On May 15, 2024, the National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA) sent Spotify a demand letter alleging unlicensed uses of musical works in lyrics, music videos and podcasts. It also warned that Spotify’s then-proposed remix feature could raise additional copyright issues. The letter was a private demand—not a court ruling—and Spotify disputed the accusations.
What did the NMPA letter allege?
NMPA EVP and General Counsel Danielle Aguirre sent the letter to Spotify USA Inc. It was addressed to David Kaefer, Spotify’s VP and Global Head of Music and Audiobook Businesses, and General Counsel Eve Konstan. NMPA said it was acting for publishers and songwriter partners that own or control musical-work copyrights.
The letter alleged that Spotify displayed lyrics and reproduced or distributed music videos and podcasts containing musical works without the consent or compensation of the relevant publishers or administrators. NMPA said these uses were unlicensed or would soon become unlicensed. Its characterization was explicit: “Spotify thus appears to be engaged in direct infringement by hosting unlicensed musical works in its lyrics, videos, and podcasts, and by distributing unauthorized reproductions, synchronizations, displays, and derivative uses of these musical works to its users.” That is NMPA’s allegation, not a finding by a court.
The letter also addressed a then-proposed remix feature, which it described as allowing subscribers to speed up, mash up and otherwise edit songs. NMPA warned that launching the feature without appropriate licenses could create further direct-infringement issues. The warning concerned the proposal as described in the May 2024 letter; it was not a court’s assessment of a feature.
#1 Best Overall
What did the publishers demand?
NMPA demanded that Spotify remove the allegedly unlicensed lyrics, music videos and podcasts, and warned of possible copyright liability for continued use. The letter stated: “Accordingly, on behalf of our members, NMPA demands that unlicensed lyrics, music videos, and podcasts be removed from the platform or Spotify will face copyright liability for continued use of these works.”
It also requested that Spotify preserve relevant electronically stored information and suspend related auto-deletion. NMPA reserved possible remedies, including monetary damages and attorneys’ fees. The letter did not name specific works, state how many works it considered unlicensed, or calculate damages.
Rank #2
- Pages: 128
- Instrumentation: Piano
- Instrumentation: Piano/Keyboard
How did Spotify respond?
In a response quoted by Android Headlines on May 17, 2024, Spotify called the letter “a press stunt with false and deceptive accusations.” The statement said Spotify hosts licensed content and has a framework for rights holders to contact the company about music they believe is unlicensed. This is Spotify’s position as reported by that outlet, not an adjudicated conclusion.
Why did NMPA distinguish lyrics, videos, podcasts and remixes from ordinary streams?
The letter acknowledged that Spotify’s primary use of musical works through interactive streams and downloads is subject to a statutory mechanical license under 17 U.S.C. § 115 and public-performance licenses governed by consent decrees. NMPA’s legal theory was that those frameworks did not resolve the separate rights questions it raised about lyrics, music used in videos and podcasts, or proposed remix uses, which it said required separately negotiated rights.
Rank #3
- Wide Staff Manuscript Paper
- Perfect for Students
- 32 8–1/2'' x 8–1/2''
- Six Staves per Page
- 32 Pages
That distinction describes the publishers’ position in this dispute; it should not be read as a general legal ruling that every lyric display, video, podcast or remix use requires the same license. The letter itself did not decide what rights were required for any particular work or use.
Was Spotify found liable for infringement?
No. The May 15, 2024 letter was a demand from NMPA, not a court decision. It set out allegations and requested action; it did not establish infringement or liability. Spotify’s denial, as reported by Android Headlines, is likewise a party’s position rather than a judicial finding.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.How can rights holders raise an infringement claim with Spotify?
Spotify’s intellectual-property policy describes its general process for rights holders or their agents. It provides for submitting a notice through a web form or to a designated copyright agent. A claim should identify the protected work and where it appears, include the claimant’s contact details, and contain good-faith and accuracy statements plus a signature.
Spotify says it reviews notices and may remove material or disable access in particular countries; the policy also describes an appeal opportunity in some cases. This general process does not establish how Spotify handled NMPA’s letter.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches2Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors3Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteBest Value
- 32 Etudes for Clarinet Revised and Corrected Edition
Is the later Mechanical Licensing Collective case the same dispute?
No. The September 1, 2026 SDNY order in Mechanical Licensing Collective v. Spotify concerns a separate dispute over Section 115 royalty reporting and payment, including Spotify’s treatment of its Premium offering. It involves a different organization and does not rule on NMPA’s 2024 allegations about lyrics, videos, podcasts or proposed remix uses.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
