Dispute Over Song "Everybody" Could Complicate Work of Concert Organizers and Music Schools

In July 2024, the Harju County Court began hearing a case related to the performance of a song at a 2023 film and television awards ceremony organized by the Film Institute. The song was performed by Eurovision 2001 winners Tanel Padar and Dave Benton. The performance was dedicated to the lifetime achievement award given to television director Juhan Paadam, who was the main producer of the 2001 competition.

The Film Institute had obtained a simple license to perform the work. However, composer Ivar Must considered that the song was performed in a modified and processed form. At the beginning of the song, part of the Earth, Wind and Fire song "In the Stone" was performed as an introduction. According to the plaintiff, the introduction and his song merged into a single work. The plaintiff and his representatives pointed out that instead of four men on backing vocals, there were two women, which changed the harmony; the tempo was different; the second verse lacked the violin part important to the original version; and at the end of the song, the piano part was played with different notes and incorrect rhythm.

No separate permission from the author was obtained for these changes. Must contacted the producer and creative director of the ceremony, Ken Matsalu, but they could not reach an agreement, and the author went to court.

Representatives of the Film Institute and sworn attorney Toomas Seppel argued that the work was performed without significant changes, which they said was confirmed by an expert hired by Must himself. They stated that replacing the violin part with a synthesizer was a technical, not a creative decision, and that changing individual notes in the piano part was part of performance interpretation. However, the Harju County Court sided with Must. The Film Institute appealed, and the dispute continued in the Tallinn Circuit Court.

An expert hired by the Institute, Erko Niit, concluded that the main musical material—the melody and harmonic progression—had not changed, thus preserving the original work. The defendants also disagreed that "In the Stone" and "Everybody" formed a single whole, claiming the works were performed in a medley format.

The Circuit Court agreed with the plaintiff's position and the County Court's findings, stating that the Copyright Act provides both personal and property rights of the author to make not only creative but also other changes to the work. The court rejected the defendant's claim that the author's consent is only required when the originality criterion is exceeded.

The plaintiffs demanded 8,000 euros in license fees. The Film Institute considered this amount excessive, but the court did not agree. The Circuit Court upheld the County Court's decision and ordered the Film Institute to pay Must 9,068 euros and procedural costs of 10,776 euros, plus interest.

Sworn attorney Seppel announced that the Film Institute plans to appeal, as the decision could create a precedent. According to him, for 35 years it was sufficient to obtain a license from the Estonian Authors' Society. If the decision takes effect, organizers of all concerts where works by other authors are performed will have to contact the copyright holder or their heirs and separately agree on the permissibility of the performance; the amount of remuneration would be determined by agreement between the parties, not the society.

Seppel noted that such changes could even affect music school students. Most music education is based on adapting works to the students' skill level and ensemble composition; if every pedagogical simplification requires prior consent of the author, the learning process would become practically impossible without separate permission for each student's performance.

Must's lawyer Anneli Aab disagreed with this assessment, stating that the court decision does not change the existing copyright system. She emphasized that the Copyright Act has been in force since 1992 and directly provides the author's personal and property right to make decisions about changes to his work, which is not limited to creative processing. In her opinion, the entry into force of the decision will not change copyright practice but will only ensure more effective protection of authors' rights.

Executive Director of the Estonian Authors' Society Mati Kaalep described the situation as ambiguous. He welcomed the fact that laws and the court protect authors, but noted that the society is interested in keeping the market functioning. He pointed out the predictability issue regarding small, technical changes. Although nothing may change immediately after the decision takes effect, the situation could become significantly more complicated if dozens of similar disputes arise where authors claim their works were altered and users insist no changes were made.