![\"music](\"https:\/\/www.digitalmusicnews.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/ClicknClear-Main.png\" "\\"music\\"")
<\/p>\n
ClicknClear\u2019s revenue forecast as seen in a 2024 investor deck. Any questions?<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
Music \u201cChoreographed sports\u201d licensing specialist ClicknClear recently commanded headlines for securing a Universal Music Group deal. But internal documents and investor concerns are raising pressing questions about the company\u2019s business model, revenue outlook, and overall footing.<\/b><\/h2>\n
We touched on those concerns last month, when <\/span>breaking down<\/span><\/a> a stateside lawsuit filed against London-based ClicknClear by Scottsdale\u2019s Tres\u00f3na Multimedia. Having flown under the radar until our coverage, the suit, accusing ClicknClear of false advertising and more, was dismissed without prejudice.<\/span><\/p>\n But the battle over niche licensing platforms isn\u2019t finished; Tres\u00f3na told <\/span>Digital Music News<\/span><\/i> that it intended to file an amended action. Following a couple reports about ClicknClear earlier in February, this would normally mark the story\u2019s end until the retooled complaint is filed.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Things changed when a self-described ClicknClear stakeholder reached out to <\/span>Digital Music News<\/span><\/i> with material doubts about \u2013 and a trove of primary documents relating to \u2013 the company. On the sender\u2019s end, the sweeping disclosure was framed as an attempt at transparency amid mounting losses and alleged misrepresentations to investors.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n ClicknClear, on the other hand, doubled back, maintained that none of its investors had contacted <\/span>DMN,<\/span><\/i> and described it as \u201cunusual that the source would repeat legal concerns from Tresona\u2019s complaint.\u201d However, only some of the lawsuit\u2019s claims and the sender\u2019s concerns overlap, and to state the obvious, it\u2019s highly unlikely that a dismayed investor (or a non-investor third party) would admit to the disclosure.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Subsequently, <\/span>DMN<\/span><\/i> learned that multiple ClicknClear investors were dissatisfied with the company.\u00a0 Furthermore, we contacted ClicknClear for comment prior to publication, providing a detailed breakdown of this piece but not the actual text or the numbers therein. That\u2019s because ClicknClear sought \u201ca prior binding mutual agreement of the terms surrounding any potential such sharing\u201d of allegedly confidential company information, and <\/span>DMN <\/span><\/i>declined.<\/span><\/p>\n Secondary details aside, the stage was set for a closer look at ClicknClear. The company, which was formed in 2016, is registered as Pre-Cleared Limited and, according to its website, specializes in \u201cofficially licensed music and compliance technology for choreographed sports, and performing arts.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Per the same site, and based on copies of ClicknClear\u2019s agreements with sports federations, figure skating, gymnastics, equestrian performances, artistic swimming, cheerleading, and even competitive jump-roping fall into the choreographed sports and performing arts bucket.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cClicknClear focuses on choreographed sports,\u201d ClicknClear founder Chantal Epp said during a due diligence call with HERmesa founder Marla Shapiro and others. \u201cChoreographed sports being sports like dance, gymnastics, figure skating, [and] cheerleading, when music is intrinsic to the routine. So these sports edit and adapt music, choreograph to the music, and create copies to distribute between the team if it\u2019s not an individual sport.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n According to execs, ClicknClear, leveraging agreements with the major labels, their publishers, and a multitude of other rightsholders, is uniquely positioned to help athletes lawfully use music in their routines. The majors hold warrants in ClicknClear and, unsurprisingly, have non-exclusive contracts containing advantageous terms; many indies appear to have exclusive deals in place.<\/span><\/p>\n Furthermore, the company\u2019s website and multiple internal documents show that the focus is on prompting competitors themselves to license songs for actual events \u2013 not for broadcasts or, more expensively yet, replays.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cGymnastics, figure skating, and sports like them face an existential threat, and my music-tech company, ClicknClear, is their only solution,\u201d Epp said during an investor presentation. \u201cWe eliminate trillions of dollars of copyright infringement risk by licensing the billions of dollars of music needed by them each year.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Especially for investors outside the industry, this might make for a compelling pitch. The music sector\u2019s continued growth isn\u2019t a secret, nor is its steady stream of <\/span>incoming capital<\/span><\/a>. At least in theory, then, with billions purportedly hanging in the balance, capitalizing on a heretofore untapped revenue source \u2013 a curiously overlooked revenue source at that \u2013 would be a no-brainer.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n But things are murkier beneath the surface. First, the licensing requirements associated with once-off \u201cchoreographed sports\u201d routines, despite claims from Epp to the contrary, aren\u2019t black and white.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cAthletes at every level, in every country, are required to license music for their routines,\u201d Epp said to investors.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n In the U.S. and the U.K., there isn\u2019t a distinct license authorizing the incorporation of protected works into \u201cchoreographed sports,\u201d nor is the definition of \u201cchoreographed\u201d set in stone. Stateside, where there also isn\u2019t a \u201cneighbouring\u201d right for the public use of recordings, performance rights organizations (PROs) such as ASCAP and BMI authorize the public use of musical works and compensate compositional rightsholders.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Public performance blanket licenses cover a variety of uses \u2013 including during broadcasts, on digital platforms, and in physical establishments such as sports venues. But PROs themselves don\u2019t deal in \u201cgrand rights\u201d for the use of music in dramatic works \u2013 composers and publishers must directly sign off on those uses \u2013 and at a minimum, the line between dramatic and non-dramatic is difficult to pinpoint.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cCopyright law does not define the terms \u2018dramatic\u2019 or \u2018nondramatic,\u2019\u201d ASCAP\u2019s website <\/span>explains<\/span><\/a>. \u201cAs a result, rightsholders, music users and occasionally the federal courts must attempt to draw the line between \u2018dramatic\u2019 and \u2018nondramatic\u2019 performances.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cThat line is often unclear and depends on the facts pertaining to a particular performance. As a general rule a dramatic performance usually involves using the work to tell a story or as part of a story or plot,\u201d the text continues.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n In a 2024 investor deck, ClicknClear opted for a more direct description, proclaiming that \u201cMusic Venue \u2018Performing Rights\u2019 Licenses from PROs CANNOT OFFER the rights needed\u201d for choreographed sports routines.<\/span><\/p>\n Furthermore, Epp underscored the claim when asked during the due diligence call why athletes couldn\u2019t license their routines through PPL (and PRS) in the U.K. The same participant, who acknowledged having some licensing experience, also inquired about how the system had functioned before ClicknClear.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s not that that model worked, it\u2019s that that was illegal, and the music industry has started taking action against people because they thought that \u2013 so something being covered under PPL just grants the right to play music in a public venue,\u201d Epp responded.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cThat\u2019s [the PRS\/PPL license is] for their training venue,\u201d she continued. \u201cSo if you\u2019re running a gymnastics class \u2013 and it specifically states \u2018background music tariff.\u2019 Because that\u2019s just to play music in the background as athletes are training. It\u2019s confusing. And when you go to ask PRS and PPL, the people working there do not understand exactly how the music is being used. They\u2019re not rights experts, they\u2019re not legal people.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n But PRS\/PPL\u2019s TheMusicLicence offers more than the ability to idly play protected audio in the background. Rather, the appropriate description stresses that music can \u201chighlight significant moments in the sporting event, such as when a player or players are making their entrance onto the pitch, when a goal or try is scored.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n When do sports fall outside the scope of the standard performance license, and when exactly do athletes themselves shoulder the licensing burden? Are the above example usages \u2013 which parties besides players would cover \u2013 particularly different from, say, playing unedited music during a competitive jump-rope competition? What about an equestrian show? The subject is significant given ClicknClear\u2019s contention that it has \u201cno direct competitors\u201d and offers a performance-distinct license.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cWe\u2019re the only company that represents their rights in this market,\u201d Epp said during the due diligence call. \u201cSo it\u2019s like collecting societies, talk about PRS and PPL. PRS and PPL are the exclusive collecting society in the U.K., they\u2019re the only company that you can get performing rights from. Because the rightsholders have granted them an exclusive right. We\u2019re like them but for different rights.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Stateside, that ASCAP and BMI deal in the very licensing options advertised by ClicknClear raises additional questions. Featuring comments from Epp, a recent <\/span>New York Times<\/span><\/i> piece \u2013 published following ClicknClear\u2019s <\/span>Minions <\/span><\/i>Olympics licensing <\/span>debacle<\/span><\/a> \u2013 <\/span>claimed<\/span><\/a> that \u201can athletic performance that\u2019s choreographed to a piece of music, such as in figure skating, is called a \u2018dramatic public performance,\u2019 and the PROs do not offer licenses for those.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n But that\u2019s not completely accurate. U.S. Figure Skating previously partnered with both ASCAP and BMI \u201cto secure a blanket Performance License for all music utilized by athletes at sanctioned and approved events so long as the song choice is 100% covered.\u201d In a message announcing as much to figure-skating competitors \u2013 the text remains <\/span>live<\/span><\/a> on various clubs\u2019 and organizations\u2019 websites \u2013 U.S. Figure Skating also pointed to ClicknClear as a licensing option.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n\u201cTrillions of Dollars of Copyright Infringement Risk\u201d? An Overview of ClicknClear\u2019s \u201cChoreographed Sports\u201d Licensing Model<\/b><\/h4>\n
Performance-Adjacent Licensing Questions Take Center Stage \u2013 And Raise Doubts About ClicknClear\u2019s Core Offering<\/b><\/h4>\n