buckingham’s firing allegedly originated from ex-girlfriend Stevie Nicks, who claimed that Buckingham was reluctant to tour with the band.  Buckingham, in response, contended in his lawsuit that if not for the firing, he would have made $12-14 million from the band’s upcoming tour that year.  The drama officially subsided two months later when Buckingham and the band settled the lawsuit.

Business Disputes

As detailed above, strife between artists and band members is often palpable to members of the public.  Tension and inflamed disagreements between feuding rockstars, who infamously retain high egos, are not always known to resolve themselves quietly.  The world of entertainment no doubt involves a copious amount of contracts between band members, band managers, the music industry, and countless others.  Some entertainers will choose to retain their rights, trademarks, personal images, social media sites, and merchandise.  Retaining these rights under a business partnership can provide a layer of protection for these rights.

Business partnerships can take on many different forms.  The “default” business partnership, which requires no written agreement to officially form, is the general partnership.  A general partnership typically involves two or more persons associating to carry on business together while dividing any profits between them.  Under this type of partnership, every partner is an “agent” of the partnership, and any act of the agent will bind the partnership.  Unless a written agreement within the general partnership states otherwise, all partners share equally in profits and losses, regardless of individual contribution.

Similar to a general partnership, partners within a limited liability partnership (“LLP”) are equal partners who share profits and losses.  However, with one key difference: limited liability partnerships add a thick layer of protection around their partners concerning liability.  If an LLP is sued, the partners are not personally liable for the partnership’s debts, obligations, or liabilities.  This protection works to protect its partners from incurring any individual debts in a lawsuit.  Due to this liability shield, many business partners (including band members) will opt for a limited liability partnership.

Hall & Oates

The pop-rock duo Hall & Oates have maintained an impressive portfolio over the years: 18 studio albums, 29 hit songs, and 5 Grammy nominations.  With hits like “Rich Girl,” “You Make My Dreams Come True,” and “Maneater,” the group has maintained notoriety throughout generations.  However, the tension between the two members has long been suspected and documented.  In 2017, before a tour was set to take place, the group appeared on CBS Sunday Morning for an interview.  Daryl Hall admitted in the interview that he never believed he would be working with John Oates years after the height of their popularity.  John Oates noted that each of the men thinks of themselves as “two individuals who are distinctly different, who work together.”  In 2022, during an interview with Bill Maher, Hall noted, “John and I are brothers, but we are not creative brothers . . . we are business partners. We made records called Hall & Oates together, but we’ve always been separate, and that’s a really important thing for me.”

The tension came to a head in November 2023 when Hall officially filed a lawsuit in Nashville, asking a judge to issue a restraining order against Oates.  The restraining order was filed to prevent Oates from selling Oates’s share of the duo’s limited liability partnership to a private music publishing and talent management company.  The duo’s partnership, Whole Oats Enterprises LLP, maintained control and ownership over many valuable Hall & Oates materials.  Oates’s lawsuit contended that by filing the suit, he wanted to ensure the sale did not close before an arbitrator could weigh in.  Oates’s attorneys responded to Hall’s lawsuit by saying that Oates had lived up to his contractual obligations put forth in the partnership.  Unfortunately, in May 2024, Hall confirmed the end of the band Hall & Oates as we know it.  At the time of publishing, the legal battle between the two men continues to rage on.

Conclusion

As the stories of Pink Floyd, ABBA, Fleetwood Mac, and Hall & Oates show, the fallout from band breakups often extends far beyond emotional tension and public drama.  When creative partnerships also function as business arrangements, the end of a musical relationship can trigger complex legal consequences involving intellectual property, fiduciary duties, and contract disputes within partnerships.  Ultimately, as these cases show, the courtroom can become the center stage where artists fight for the legacy they built in the culture.