Sting, who has long been hailed as a cultural icon, finds himself in an awkward spotlight when he is sued by Andy Summers and Stewart Copeland, two former members of the Police. According to the lawsuit, which was filed in London’s High Court, the two were never given due credit or payment for their work on “Every Breath You Take,” the 1983 single that became the band’s most well-known hit and one of the most commercially successful songs in contemporary music history.
The specters of creative conflict have persisted even after the Police’s dissolution in 1984. Stories about Sting’s supremacy within the group have been around for decades. He was a creative force that concentrated credit in a way that was both extremely divisive and remarkably effective at creating timeless songs. Summers has long claimed that Sting’s original sketch was turned into a song that has defined innumerable playlists, wedding receptions, and movie soundtracks thanks to his eerie and instantly recognizable guitar riff. Copeland’s drumming, which was exact but remarkably adaptable, was equally important in establishing the mood of the song. Legally, however, Sting was still the only author given credit.
The timing of this case is especially intriguing. With the staggering $300 million sale of his entire catalog in 2022, Sting joined the estates of musical titans like David Bowie, Bruce Springsteen, and Bob Dylan. Although that sale guaranteed financial stability, it also exacerbated long-standing complaints. Since Copeland and Summers now contend that their exclusion from credits prevented them from receiving previous royalties as well as the proceeds from the catalog sale, the court is considering issues of authorship and legacy in addition to financial considerations.
Bio Data and Career Information
| Name | Gordon Matthew Thomas Sumner (Sting) |
|---|---|
| Born | October 2, 1951, Wallsend, England |
| Age | 73 (2025) |
| Profession | Musician, Singer, Songwriter, Actor, Activist |
| Known For | Frontman of The Police, Solo Career, Songs like “Every Breath You Take,” “Fields of Gold,” “Englishman in New York” |
| Band | The Police (1977–1984; reunions in 1986, 2003, 2007–2008) |
| Awards | 17 Grammy Awards, Brit Awards, Golden Globe, Emmy, Tony nominations |
| Catalog Sale | Sold entire songwriting catalog to Universal for estimated $300M in 2022 |
| Net Worth | Estimated at over $400M |
| Reference Source |
The financial stakes are significantly high, as is very evident. According to reports, Sting’s income from “Every Breath You Take” alone exceeds $700,000 per year, a sum that has significantly increased his wealth over the years. The sums that frequently come up in lawsuits between other heritage acts, where a single song can maintain wealth for generations, are remarkably similar to that figure. Both Summers and Copeland are successful musicians with solo careers, so for them, the battle is more about recognition than money.
Royalties disputes have increased over the last ten years as old catalogs are being revalued in the age of streaming. Pink Floyd’s internal conflicts and Fleetwood Mac’s similar arguments demonstrate how cooperation can break down when decades of income are taken into account. This pattern reflects a broader reality: past choices regarding songwriting credit have repercussions that last for generations in a business that is becoming more and more reliant on catalog sales and licensing.
It seems that Sting’s defense is based on traditional contractual definitions of songwriting. Arrangements or performance flourishes, even if they are iconic, do not change credit; authorship is traditionally determined by chords, lyrics, and vocal melody. However, the prevailing cultural sentiment has changed, with both musicians and fans doubting that strict regulations like these adequately recognize the contributions that made songs timeless. This lawsuit could serve as a test bed for that argument and have an impact on how future partnerships are recognized.
The irony cannot be denied. Audiences were awestruck by the chemistry between the three members of The Police when they reunited for a world tour in 2007, but Sting later called the endeavor a “exercise in nostalgia.” They now compete in court against one another instead of enjoying their common heritage. Longtime fans have a much lower chance of seeing each other again. The harmony of the Police, which was once strained on stage, appears to be irreparably broken.
However, this conflict has resonance outside of the music industry. Within the framework of contemporary labor and creativity discussions, the case reflects struggles in other domains where a dominant figure frequently eclipses collective contributions. It is especially helpful to understand that the problem isn’t unique to musicians; it reflects disagreements over who should receive credit and financial gain among inventors, business owners, and even software engineers.
Additionally, by pursuing this case, Copeland and Summers are shedding light on the preservation and dissemination of artistic legacies. Acknowledgment at this point in their careers is about more than just money; it’s about solidifying their historical position. The difficulty for Sting is maintaining his creative integrity while preserving a meticulously built public persona as a thoughtful, socially conscious artist.
Sting’s generation of musicians have made enormous sums of money through clever catalog sales, but those transactions have also brought old wounds back to the surface. The way catalog sales are negotiated in the upcoming years may change dramatically if Copeland and Summers are successful and buyers like Universal are caught up in unforeseen liabilities. This possibility turns this lawsuit into a case with wider industry ramifications rather than just a personal conflict.
