Legal Battle Over Classics Heads to High Court as Estates Challenge ’s Rights
Estates of Noel Redding and Mitch Mitchell seek streaming-era royalties for “Are You Experienced”, “Axis: Bold as Love” and “Electric Ladyland”
A long-running dispute over the rights to some of rock’s most iconic albums has moved to trial after UK courts rejected efforts by Sony Music Entertainment to throw out claims by the estates of former bandmates Noel Redding and Mitch Mitchell.
The case centres on the 1967–68 studio albums “Are You Experienced”, “Axis: Bold as Love” and “Electric Ladyland” — cornerstones of the catalogue of the Jimi Hendrix-led band.
In February 2025, the Court of Appeal dismissed Sony’s attempt to have the lawsuit struck out, ruling there is a “real prospect” the estates’ claims to sound-recording copyrights and performers’ property rights will succeed at trial.
The judge found that the original contracts signed in the 1960s and 1970s may not automatically cover modern forms of exploitation such as digital streaming.
Lawyers for the estates argue that while Redding and Mitchell accepted modest settlements in the 1970s, they did so before the advent of streaming, and that the contracts did not foresee the global, long-term value now generated by online plays.
They maintain the musicians’ estates are owed a fair share of royalties from billions of streams.
Sony counters that the original agreements granted the company broad and enduring rights “by any method now known or hereafter to be known,” and that the case — if successful — could trigger a flood of similar claims by session musicians worldwide.
The trial, set to begin in December 2025 at London’s High Court, is being closely watched across the music industry.
Many see it as a test case for how legacy contracts signed decades ago hold up in the streaming era — and whether surviving band members or their heirs can reclaim a portion of the rights (and revenues) that global digital platforms now generate.
Impression-heavy albums such as “Hey Joe,” “Purple Haze” and “Foxy Lady” stand at the heart of the dispute, their enduring popularity highlighting the stark contrast between mid-20th-century deals and 21st-century revenue streams.
Beyond the legal question, the case touches on a broader debate over fairness and recognition in music: the extent to which collaborators, not just frontmen, should share in the long-tail benefits of enduring artistic work — especially when record labels and estates continue to profit decades after original releases.
The verdict could reshape rights negotiations and retrospective claims across a generation of classic recordings.
The case centres on the 1967–68 studio albums “Are You Experienced”, “Axis: Bold as Love” and “Electric Ladyland” — cornerstones of the catalogue of the Jimi Hendrix-led band.
In February 2025, the Court of Appeal dismissed Sony’s attempt to have the lawsuit struck out, ruling there is a “real prospect” the estates’ claims to sound-recording copyrights and performers’ property rights will succeed at trial.
The judge found that the original contracts signed in the 1960s and 1970s may not automatically cover modern forms of exploitation such as digital streaming.
Lawyers for the estates argue that while Redding and Mitchell accepted modest settlements in the 1970s, they did so before the advent of streaming, and that the contracts did not foresee the global, long-term value now generated by online plays.
They maintain the musicians’ estates are owed a fair share of royalties from billions of streams.
Sony counters that the original agreements granted the company broad and enduring rights “by any method now known or hereafter to be known,” and that the case — if successful — could trigger a flood of similar claims by session musicians worldwide.
The trial, set to begin in December 2025 at London’s High Court, is being closely watched across the music industry.
Many see it as a test case for how legacy contracts signed decades ago hold up in the streaming era — and whether surviving band members or their heirs can reclaim a portion of the rights (and revenues) that global digital platforms now generate.
Impression-heavy albums such as “Hey Joe,” “Purple Haze” and “Foxy Lady” stand at the heart of the dispute, their enduring popularity highlighting the stark contrast between mid-20th-century deals and 21st-century revenue streams.
Beyond the legal question, the case touches on a broader debate over fairness and recognition in music: the extent to which collaborators, not just frontmen, should share in the long-tail benefits of enduring artistic work — especially when record labels and estates continue to profit decades after original releases.
The verdict could reshape rights negotiations and retrospective claims across a generation of classic recordings.
