Music law lawyer in Paris: artist contracts, publishing and neighbouring rights against the label.

An artist contract entrusts the label with recording your performances and exploiting them. It combines two distinct relationships. First, the recording session is paid as salary, since Article L. 7121-3 of the Labour Code presumes an artist to be an employee where a person secures their services for remuneration. Second, the assignment of your neighbouring rights gives entitlement to royalties calculated on revenue. The review starts with the subject matter: number of firm and optional albums, time limit for entering the studio, promised release date and duration of exclusivity. It continues with the list of rights assigned, because Article L. 212-11 of the Intellectual Property Code requires each one to be the subject of a separate mention and its scope to be delimited as to extent, purpose, place and duration. The rate and base of the royalties, the deductions, the recoupment of advances and the frequency of statements must then be checked. A preference clause that follows the artist after leaving a band or after the end of the term deserves particular attention. In a case where a member leaving a band had to grant the producer a preference for twelve months, the Paris Court of Appeal, noting that the producer did not show a legitimate interest in the restriction and that no financial consideration was provided, held under Article L. 1121-1 of the Labour Code that “This clause is therefore null and void” (our translation) (CA Paris, pôle 6 ch. 3, 24 April 2024, No. 21/01638). The firm examines the draft clause by clause and points out what can be negotiated before signing.

No, when two conditions are met. Under Article L. 7121-8 of the Labour Code, the remuneration due to the artist for the sale or exploitation of the recording is not a salary once their physical presence is no longer required and the sum depends on the proceeds of exploitation, not on the session salary. The Court of Cassation upheld a court of appeal which, finding royalties proportional to sales and an advance in line with forecasts, held that “the sums in dispute did not have the character of salary” (our translation) (Cass. 2e civ., 6 July 2017, No. 16-20.276). That judgment dismisses the URSSAF's appeal to the Court of Cassation (social security contributions agency), the court of appeal having held unfounded the adjustment of contributions notified to a producer. The distinction has practical effects. Recording fees follow the social security and tax treatment of salary, whereas royalties are treated differently. A contract that sets a flat royalty with no link to sales is exposed to requalification. Conversely, an advance that is too high compared with forecasts can blur the analysis. The firm checks the drafting of the remuneration clauses, the consistency between fees, advances and royalties, and the way the statements distinguish these sums. This review also prepares any later discussion of unpaid royalties.

Yes. Article L. 212-13 of the Intellectual Property Code requires the contract between the performing artist and the phonogram producer to set a guaranteed minimum remuneration in return for the fixation authorisation, paid as salary. The same provision states that each mode of exploitation provided for in the contract is the subject of separate remuneration, and expressly designates as distinct modes the sale in physical form and the making available by electronic means. A single royalty covering discs, downloads and online listening without distinction therefore does not meet this requirement. For streaming, Article L. 212-14 of the Intellectual Property Code further provides for a guaranteed minimum remuneration, the terms and level of which are set by collective agreements or, failing that, by a commission chaired by a representative of the State. This guarantee must remain proportional to the economic value of the rights, except where a flat fee is permitted. In practice, the contract must show, line by line, which rate applies to physical sales, downloads, streaming and synchronisations. The firm compares these provisions with the statements received and checks that each source of revenue appears under its own heading.

Where the contract provides for proportional remuneration paid directly by the producer, Article L. 212-15 of the Intellectual Property Code requires the producer to account to the artist every six months for the calculation of their remuneration, in an explicit and transparent manner. At the artist's request, the producer provides an accountant appointed by the artist with all supporting documents needed to establish the accuracy of the accounts. Article L. 212-3-1 of the Intellectual Property Code adds information at least annually on all revenue generated, distinguishing each mode of exploitation. The first step is therefore to request the missing statements and supporting documents in writing, with a precise time limit. If the label stays silent, appointing an accountant makes it possible to check the platforms' declarations, the deductions applied and the recoupment of advances. The artist must prove the obligation whose performance they claim and produce the relevant documents, while the label that claims to have been discharged must prove payment, under Article 1353 of the Civil Code. In a case decided in 2026, the Paris Court of Appeal noted that, since the enclosures received from the label had not been produced, “the court is not in a position to assess the merits of the complaints of non-payment of the royalties due” (our translation) (CA Paris, pôle 5 ch. 1, 11 March 2026, No. 24/10758). The firm gathers the contracts, statements and correspondence before any claim, then quantifies the shortfall claimed.

Several routes exist, with different conditions. Under the general law, Article 1224 of the Civil Code distinguishes termination by operation of a termination clause (clause résolutoire) from termination sanctioning a sufficiently serious non-performance, by notification from the creditor or by court decision. The Intellectual Property Code adds mechanisms of its own. Article L. 212-3-3 of the Intellectual Property Code gives an artist who has assigned their rights exclusively a right to terminate where there is no exploitation of their performance, on terms set by collective agreement or, failing that, by decree. Article L. 212-3-5 of the Intellectual Property Code allows, beyond the first fifty years of the seventy-year term, notice to the producer of an intention to terminate where the producer does not offer copies for sale in sufficient quantity or does not make the phonogram available to the public online; if, within the following twelve months, the producer does neither, the artist may exercise the right to terminate. Finally, Article L. 212-12 of the Intellectual Property Code allows the court to order any appropriate measure in the event of a notorious abuse in the non-use of the rights assigned. The choice depends on the age of the phonogram, the nature of the breaches and the evidence available. A bailiff's report (procès-verbal de constat) on the platforms, the statements received and the correspondence with the label form the core of the file. The firm checks which legal basis matches the facts before sending any notification.

For a contract concluded since 1 October 2016, termination by notification follows a strict order; an earlier contract remains subject to the old law, under Article 9 of Ordinance No. 2016-131 of 10 February 2016. Article 1226 of the Civil Code requires, except in urgent cases, prior formal notice that gives the debtor a reasonable period and states expressly that, failing performance, the contract will be terminated. Only if the non-performance persists does the creditor notify the termination and the reasons for it. The debtor may then refer the matter to the court, and the creditor must prove the seriousness of the non-performance. In a decision unfavourable to the artist, the Paris Court of Appeal refused to recognise a termination notified by a musician to their label, for lack of prior formal notice inviting the label, as debtor of the obligation, to perform within a set period (CA Paris, pôle 5 ch. 1, 11 March 2026, No. 24/10758). The letter in question notified the termination, gave formal notice and fixed an earlier effective date in the same mailing. Seised in the alternative, the court added that the failure to pay for digital exploitation “is not serious enough to justify termination of the contract” (our translation) given the age of the albums and the absence of any earlier complaint (CA Paris, pôle 5 ch. 1, 11 March 2026, No. 24/10758). This decision shows that a badly constructed termination can remain without effect. The firm drafts the formal notice first, then the notification, keeping proof of each mailing.

Where the artist contract is a fixed-term employment contract, its early termination at the employer's initiative, other than for gross misconduct, force majeure or unfitness for work, entitles the artist to damages at least equal to the remuneration the artist would have received until the end of the term, under Article L. 1243-4 of the Labour Code. The Court of Cassation makes clear that this amount is only a minimum. It upheld a court of appeal that had noted that “the unlawful termination of the fixed-term contracts had prevented the production of two of the albums covered by the contracts” (our translation) and compensated the loss of opportunity to earn the income from their exploitation (Cass. soc., 3 July 2019, No. 18-12.306). Two years later, it set aside a judgment that limited compensation to salaries alone, holding that this provision “does not limit the loss for which he may claim reparation to the remuneration of which he would have been deprived” (our translation) (Cass. soc., 15 September 2021, No. 19-21.311). The artist must nevertheless establish that this loss is direct and certain. Sales of the earlier albums, platform audience, concert dates and promotional commitments make it possible to gauge its extent. The firm gathers these elements, quantifies the loss of opportunity and checks which court has jurisdiction before any claim is brought.

The principle is the nullity of a global assignment of future works, laid down by Article L. 131-1 of the Intellectual Property Code. Article L. 132-4 of the Intellectual Property Code allows a limited exception: the author may grant a publisher a right of preference over future works of clearly specified genres, limited for each genre to five new works or to the output produced within five years from signature of the first contract. The question is what a work means in music. The Court of Cassation ruled in 2026: “It follows that, in music publishing, a work within the meaning of Article L. 132-4 of the Intellectual Property Code” (our translation) corresponds to a musical work and not to an album grouping several tracks (Cass. 1re civ., 13 May 2026, No. 24-15.857). It dismissed the publishers' appeal to the Court of Cassation, in which they argued the opposite. A pact counted in albums can therefore exceed the legal limits and be annulled, as in that case, where the commitment was limited neither in time nor to five works. The publisher benefiting from the preference must also make its decision known in writing within three months of delivery of each work, and two successive refusals release the author for the genre concerned, provided the author first repays the advances received on future works. The firm counts the tracks delivered and checks whether the commitment stays within the limits of the provision.

The publishing contract, defined by Article L. 132-1 of the Intellectual Property Code, transfers to the publisher the right to manufacture or have manufactured copies of the work, on condition that the publisher ensures its publication and distribution. Two obligations follow. Under Article L. 132-12 of the Intellectual Property Code, the publisher must ensure permanent and sustained exploitation of the work and commercial distribution in line with the usages of the profession. Under Article L. 132-13 of the Intellectual Property Code, the publisher must account, and the author may demand at least once a year a statement of exploitation and royalties. The Court of Cassation holds that, despite the five-year limitation period of Article 2224 of the Civil Code, “prolonged breaches by the publisher of its obligations during the five years preceding the writ of summons may justify termination of a contract concluded with the author” (our translation) (Cass. 1re civ., 5 June 2024, No. 22-24.462). It set aside the judgment that had declared the composer's claims time-barred without examining whether the breaches had continued during the period not yet time-barred. That ruling sends the case back to the lower courts; it does not find against the publisher. It means that old inaction does not extinguish the complaint if it is still continuing. The firm reconstructs the chronology of statements and exploitation in order to place the breaches in time.

In principle, no. Article L. 131-4 of the Intellectual Property Code requires that an assignment of the author's rights include appropriate remuneration proportional to the revenue from sale or exploitation. A flat fee is permitted only in limited cases, for example where the basis for calculation cannot practically be determined or the means of control are lacking. The Court of Cassation set aside a judgment that had fixed the evaded copyright payments on the basis of a fixed amount per thousand copies of an album sold, recalling that “the author's remuneration must be proportional to the revenue from the sale or exploitation” (our translation) (Cass. 1re civ., 4 July 2019, No. 17-31.424). A fixed amount per unit, even indexed to volumes, therefore does not replace a percentage of revenue. This rule concerns the lyricist and the composer in their dealings with the publisher. For the performing artist, Article L. 212-3 of the Intellectual Property Code provides a similar rule, with appropriate remuneration proportional to the real or potential economic value of the rights assigned. Article L. 212-3-2 of the Intellectual Property Code adds, in the absence of a comparable mechanism in the contract or in an applicable collective or professional agreement, a right to additional remuneration where the agreed remuneration proves excessively low compared with all the revenue subsequently derived from exploitation by the assignee. The firm checks the base used by the contract and the compliance of each remuneration clause.

Where a phonogram has been published for commercial purposes, the performing artist and the producer cannot object to its direct communication in a public place, other than in a performance, or to its broadcasting, under Article L. 214-1 of the Intellectual Property Code. In return, the user pays equitable remuneration, which the same provision reserves to performing artists and phonogram producers. This remuneration does not depend on the artist contract: it is a right to remuneration that the label cannot appropriate. Article L. 212-11 of the Intellectual Property Code also prohibits an advance granted by the producer from being repaid by an assignment of the sums due under Article L. 214-1, any contrary clause being null. The Court of Cassation held that a retail chain playing in its shops tracks taken from an online platform was carrying out direct communication in a public place and owed equitable remuneration, whatever the technical process used (Cass. 1re civ., 11 December 2019, No. 18-21.211). In that case, the origin of the tracks, taken from a platform offering open licences, did not prevent the regime from applying to the chain. The firm checks the artist's registration with the competent body, the receivables-assignment clauses of the contract and the declarations submitted, in order to identify sums that have not been distributed.

From the first capture. Article L. 212-3 of the Intellectual Property Code subjects the fixation of a performance, its reproduction and its communication to the public to the written authorisation of the performing artist. The Court of Cassation makes clear that “fixation is constituted by the first incorporation of the artist's performance in a medium” (our translation) (Cass. 1re civ., 12 September 2018, No. 17-19.490). In a case concerning sketches recorded in public, it set aside the judgment that had placed the fixation at the date of the final master, at the end of the production process. Dates also matter for the duration of the rights. Article L. 211-4 of the Intellectual Property Code makes the artist's rights last fifty years from 1 January following the performance; if, during that period, the performance fixed in a phonogram is made available to the public or communicated to the public, they expire seventy years after 1 January following the first of those events. For an artist, this means that a studio session, a rehearsal recording or a concert recording cannot be exploited without a written authorisation. For a label, it means obtaining the authorisation before the recording begins, not when the release comes. The firm checks that each recording exploited is covered by a written authorisation and that the dates in the contracts match the actual sessions.

Not always. A song written and composed by several people is often a work of joint authorship, the rights in which belong jointly to the co-authors. The Court of Cassation holds that “while the co-author of a work of joint authorship may act alone to defend their moral right, this is on condition that their contribution can be individualised” (our translation) (Cass. 1re civ., 21 March 2018, No. 17-14.728). Otherwise, they must bring in the other authors, on pain of inadmissibility. In that case, the lyrics had been written from pre-existing poems, in close collaboration with their authors, and the singer's contribution was inseparable from theirs. The same logic applies to performers. Article L. 212-3-6 of the Intellectual Property Code provides that, where a phonogram contains the performances of several performing artists, they exercise by common agreement the right to terminate under Article L. 212-3-5, the court deciding in the event of disagreement; paragraph IV of Article L. 212-3-3 of the Intellectual Property Code lays down the same rule for termination for lack of any exploitation. The Paris Court of Appeal refused to order the termination sought by only one of the two performers on an album, notably because the other had not been joined to the proceedings (CA Paris, pôle 5 ch. 1, 11 March 2026, No. 24/10758). Before any action, the firm therefore identifies all the authors and performers concerned, checks whether the contributions are separable and, depending on the basis chosen, arranges for them to be joined or to give their agreement.

Article L. 212-2 of the Intellectual Property Code recognises the performing artist's right to respect for their name, their status and their performance, an inalienable and imprescriptible right. This right does not disappear on assignment of the economic rights, and Article L. 212-10 of the Intellectual Property Code states that concluding a contract with a phonogram producer does not derogate from this right. Its application, however, depends on what the artist has accepted. The Court of Cassation approves the principle that “the exploitation of film music can infringe the moral right of an author who has consented to it only to the extent that it risks altering the work or discrediting the author” (our translation) (Cass. 1re civ., 5 June 2024, No. 22-24.462). In that case, the composer had authorised the scoring of advertising films; the cuts and the addition of a reverb effect and a sound effect were not held to amount to distortion, and the court likewise rejected the alleged infringement of the artist's right to respect for their performance. An artist who has consented to advertising use must therefore show an alteration or a discrediting context, not a mere technical modification. The firm compares the version exploited with the original recording, rereads the authorisation given and assesses whether the infringement can be argued.