The strange part of Cher’s long fight over Sonny Bono’s music royalties is that she won the main case and still ended up paying a painful price for it.
A federal judge ruled that Cher keeps her share of the royalties from songs she recorded with Sonny Bono, including “I Got You Babe” and “The Beat Goes On.” The court also recognized more than $418,000 in royalties that had been withheld. Cher then asked Mary Bono, Sonny’s widow, to cover the legal bill from the case.
That request failed. Cher is now responsible for more than $1 million in attorney fees, even though the court rejected the argument that Mary Bono could use copyright law to cancel Cher’s royalty rights.
The Royalty Agreement Goes Back to Cher and Sonny’s Divorce
Cher and Sonny Bono became one of the most recognizable music partnerships of the 1960s. Their songs were successful, their television show made them household names, and their marriage became part of the public story around the music.
They divorced in 1978. The settlement gave Cher a 50% share of specified composition royalties and half of the income from recordings the two made together. Cher continued receiving payments for years, including after Sonny died in a skiing accident in 1998.
The arrangement changed after Sonny’s heirs began using copyright termination rights to reclaim publishing interests that had previously been transferred to music publishers. Mary Bono, who managed Sonny’s estate, took the position that the same process could end Cher’s right to receive payments under the divorce settlement.
Cher disagreed and sued in 2021. She argued that Mary was treating a divorce agreement as if it were a normal copyright transfer. Cher’s position was simple. Sonny’s heirs could not use a copyright procedure to erase a financial promise that Sonny had made to her in a state-law settlement.
The Judge Protected Cher’s Share of the Songs
U.S. District Judge John A. Kronstadt ruled for Cher in 2024. The court found that the copyright termination provisions did not cancel the royalty rights created by the divorce agreement.
The decision also dealt with money that had already been held back. Court records showed that more than $418,000 in composition royalties had not been paid to Cher. Other royalties had been sent to Sonny’s heirs even though Cher claimed a share under the old settlement.
The judge later entered a final judgment confirming that Cher remained entitled to her share of the publishing and recording income. The ruling also allowed royalty payments to continue going directly to Cher after she sold certain rights connected to the catalog to Irving Azoff’s Iconic Artists Group.
For Cher, the important point was not only recovering money from the past. Songs from the Sonny and Cher catalog still earn money through streaming, radio, licensing deals, television placements and reissues. Keeping the right to receive those payments could be worth far more over time than the amount withheld during the dispute.
Why the Court Would Not Make Mary Pay Cher’s Lawyers?
Cher’s lawyers later asked the court to award $1,023,605.30 in attorney fees. They argued that Mary had taken an unreasonable position and had forced Cher to spend heavily to defend rights that were already protected by the divorce agreement.
According to People’s account of the court filings, Cher’s legal team said the claims shared the same facts and that the fees were incurred while protecting the singer’s royalty interests.
Judge Kronstadt rejected the request. The reason was not that Mary’s copyright argument had succeeded. The judge concluded that the case was mainly a contract dispute, not the kind of federal copyright case that would allow Cher to shift her legal costs to the other side.
That leaves Cher with a result that looks uncomfortable on paper. She recovered more than $418,000 in unpaid royalties, protected future income from the catalog and still owes more than $1 million to her own attorneys.
What Copyright Termination Rights Actually Do?
The argument depended on a real provision of federal copyright law. The U.S. Copyright Office explains that authors and certain heirs can terminate some older copyright transfers after specific waiting periods and filing requirements.
The rule exists because artists sometimes sign away valuable rights before their work becomes successful. Congress created a way for some creators or heirs to regain control later. The process does not apply automatically to every agreement, and it does not give heirs unlimited power over every financial arrangement connected to a song.
The court treated Cher’s divorce settlement as a separate contract. Sonny had not simply sold Cher a copyright interest in exchange for a payment. The agreement divided financial rights as part of ending their marriage. That distinction became the center of the case.
A legal analysis of the ruling says the court viewed Cher’s rights as arising under California contract law. The termination provisions could affect copyright grants to publishers, but they could not wipe out the separate obligation to pay Cher under the settlement.
Mary Bono Is Still Challenging the Decision
The fight may not be completely finished. Mary Bono has appealed the ruling concerning Cher’s publishing royalties, and the appeal remains pending.
Mary’s lawyers have argued that the estate properly used the federal termination provisions and that the judge applied the law incorrectly. Cher’s lawyers have taken the opposite view, saying the termination rules were being used to avoid an obligation that had existed for decades.
Rolling Stone reported on the latest fee ruling, which made clear that Cher’s legal victory and her request for reimbursement were separate issues. She won the royalties dispute. She did not win the right to make Mary pay for the litigation.
Cher’s Win Came With a Very Expensive Catch
Celebrity lawsuits often get reduced to a headline about money, but the real issue here was control. Cher was trying to protect a promise written into a divorce settlement nearly five decades ago. If Mary’s interpretation had prevailed, the value of that agreement could have disappeared after Sonny’s death.
Cher kept the right to her share of the royalties and recovered money that had been withheld. She also has to absorb the cost of proving that the agreement still matters.
That is why the latest ruling feels less like a clean victory and more like an expensive win. Cher protected the income from the songs, but she will not be getting her million-dollar legal bill back.
