In a significant copyright case, Universal Music Group, Capitol Records, Concord Music Group, and ABKCO Music (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) have filed a $500 million lawsuit against Believe S.A. and its U.S. subsidiary, TuneCore. The lawsuit centers on claims that TuneCore knowingly distributed infringing copies of sound recordings from globally recognized artists, including “altered” versions of songs by stars like Ariana Grande, Justin Bieber, and Billie Eilish. This case underscores the legal responsibilities of digital music distributors and could have substantial repercussions for the music industry’s approach to copyright compliance in the digital era.

Background on TuneCore and Digital Music Distributors

Distributors like TuneCore have become central to today’s digital music landscape by providing services that allow independent and mainstream artists to distribute their music across major streaming platforms. Unlike traditional record labels, these distributors do not take ownership of artists’ work but instead function as intermediaries, allowing musicians to upload their music directly to streaming platforms like Spotify, Apple Music, and YouTube for a fee or a percentage of royalties.

This model has opened doors for countless independent artists to access global audiences without a record label. However, this same system can be misused when oversight is lacking, leading to potential copyright infringements if unauthorized or manipulated copies of copyrighted works are distributed.

The Infringement Allegations Against TuneCore and Believe

Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges that Believe and TuneCore knowingly allowed unauthorized versions of copyrighted songs into their distribution pipeline. According to the complaint, these versions often involved “sped-up” or “remixed” tracks, tactics that allegedly made it easier to evade copyright detection technologies on social media platforms and streaming services.

The suit claims that TuneCore’s approach, alleged to lack rigorous content review, enabled artists and labels with minimal reputations or legitimacy to upload these altered tracks. In some cases, TuneCore is alleged to have even claimed copyright ownership on certain tracks through YouTube’s Content ID, thus diverting royalties away from the original copyright owners.

Plaintiffs further contend that when they brought these issues to TuneCore’s attention, the distributor failed to remove the infringing content from other platforms and continued collecting royalties. They assert that this behavior harmed their revenue and deprived their artists of rightful earnings and creative control.

Causes of Action: Direct, Contributory, and Vicarious Copyright Infringement

The complaint outlines three primary causes of action against TuneCore and Believe: Direct Copyright Infringement, Contributory Copyright Infringement, and Vicarious Copyright Infringement. Each addresses a different aspect of the alleged copyright violations:

1. Direct Copyright Infringement: Plaintiffs allege that TuneCore engaged in direct infringement by distributing unauthorized copies of their copyrighted works. In cases of direct infringement, the defendant is accused of directly violating the exclusive rights of the copyright owner—such as the rights to reproduce, distribute, or perform copyrighted material—without permission.
2. Contributory Copyright Infringement: Plaintiffs also claim that TuneCore facilitated the infringement by allowing or encouraging unauthorized content to enter their distribution network. Contributory infringement occurs when a party knowingly contributes to someone else’s infringement, such as by enabling or encouraging infringement through a service or tool. Here, TuneCore is accused of knowingly enabling third parties to distribute infringing versions of copyrighted works.
3. Vicarious Copyright Infringement: Finally, Plaintiffs allege that TuneCore is liable for vicarious copyright infringement because it benefited financially from the infringement and had the right to control it. In cases of vicarious infringement, a party is held liable for the infringing actions of others if they profit from the infringement and have the ability to stop it but fail to do so. Plaintiffs argue that TuneCore and Believe, by retaining control over content distribution and benefiting from royalties, had both the means and incentive to prevent infringement yet allowed it to continue.

These causes of action underscore Plaintiffs’ claim that TuneCore and Believe neglected their duty to safeguard copyrighted content, even when presented with opportunities to address alleged infringement.

Copyright Protections and Industry Standards

Copyright law generally gives owners exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, and publicly perform their works. Music distributors are typically expected to respect these rights by ensuring they have proper licenses for the content they distribute. To comply, digital platforms often rely on systems like YouTube’s Content ID to help flag and manage potential copyright issues.

In this case, however, the complaint suggests that these protections were circumvented. TuneCore is accused of facilitating the distribution of tracks that closely resembled copyrighted songs, often labeled as “sped up” or “remixed.” These alterations may have helped the infringing tracks evade detection, potentially diluting the value of the original works and interfering with copyright holders’ ability to monetize their content.

Implications for Digital Music Distribution and Copyright Compliance

This lawsuit highlights the balancing act digital music distributors face: facilitating access for independent creators while maintaining the integrity of copyright protections. Should the court side with Plaintiffs, the outcome could prompt stricter guidelines for content review among distributors like TuneCore, as well as other prominent distributors such as CD Baby, DistroKid, and Amuse. A ruling in favor of the Plaintiffs could bring about a heightened focus on copyright monitoring across these platforms, reshaping industry expectations and compliance requirements.

As a music artist who relies on distributors to release my music, and as a lawyer in this space, this case is at the top of my watchlist. Stay tuned for updates as the case develops.