SGAE versus Taylor Swift: Can an Artist End Up Paying to Perform Their Own Songs?

12 May, 2025
–
Intellectual property
–
Lucas Charnet


Last year, we already discussed the issue of SGAE’s abusive fees on this blog, focusing especially on their impact on festivals and music promoters in Spain. At the time, we asked whether it was possible to reduce — or even avoid — the payment of such fees. Today, we pick up that thread again, prompted by a new legal dispute that could mark a turning point in the management of copyright in our country: the ongoing conflict between promoter Last Tour and the Spanish General Society of Authors and Publishers (SGAE) over Taylor Swift’s concerts held in Madrid in May 2024.

What happened with Taylor Swift’s concerts?

SGAE has filed a lawsuit against Last Tour in the Commercial Court of Bilbao for unpaid copyright fees amounting to more than 4 million euros, about half of which relates to Taylor Swift’s performances. The promoter, however, hasn’t remained silent and has responded strongly, arguing that SGAE’s fees are abusive, not aligned with international standards, and even questioning the calculation method used by the collective rights organization.

Does an artist have to pay royalties to perform their own songs?

This is one of the most controversial aspects of the case. Does it make sense for an artist like Taylor Swift to pay royalties to perform songs she wrote herself? The answer, as surprising as it may be, is yes.

The key lies in the concept of public communication. Even if the performer is also the author, if the rights are managed by a collective rights organization like SGAE (or its US equivalent, BMI), any public performance must be licensed and paid for. This obligation can be avoided only if the author is the exclusive rights holder and has explicitly consented to the use — which, in the context of an international tour involving agents, publishers, and contracts, is rarely easy to prove or coordinate.

The legal clash: Spain’s royalties vs. international standards

A central issue in this dispute is the percentage demanded by SGAE for concerts: 8.5% of gross box office revenues, compared to just 1.15% in the United States, as applied by BMI. The comparison puts the Spanish organization in a bad light, especially when benchmarked against other European countries. As we discussed previously on this blog, Spain consistently ranks among the most expensive markets for copyright tariffs:

| Country | Royalty rate on ticket sales |
| --- | --- |
| Spain (SGAE) | 8.5% |
| Germany (GEMA) | 5.75% – 8% |
| United Kingdom (PRS) | 4.2% |
| United States (BMI) | 1.15% |

Both the National Court and the Spanish Competition Authority (CNMC) have ruled against SGAE in the past, recognizing its dominant market position and sanctioning its abusive practices. In 2014, for instance, the CNMC imposed a €3.1 million fine on the organization. More recently, cases like the Def Leppard tour led to court rulings where fees were reduced to just 3%, far below the original 10% SGAE demanded.

Why Spanish law applies

Last Tour has argued that, since Taylor Swift is an American artist, the US system should apply. But copyright law is clear: the applicable law is that of the country where the public communication of the work occurs. In this case, Spain.

As SGAE itself reminded in a public statement: “The applicable law is that of the country where the performance occurs, not where the author is from.” Thus, although the artist is American and represented by BMI, it is SGAE that handles the licensing in Spain.

What if the artist grants direct authorization?

In theory, when the performer is the sole rights holder and gives explicit authorization, promoters could avoid paying SGAE altogether. But this scenario is exceptional. In practice, it’s nearly impossible to guarantee that Taylor Swift hasn’t assigned part of her rights to co-authors or publishers, making it unfeasible to bypass collective management entirely.

An international precedent in the making

The case has even drawn attention in the United States. BMI informed SGAE that Spain was the only country that had not yet transferred royalties owed from Swift’s “The Eras Tour.” That revelation triggered the lawsuit. The tour itself grossed more than €1.9 billion worldwide — €13 million in Spain alone — making it the most profitable tour in music history. The fact that a portion of this income is now tied up in legal proceedings over royalty payments places Spain at the heart of a global debate over fair and transparent copyright management.

Final thoughts: a chance to reform the system?

The conflict between Taylor Swift and SGAE is more than a courtroom battle; it’s a symbol of the structural tensions between artists, promoters, managers, and collective rights organizations. In Spain, royalty tariffs continue to be a source of litigation, and despite some legal precedents reducing or modifying those rates, SGAE’s dominant position makes equal negotiation nearly impossible.

That’s why, beyond the specific case, it’s crucial to spark a broader conversation about modernizing collective management. This includes aligning tariffs with international standards and improving transparency for artists and promoters alike. Perhaps the involvement of a global figure like Taylor Swift in Spanish courts will at least shine a light on an issue that deeply affects our national music industry.

At MES Advocats, we provide comprehensive legal advice and assistance in managing copyright and organizing music events. Our experience allows us to offer fast, customized service with excellent results. If you need more information or a tailored quote, don’t hesitate to contact us through this link.

###


Conciertos y propiedad intelectualCopyrightGestión colectiva de derechosMúsica en vivo y licencias

---