Why did Eric Clapton sue a widowed fan?
To put it mildly, Eric Clapton is one of rock’s trickiest figures. The guitarist has a famous tendency to veer off the traditional path regarding his opinions and decisions, often attracting controversy in the process. Across his career, this character trait has periodically threatened to overshadow the undeniable brilliance of his art on the fretboard.
Clapton’s most notorious moment came in the form of a drunken on-stage rant in Birmingham, England, in 1976. Drawing on the ethos of Britain’s most prominent anti-immigration politician, Enoch Powell, Clapton launched into a slur-filled, racist tirade, shouting “keep Britain white” to the audience. Notably, the Rock Against Racism movement was born as a reaction to this outburst, and Clapton later blamed the tirade on his alcoholism.
Another one of Clapton’s infamous moments came in 2020 when he and Van Morrison released the anti-lockdown song ‘Stand and Deliver’. In the track, he compared lockdowns to slavery, singing: “Do you wanna be a free man, Or do you wanna be a slave?”. Understandably, this irked many people. In fact, the instance even led to Robert Cray ending his long friendship with Clapton. The American musician revealed that after he heard the track, he emailed Clapton to politely explain why he took issue with it. However, Cray was immensely disappointed by Clapton’s response. He told the Washington Post how the guitarist’s “reaction back to me was that he was referring to slaves from, you know, England from way back”.
One of the most dumbfounding examples of Clapton’s behaviour came at the end of 2021 when he won a lawsuit against a German woman in her mid-50s who was attempting to sell a bootleg CD of his on eBay. Per a report in DW, she claimed to be unaware she was committing a copyright infringement by listing the bootleg album – an unauthorised recording of one of his concerts in the 1980s – on the site for just €9.95 (£8.45).
When Clapton’s legal representatives first informed the woman of the CD’s illegality, she replied: “I object and ask you not to harass or contact me any further” and “feel free to file a lawsuit if you insist on the demands”. The response escalated proceedings and led to the filing and winning of the injunction.
Clapton sent the Düsseldorf regional court an affidavit, which asserted the recordings on the CD were illegal, and the court sided in favour of him, which led to an appeal. The defendant maintained her late husband purchased the CD in 1987 at a department store. Despite this appeal, it was rejected, with the judge ruling it was nonessential that she did not personally purchase it.
On December 18th, the court ruled the woman paid both parties’ legal fees, totalling around €3,400 (£2,889). Additionally, she was informed that if she continued to keep the album up for sale, there would be a fine of €250,000 (£212,353) or six months of prison.
Significantly, only a few days after the decision, Clapton waived the legal costs the defendant was ordered to pay. However, his detractors argued the gesture wasn’t out of goodwill but a PR move. Some argued it was taken to quash the mounting criticism he faced over his Covid-19 stance and the fact he appeared a bully in the David v. Goliath lawsuit.
On December 23rd, Clapton’s management issued a statement wanting to clear up the “widespread and often misleading press reports” about the bootleg case. “Over the past decade a number of well-known recording companies and artists, including Clapton, have engaged German lawyers to pursue thousands of bootleg cases flouting the country’s copyright laws,” it said. “It is not the intention to target individuals selling isolated CDs from their own collection, but rather the active bootleggers manufacturing unauthorised copies for sale.”
“This case could have been disposed of quickly at minimal cost, but unfortunately in response to the German lawyers’ first standard letter, the individual’s reply included the line (translation): ‘Feel free to file a lawsuit if you insist on the demands’. This triggered the next step in the standard legal procedures, and the court then made the initial injunction order.”
“Had she explained at the outset the full facts in a simple phone call or letter to the lawyers, any claim might have been waived, and costs avoided,” it continued elsewhere.
“When the full facts of this particular case came to light … Eric Clapton decided not to take any further action and does not intend to collect the costs awarded to him by the court,” the piece concluded. “Also, he hopes the individual will not herself incur any further costs.”
Ultimately, the sorry scenario was an avoidable mess, it seems both sides were partially at fault, and a lack of understanding caused this incident to escalate unnecessarily out of hand.