The case reached the Harju District Court in July 2024 and concerns the 2023 Estonian Film and Television Awards gala organized by the Estonian Film Institute (EFI), where Tanel Padar and Dave Benton performed the 2001 Eurovision winning song "Everybody."

EFI applied for a simple license to perform the song, but the composer argued that the performance was not of the original work and that the song was presented in a modified and processed form.

A close look shows that the introduction includes the opening of Earth, Wind and Fire's "In the Stone," which Must said formed a single whole with the song. Must and his representative also pointed to other changes.

Instead of four male backing vocalists, there were two female backing vocalists, which changed the harmony. The tempo differed because the introduction was slower and built up to the correct tempo only by the first verse. The original second verse includes an important violin part that was missing. The ending featured a piano part with altered notes and an incorrect rhythm.

EFI did not seek separate approval from Must, who contacted Matsalu by phone. They did not reach a solution, and Must took the matter to court.

EFI and its attorney, Toomas Seppel, argued that the changes were not significant and that Must's expert opinion did not show otherwise.

The band had no violin, so the violin part was played on a synthesizer. Replacing one instrument was a technical, not creative, choice. Muted electric guitar playing is a technique, and using another technique is not a creative change. Altering a few piano notes is part of the performer's interpretation and did not change the sound of the work. The number and selection of backing vocalists is not considered a modification of the work under copyright law, they said.

The Harju District Court ruled in favor of Must. EFI disagreed and appealed to the Tallinn Circuit Court.

The Circuit Court's ruling

EFI's expert, Erko Niit, found that the main musical material — especially melody and harmonic progression — had not changed. Therefore, the original work remained intact.

He also did not find that "In the Stone" and "Everybody" formed a single whole. Niit said the songs were distinct and performed as part of a medley.

If earlier there was debate over whether this was an arrangement, the District Court's ruling showed that this was not necessarily important.

The court found that the defendant misunderstood the meaning of arranging in the context of copyright. Identifying the arranger's creative contribution is necessary not because permission from the original author is required only when new creative input is added, but because the person who adds new creative input gains copyright to the new derivative work as an arrangement.

The dispute therefore centered on whether the author's work may be changed at all without special permission, including through dynamics, performer lineup or vocal register.

The Circuit Court agreed with the plaintiff and the District Court that the copyright law grants the author both personal and economic rights over changes to the work beyond purely creative modifications.

The defendant's claim that the author's consent is required only when the originality threshold is exceeded was not justified. The District Court correctly noted that a musical work is protected through its external form. A musical work's external form is sonic, so the work is protected in the sonic form in which the author created it.

Must's side sought €8,000 as a licensing fee. EFI argued that the amount was unreasonably high, but the court disagreed.

The Circuit Court upheld the District Court's ruling and ordered EFI to pay Must €9,068 plus €10,776.90 in legal costs. Interest would also be added.

The case could set a precedent

EFI's attorney, Toomas Seppel, told ERR they plan to appeal because the Circuit Court's decision would set a precedent.

For 35 years, performers have been able to present another author's work by obtaining a license from the Estonian Authors' Society (EAÜ), allowing them to perform the work at an event as much as they wish. Seppel said the ruling would change the current system.

This would mean that if a performer played another author's work even slightly differently in tempo or lineup, additional permission from the author would be required.

In practice, this would mean that all concerts featuring works not written by the performers would require calling the author or their relatives and agreeing separately that the performance is acceptable, he said. He added that the compensation amount would no longer be determined by EAÜ but negotiated between the parties.

Seppel said such a change could affect even young children studying in music schools.

Most music education depends on adapting works to skill level, ensemble and vocal range. If every such pedagogical simplification required prior author approval, teaching would become practically impossible without separate permission for each student's performance, he said. Student concerts, exam performances and simplified versions in any form would therefore constitute copyright violations.

Must's attorney, Anneli Aab, disagreed and said the ruling does not change the existing copyright system.

She said the copyright law has been in force since 1992 and has clearly granted authors both personal and economic rights to decide on changes to their works. This right is not limited to creative reworking but includes other modifications.

Aab said the ruling would not change copyright practice but would strengthen protection of authors' rights.

She said the court did not create new rights for Must or other authors but clarified how existing rights, unchanged since 1992, must be interpreted and applied. If the ruling leads concert organizers to reassess their practices, this does not mean the copyright system has changed but that existing law is being applied more consistently.

Authors' society's view

Estonian Authors' Society director Mati Kaalep said the situation is mixed for them. On one hand, they are pleased that the legal system supports authors so they can protect their rights and receive fair compensation. On the other hand, their daily work is licensing musical works.

Their interest is to ensure the market can function, Kaalep said.

He said that aside from this specific case, there is a potential problem.

Their concern is predictability, especially when small, mostly technical changes are made. He gave examples such as performing a work with a different instrument or children performing with limited technical ability.

Although EAÜ's work would not immediately change if the ruling stands, things could become more complicated later.

If dozens of disputes arise where authors claim their works were altered and users claim they were not, EAÜ may struggle to determine exactly what activities they can license. Users may not be sufficiently certain, Kaalep said.

Music producers often use pieces of other authors' works, known as sampling. This can range from bass lines to snippets of spoken word. Could the ruling affect sampling?

Sampling already requires permission from the original author because it clearly takes one person's work and uses it in another context. Kaalep said even the European Court has issued rulings on this, including defining time limits.

He said the ruling likely would not affect sampling directly. Instead, it would affect live performances where the question is whether a work can truly be performed exactly as written.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and X and never miss an update!