Barry Manilow’s legal battle with music royalties company Hipgnosis SFH I Limited has escalated to the point where the legendary singer is now reportedly barred from performing his iconic hit “Copacabana.” The dispute stems from a 2020 deal in which Hipgnosis acquired Manilow’s music catalogue for $7.5 million, with the parties now entangled in complex litigation across two continents.
Court documents reveal that the famed NYC nightclub Copacabana, which opened its doors in 1940, long before Manilow’s 1978 hit song, has stepped into the fray with legal claims of its own. The club, once a hotspot for celebrities and socialites, asserts trademark ownership of the name that inspired Manilow’s Grammy-winning track.
The territorial dispute over “Copacabana” adds another layer to Manilow’s ongoing legal troubles with Hipgnosis. Since selling his catalogue, Manilow has claimed that Hipgnosis owes him $1.5 million in bonus payments, which were contractually guaranteed if his music achieved annual revenue growth exceeding 10%.
The music legend finds himself entangled in financial clauses while fighting for promised bonuses from his multi-million dollar catalogue sale.
Financial records indicate Hipgnosis has received approximately $1.99 million in royalties over four years from Manilow’s catalogue, averaging returns of 6.6% annually on their investment. However, Manilow maintains that the growth metrics trigger the bonus clauses in their agreement. Hipgnosis has strongly contested these claims, arguing that the revenue growth targets for the bonus payments were not achieved according to the terms of their agreement.
“The irony isn’t lost on anyone that Barry can’t perform ‘Copacabana’ while fighting over who actually controls his music,” noted an industry insider familiar with the case.
The jurisdictional chess match continues as Manilow pushes for resolution in California courts, while Hipgnosis pursues litigation in London. Manilow’s team has accused Hipgnosis founder Merck Mercuriadis of fraudulently inducing the deal through misrepresentations about marketing expertise and collaborative intentions.
Meanwhile, the nightclub’s claim further complicates matters, potentially impacting both parties’ ability to monetize one of Manilow’s signature songs. The case highlights the importance of sync licensing deals for artists seeking to protect their long-term revenue streams from their creative works. The outcome could set precedent for similar disputes in the music industry, where artists increasingly sell their catalogues to investment firms seeking steady returns from established hits. Adding insult to injury, Hipgnosis never delivered on its promise to create a TikTok dance trend based on the contested song.
Music industry experts suggest that regardless of the outcome, Manilow could explore alternative digital distribution channels to maintain his connection with fans while navigating these legal hurdles.
For Manilow fans, the legal wrangling means that hearing “Copacabana” performed by its creator remains uncertain until the various claims are resolved.
