A six year legal battle over music made famous by the Buena Vista Social Club film came to an end yesterday in the London courts. As previously reported, this dispute was between US publishing firm Peer International Corporation and Cuba's state owned publishing company Editora Musical de Cuba, though the case was being fought in the UK courts because the initial dispute was over who had the right to assign rights to the songs in the UK market.
Peer International's interest in a wide catalogue of Cuban songs dates from the 30s, 40s and 50s when music from the country was popular in the US. However, after Fidel Castro came to power in Cuba in 1959 the publishing firm closed its offices there and lost contact with the composers they had previously represented.
However, as far as Peer were concerned, the Cuban songs remained on their roster, although Cuban music fell out of fashion outside of Cuba itself so the royalties on the music were nominal until, that is, the release of the Buena Vista Social Club film in 1997, when the whole genre became popular again. At that time Peer made an effort to reconnect with the composers they had once represented, or more generally those composers' heirs, and in some cases reached new deals which included paying some back royalties to 1959.
However, the state owned Editora Musical de Cuba claims that it now owns those compositions - disputing both Peer's original contracts with their Cuban artists, and the new contracts signed in the late nineties, claiming that in the latter, the US firm cheated the composers out of royalties they were due. Peer, on the other hand, allege that EMC stole its copyrights after Castro came to power, and began legal proceedings when the Cuban publisher attempted to license the European rights to the music - claiming its ownership rights of thirteen specific songs had been violated.
After a long running court case, which included a session in Cuba, Mr Justice Lindsay yesterday ruled that there was no evidence that Peer had cheated any Cuban composers, and that Peer may well still own rights over some of the disputed songs. However, the US firm had asked for a "wide declaration of ownership", which could then be applied to nearly 600 other disputed songs, and the judge said that there was insufficient evidence to make such a declaration.
It is unclear if Peer now plans to appeal the ruling, or take action in another jurisdiction.