British-Australian Artist, Alexandra Hainsworth, Sues Sony Subsidiary Over Unpaid Royalties as Industry Pattern Emerges

British-Australian artist Alexandra Hainsworth has filed suit against The Orchard Enterprises NY, Inc., a Sony Music subsidiary, alleging copyright infringement and breach of contract in Auckland High Court (CIV-2025-404-001640). The case adds to a growing list of legal actions against the same defendant, suggesting systemic issues in how the company handles independent artists' catalogs.

Hainsworth claims The Orchard has withheld royalties and blocked the release of new music, including a collaboration with Brazilian producer VINNE, for over 20 months. The Orchard declined to comment when contacted by Unmixed.

This is not a first time such case arises; the patter has been well documented. In Crisci v. Sony Music Entertainment (2025 NY Slip Op 51494), artists Patrick Crisci and Elena Bushmanova sued after their album was passed through a chain of corporate hands–Century to Red Music to Orchard–and Orchard then declined to release it, with the court allowing their claim for unpaid advance installments, tour support, and production costs to proceed.

In another instance, Giron v. The Orchard Enterprises, Inc. (SDNY 1:25-cv-00055), photographer Joe Giron sued for copyright infringement in January 2025. Orchard settled and dismissed the case with prejudice within three months, demonstrating the company can move quickly when it chooses to.

Money has been predominantly the biggest obstacle for independent artists to even begin court proceedings, and the they do, they are hit with suited up lawyers and money bags that outweigh any independent musicians financial resources all while their main strain of income is being at the center of dispute.

There’s nothing new about this when it comes to major labels. Prince spent years fighting Warner Bros. for control of his masters, appearing with "slave" written on his face; Taylor Swift re-recorded her entire catalog after her masters were sold without her consent; TLC filed for bankruptcy in 1995 despite selling millions of records, citing exploitative contracts.

Sony Music Entertainment spent $380,000 on lobbying in Q1 2026 and $410,000 in Q4 2025, according to LD-2 disclosure forms. The company lobbied on copyright protection, "fair compensation and rate standards for rightsholders," AI regulation including the TRAIN Act and No Fakes Act, and efforts to modernize the Copyright Office and update the DMCA.

What those expenditures don't disclose is how the system is designed. Spotify doesn't pay royalties on streams under 1,000 plays, that money flows back to the top under a pro-rata mode that allocates revenue based on total platform streams, benefiting major artists and labels while leaving emerging musicians with negligible returns. Let me repeat this, nobody is getting paid based on how many streams they have, they are getting paid by the portion of a whole which inevitably serves the top tier and leaves out smaller musicians with zero dollars flowing their way, if the streams don’t meet the 1k threshold.

Meanwhile, artists are selling their entire catalogs, convinced by financial advisors this is the best way to earn money retroactively. Anyone who puts an artist in a position where they must sell their “house” (aka their ownership of music) and rent it back should be considered an enemy of independent artists.

Hainsworth's case remains active in Auckland High Court. Her legal team has named Orchard Enterprises NY, Inc. specifically, not Sony Music Entertainment directly, a strategy validated by the Crisci ruling, which dismissed Sony corporate on privity grounds.

There was a time, not long ago, when signing with a major label was what musicians dreamed of. That system has changed, and we need to pay closer attention to it.