Intellectual Property Insights from Fishman Stewart
Mini Article – Volume 24, Issue 19
Share on Social
Sonny Bono’s Widow Must Pay Cher Royalties
By Kristyn Webb
After three years of litigation, a court has held that the “beat that goes on” for Cher’s right to continue receiving royalties on songs created during her marriage to Sonny Bono, despite attempts by Sonny’s widow, Mary Bono, to invoke federal copyright termination rights to end those payments.
Cher brought the lawsuit against Mary in 2021 after Mary stopped paying Cher royalties for songs that Sonny and Cher had recorded during the late 1960’s to mid 1970’s as a married performing duo. Sonny and Cher divorced in 1975 and had a divorce agreement drawn up in 1978, which split the royalties from certain songs. Sonny remarried in 1986, and served in Congress from 1995 until he passed away in 1998 in a skiing accident. During his Congressional tenure, he was instrumental in drafting and championing legislation that reformed US copyright law.
One such reform expanded the rights to terminate copyright transfers and licenses of pre-1978 works. This provision was enacted to give artists or their heirs a second chance to control their creative works after previously assigning their copyrights. By reclaiming rights after a set period, creators can benefit from the long-term success of their work. This meant that Sonny (or his estate) could terminate license deals that Sonny had made earlier in his career, and claw back his rights (or renegotiate as the case may be) with music publishers and (perhaps) get a higher royalty rate.
In this case, the window for termination occurred after Sonny’s death, and the rights to terminate passed to his estate which terminated several agreements with music publishers in 2016. How does this impact the unpaid royalties Cher claimed she was owed under the divorce agreement?
Mary argued that the recaptured rights were not subject to Sonny and Cher’s divorce agreement. Cher argued that she was entitled to royalties under the divorce agreement no matter who owned the copyrights—Sonny, the estate, or the music publishers.
The court ruled that termination under the Copyright Act may change ownership of the underlying rights, but it does not alter other separate contractual obligations such as the divorce agreement. Bang Bang, the court shot Mary down. Cher will receive over $400,000 in back royalties and ongoing payments.
Kristyn Webb is the Group Leader of Fishman Stewart’s Copyright Practice Group, and holds a Master’s Degree in Copyright Law from King’s College London.
Published November 1, 2024
Related Content from Fishman Stewart
Comerica Park becomes Fifth Third Park in 2027. Here’s how stadium naming rights work as IP licensing and what Fifth Third gains beyond fan approval.
As any trademark lawyer will tell clients considering a rebrand, the adoption of any new trademark involves risk. A search can identify potentially conflicting trademarks that could pose problems for use and/or registration of a new trademark.
Why would the United States grant inventors exclusive rights to their creations while simultaneously seeking to promote competition and innovation? The answer lies in the Patent Act of 1790, which established a framework that still shapes patent law today.
Before a brand makes headlines for the right reasons, it helps to make sure someone else doesn’t already own the name. A recent dispute involving Tesla offers a timely reminder that a great brand name can become an expensive problem.
One second became a surprisingly complicated piece of technology, intellectual property and sports governance in the 2026 collegiate season opening game.
With the end of Hot Dog Season quickly approaching, now is a good time to reflect on the innovative new growth that made this season what it is today.
The Ninth Circuit just reversed course on Jack Daniel's dilution claim against the 'Bad Spaniels' dog toy, vacating the injunction and ruling that parody humor alone doesn't prove reputational harm. Here's what the decision means for brand owners pursuing tarnishment claims.
The trading card industry is booming again - and what makes this moment different is not who holds the cards, literally and figuratively, but how the trading card space is rapidly evolving.
Imagine paying millions of dollars for the naming rights to a stadium—only to have your brand hidden behind a giant white tarp. That’s exactly what happened to Levi Strauss during the 2026 FIFA World Cup.
As we celebrate our nation’s birthday on July 4th, many communities are replacing or supplementing traditional fireworks with drone-based light shows - which prompts the question of intellectual property protection.
IDENTIFYING, SECURING AND ADVANCING CREATIVITY®
