When Johann Christian Bach sued unauthorized publishers in 18th-century London, he won legal recognition for musical works as intellectual property. His victory still echoes in today’s digital music landscape.
In the hushed concert halls of 18th-century London, few could have imagined that the notes floating through the air would become the subject of one of history’s most consequential legal battles. Yet it was during this period that the concept of the “musical work” as legal property was first brought before the courts.
The relationship between music and copyright law reveals profound shifts in the ways we understand creativity, authorship and the nature of musical expression. From the quill-penned musical scores of past centuries to today’s algorithmically generated compositions, the question of who owns a musical creation – and, indeed, what constitutes such a creation – continues to reverberate through our legal frameworks and philosophical understanding.
The birth of the musical work
The youngest son of the legendary Johann Sebastian Bach is perhaps an unlikely protagonist in the story of music copyright law.
In 1763, Johann Christian Bach received a royal privilege giving him exclusive publishing rights to his compositions for 14 years. Initially acting as his own publisher, Bach released his trios “Op. 2” and symphonies “Op. 3” under his own label before turning his attention to other ventures, most notably the concert series he directed with his friend Carl Friedrich Abel at London’s Vauxhall Gardens.
Success, however, often breeds imitation. In 1773, Bach discovered that publishers Longman and Lukey had obtained copies of his musical works and were selling them without permission, reaping substantial profits from his creative labor.
Unlike many composers of his time who might have accepted this common practice, Bach possessed both the financial means and determination to challenge it through legal channels.
Through his attorney, Charles Robinson, Bach filed a formal complaint, stating that he “composed and wrote a certain musical composition for the harpsichord called a ‘sonata’” and that “being desirous of publishing the said musical work or composition” he had applied for and been granted a “royal privilege.”
The document described how the publishers had “by undue means obtained copies” and “without your orators license and consent printed, published and sold for a very large profit, divers copies” of his work.
What followed was a four-year legal odyssey that would reshape copyright law. Bach and his collaborator, Abel, initially filed two bills of complaint through a lawyer, but were unsuccessful.
With these words, the “musical work” was legally born
Realizing that his royal privilege offered insufficient protection because its status would erode over time, Bach shifted his strategy and sought clarification that musical compositions were within the scope of the Statute of Anne.
The case finally reached the King’s Bench in 1777, where it was heard by Lord Mansfield, a judge known for his progressive interpretation of copyright law. His ruling was nothing short of revolutionary:
“The words of the Act of Parliament are very large: ‘books and other writings.’ It is not confined to language or letters. Music is a science: it may be written; and the mode of conveying the ideas is by signs and marks. […] We are of the opinion that a musical composition is a writing within the Statute of the 8th of Queen Anne.” (Bach v. Longman, 98 Eng. Rep. 1274 (K.B. 1777)) (Eng.).
With these words, the “musical work” was legally born. Lord Mansfield certified that music was protected by the copyright act, dispelling previous doubt on the matter and ensuring that Bach would be remembered not only for his compositions but also for changing how the law views the art of music.
Alamy Stock Photo/Cofiant Images
A general prospect of Vauxhall Gardens,London. Hand-colored watercolorengraving by John S. Müller, after SamuelWale, circa 1751.
The significance of Bach v. Longman cannot be overstated. It remained a leading case for more than 60 years and established a precedent for wide interpretation of copyright law that extended to anything regarded as a book or form of writing.
It preceded the British Copyright Act of 1842, which was another significant victory for composers, extending the duration of copyright ownership from 14 to 42 years and including exclusive public performance and publishing rights to musical compositions.
The Berne Convention of 1886 advanced these protections at an international level. While it does not prescribe what qualifies as a work or not, it defines protected works as “every production in the literary, scientific and artistic domain, whatever may be the mode or form of its expression.”
Among the Berne Convention’s list of protected works are “dramatic-musical works” and “musical compositions with or without words.” These concepts still apply to operas, musicals and all kinds of musical works today.
Evolving definitions
Musical works still occupy a unique nature. “More so than any other artistic endeavors, music possesses ethereal qualities that infiltrates and permeate[s] multiple facets of our existence in a complex manner,” writes J. Michael Keyes in his 2004 essay “Musical Musings: The Case for Rethinking Music Copyright Protection.”
The complexity has led to divergent approaches across jurisdictions. In the UK, the Imperial Copyright Act 1911 implemented the standard set up by the Berne Convention but did not define the term “musical work.” The Copyright Act 1956 maintained this silence.
Only in 1988, with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, did British law articulate that a musical work consisted of “music, exclusive of any words or action intended to be sung, spoken or performed with the music.”
The US followed a similar pattern of gradual recognition. The first Copyright Act of 1790 did not mention musical compositions, referring only to “maps, charts and books.” US law during this period focused primarily on knowledge rather than creativity and art. It wasn’t until 1831 that melody and text received legal protection and, even then, the law remained silent on the creative process underlying musical works.
Subsequently, as David Suisman notes in his 2009 book “Selling Sounds: The Commercial Revolution in American Music,” the Copyright Act of 1909 “fixed the course of American music copyright law for most of the 20th century. But although the law named piano rolls and phonograph records as ‘copies’ of copyrighted music within the meaning of the law, it did not make the sounds themselves the object of copyright. […] The music of piano rolls and phonograph records was inscribed into law not as sound but as ‘text.’”
When notes became numbers
The ambiguities surrounding musical works have been dramatically amplified by technological change. One of the most significant shifts occurred in the relationship between written notation and sound itself. Since the only way to preserve music historically was through written notation, copyright ownership in musical works developed as a form of intellectual property incorporated into musical texts – namely, scores.
Alamy Stock Photo/The History Collection
‘Salve Regina’ by Johann Christian Bach, a musical composition housed in the British Library as part of manuscript Add MS 29293.
However, the 1971 amendment to the US Copyright Act extended protection to recorded sound itself. This distinction is also made in the Rome Convention and other civil law jurisdictions that treat producers of sound recordings as holders of related rights. Records receive copyright protection as independent works, in addition to the protection accorded to the musical work embodied within them. This is the only field of art protected by copyright law for which a distinction exists between the work and its recorded format.
There is an added layer of complexity in the modern era: when new rights were enacted to protect recordings in the 20th century, phonographic rights were invested in the record company or agent who commissioned the recording. A new commodity form, the master recording, was enshrined, yet there was still no question of recognizing the creator.
When an algorithm generates a new composition, who owns the copyright to this work?
Today, as digital recording and distribution technologies have democratized music production, the discussion about whether a work generated by AI is copyrightable or can be the object of related rights is unfolding.
Digital technologies have brought together what were once separate tools – instruments, recording machines and computers – fundamentally altering both the creative process and the way we conceptualize ownership within it.
The digital age has given rise to entirely new forms of musical creativity expressed through concepts radically different from earlier periods.
AI-generated music and copyright
As we look to the future, the emergence of artificial intelligence in music composition presents perhaps the most profound challenge yet to our conception of musical authorship and copyright.
When an algorithm trained on thousands of human-created works generates a new composition that sounds indistinguishable from one created by a human composer, who, if anyone, owns the copyright to this work?
The question echoes the fundamental issues raised in Bach v. Longman but with new dimensions that the 18th-century courts could never have imagined.
Just as Lord Mansfield had to determine whether musical notation could be considered a “writing” under the Statute of Anne, today’s courts must grapple with whether AI-generated music constitutes a work of authorship at all.
This challenge is all the more complex because AI systems disrupt traditional notions of creativity. While humans design the algorithms and provide training data, the AI itself generates new music with increasing autonomy.
This raises profound questions about whether traditional copyright frameworks can accommodate these technological developments or whether entirely new approaches are needed.
The unfinished symphony
The journey from Bach’s landmark case to today’s digital and AI challenges reveals a consistent pattern: copyright law must perpetually keep pace with technological change and evolving conceptions of creativity.
The history of music copyright is, in many ways, a history of attempts to define the indefinable – to capture in legal language the elusive essence of musical creativity.
From Lord Mansfield’s ruling that music “may be written; and the mode of conveying the ideas is by signs and marks” and the Berne Convention incorporating musical works, however openly defined, to modern laws that separate composition from sound recording, each legal framework reflects the technological realities and philosophical assumptions of its time.
The challenge for copyright law is to keep fulfilling copyright’s fundamental purpose
As we stand at the threshold of the AI revolution in music creation, perhaps the most valuable lesson from this history is not any particular legal doctrine but rather the recognition that our conceptions of musical works and authorship are not fixed but evolving.
Imagine what would have happened had Berne negotiators decided to define the term in 1886. The “musical work” as a legal concept was born from Johann Christian Bach’s determination to assert his creative rights – and it continues to transform with each new technological development and artistic innovation.
The challenge for copyright law in the 21st century is to keep fulfilling copyright’s fundamental purpose: to recognize and reward human creativity in all its forms. This will require not just legal ingenuity but also a willingness to reconsider our most basic assumptions about what music is and how it comes into being.
Bach’s legacy, then, is not just the precedent that he established but the ongoing conversation he initiated – an unfinished symphony of legal thought that continues to evolve with each new technological revolution and artistic movement.
As we face the challenges of AI and whatever technologies may follow, we would do well to remember that the questions we ask today about ownership and creativity echo those first raised in a London courtroom almost 250 years ago by a composer determined to claim what he believed was rightfully his.
About the author
Eyal Brook heads the artificial intelligence practice at S. Horowitz & Co and has written extensively on musical authorship in the age of AI. Eyal is a senior research fellow at the Shamgar Center for Digital Law and Innovation at Tel Aviv University and an adjunct professor, teaching courses including law, music and artificial intelligence at Reichman University and the Ono Academic College.
Disclaimer: WIPO Magazine is intended to help broaden public understanding of intellectual property and of WIPO’s work and is not an official document of WIPO. Views expressed here are those of the author, and do not reflect the views of WIPO or its Member States.
Beneath gilded portraits and suits of armour in Windsor Castle, 160 guests wined and dined at a lavish banquet to fete US President Donald Trump’s unprecedented second state visit to the UK on Wednesday evening.
Along with the impeccable table settings, three-course meal and custom cocktail, who was there and, just as importantly, who was seated next to who is carefully planned, since the event is as much about diplomacy as it is about fine dining.
This year’s guest list was conspicuously missing screen stars or celebrity faces, with not even royal perennials like Sir David Beckham or Sir Elton John attending.
Instead, the list was mostly royals, tech and finance executives, and politicos from both sides of the Atlantic.
From Trump’s seat of honour at the centre of the table, next to his host King Charles III, those up and down the table ranged from lesser-known but influential White House players to professional golfers.
Here were some notable guests – and their neighbours at the table.
Business leaders
The table leaned towards power, wealth and influence, including Apple’s boss Tim Cook, Nvidia’s Jensen Huang, OpenAi’s Sam Altman, Blackstone’s Stephen Schwarzman and – still powerful after all these years, Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch.
The last is a surprising invitee given the fact Trump is suing one of his newspapers for billions over claims he wrote a note framed by a drawing of a naked woman to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Less surprising perhaps is that Murdoch, owner of The Sun and The Times, was sat next to Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer’s chief political spin doctor Morgan McSweeney.
In purely financial terms however, Murdoch’s Newscorp is small fry. The others between them run companies worth nearly 10 trillion dollars – four times the value of the entire UK economy.
US business royalty sat down with UK royalty and served up a £150 billon investment into the UK over the coming years.
Over half of that (£90 billion) is coming from private equity giant Blackstone – little wonder that boss Stephen Schwarzman was seated next to Sir Keir.
But what do these benefactors want in return? Abolishing the UK’s digital services tax, watering down the online safety act? No and no, insists the government, who says it sees the relationship akin to the one we share on defence and intelligence.
As the Ukraine war has demonstrated, Europe is heavily dependent on the US for those things.
Some have described this as an invasion rather than investment, with former Deputy PM and ex-Meta employee Sir Nick Clegg warning that the UK could become a vassal state creating new dependencies on a handful of US companies.
For a government and country that is in desperate need of investment and growth, you want to be first in line when it’s being dished out – and the UK does appear to be at the front of the queue.
Trump entourage
A bulk of the table – nearly two dozen seats – were taken up by Trump’s camp, including his wife, daughter, son-in-law, and a slew of senior members of his administration covering everything from foreign policy to AI.
He was of course joined by his wife, Melania Trump, whose nameplate simply read “Mrs Trump”. She was seated across from her husband, in between Queen Camilla and the Prince of Wales, William, while Catherine, the Princess of Wales, was next to President Trump.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio scored a prime spot next to the King, with Lady Victoria Starmer, not her husband, on his other side.
Tiffany Trump, fourth child of the president, was the only one of Trump’s children to attend the state banquet this time. On the last state visit in 2019, she was one of four children to come. She has been less involved in the Trump administrations than her older siblings, but some like Ivanka Trump have taken a step back in his second term.
Tiffany’s husband Michael Boulos also attended. He is no stranger to London, having studied in the city. He does not hold a role in the Trump administration, but the president picked his father Massad Boulos as a key advisor, and the younger Boulos was placed in a prominent seat beside the Princess of Wales.
Steve Witkoff, a real estate mogul turned Trump’s special envoy who is playing a pivotal role in foreign policy on the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, likely found lots to discuss with his neighbour Jonathan Powell, Starmer’s National Security Adviser.
Susan Wiles, White House Chief of Staff,was Trump’s campaign manager in the 2024 election. He called her the “ice maiden” who operates mostly “in the back”, but she is known as one of the most feared political operatives in the US. She was seated next to someone with another important but behind-the-scenes role – private secretary to the King, Sir Clive Alderton.
Another apt pairing was David Sacks, the White House’s AI and crypto tsar, next to Demis Hassabis, CEO and co-founder of Google’s DeepMind, a British-American AI firm.
Royals
King Charles was seated next to his guest of honour Trump and Rubio, while the King’s daughter-in-law the Princess of Wales was on Trump’s opposite side.
Queen Camilla was across the table, next to the First Lady, but more interestingly, also flanked by the US Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent.
Sitting next to the First Lady, the Prince of Wales could discuss more local matters with his other neighbour, Paula Reynolds, chairwoman of National Grid.
The Princess Royal, Anne, who is known for her love of horses, was sitting next to racehorse trainer John Gosden.
On her other side was the US ambassador to the UK Warren Stephens, who hosted Trump and the First Lady at his residence in Regents Park the first night they arrived in the UK, with Chancellor Rachel Reeves at his opposite elbow.
Other senior royals were seated next to White House powerbrokers.
Princess Anne’s husband Vice Admiral Sir Timothy Laurence sat next to Trump’s deputy chief of staff for policy and homeland security advisor Stephen Miller.
Beside the Duke of Gloucester, thelate Queen Elizabeth II’s cousin,was Dan Scavino, White House deputy chief of staff.
The Duchess of Gloucester was seated next to James Blair, deputy chief of staff for legislative, political and public affairs.
A new policy review published by Tannock et al in The Lancet Oncology emphasizes the critical role of health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) data in the evaluation of treatments for people with advanced cancer. The publication highlights the importance of having standardized responder criteria when evaluating HRQoL in clinical trials to improve patient care and clinical decision-making.
The review was put together by an international team of oncologists, statisticians, patients, and patient-reported outcomes experts from Common Sense Oncology (CSO) and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC).
Key findings of the review include:
Focus on patient-centered outcomes: The paper highlights the need for clinical trials to evaluate HRQoL as at least a key secondary outcome for people with advanced cancer alongside traditional clinical endpoints like overall survival. This approach evaluates whether new treatments not only extend life but also improve the quality of life for patients.
Defining HRQoL as symptoms, functioning, and overall HRQoL: The authors advocate for defining HRQoL as a patient-reported multidimensional outcome that should include assessment of symptoms (disease- and/or treatment-related), different functioning domains (eg, physical, role, social) and an overall HRQoL measure (to assess the net clinical benefit of the benefits/harms of a treatment).
Responder criteria for HRQoL: The researchers recommend using responder criteria to report HRQoL data. This means evaluating the proportion of patients who experience significant improvement or deterioration in their quality of life, making the data more relevant and understandable for both clinicians and patients.
Involvement of patients in trial design: The study underscores the importance of involving patients in the design of clinical trials, particularly in defining which HRQoL domains to measure. This ensures that the outcomes assessed are those that matter most to patients.
Reporting and interpretation of HRQoL data: The review calls for having HRQoL results published in the main trial publication, highlighting the proportion of patients who show meaningful improvements in HRQoL. It also advocates for clear and consistent reporting of HRQoL data in clinical trial publications, which can aid in better clinical decision-making.
“Our goal is to ensure that the benefits of cancer treatments are fully understood not just in terms of survival, but also in how they impact patients’ day-to-day lives,” said Ian F. Tannock, MD, PhD, co-lead author of the study.
“By bringing oncologists, patient representatives, statisticians, and patient-reported outcomes experts to the table, we were able to reach common ground on how the HRQoL results should be presented. This will allow oncologists to discuss with their patients the impact of treatments on quality of life, supporting shared decision-making,” added Madeline Pe, PhD, co-lead author of the policy review and head of the EORTC Quality of Life Department.
Disclosure: For full disclosures of the study authors, visit thelancet.com.
Today, President Donald J. Trump and Prime Minister Keir Starmer signed the Technology Prosperity Deal, a landmark science and technology agreement that will propel the U.S. – UK special relationship to new heights for the technological age, and deliver wins for the American people and American innovation globally.
“President Trump signed another game-changing deal that furthers American technology leadership and strengthens ties to one of our closest allies. With the TPD, the United States is exporting its world-class tech stack, accelerating scientific discovery, and advancing pro-innovation policies worldwide,” said Michael Kratsios, Assistant to the President and Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.
The Technology Prosperity Deal establishes joint initiatives between the two nations’ premiere research and standards institutions across artificial intelligence, nuclear energy, and quantum computing to bring transformative benefits to citizens – from accelerating breakthroughs in health care, to lowering energy costs, and supporting national security.
On Artificial Intelligence:
The TPD strengthens and refocuses the partnership between the U.S. Center for AI Standards and Innovation (CAISI) and the UK AI Security Institute (AISI) to exchange best practices in metrology and standards development for AI models, improve understanding of the most advanced models, and exchange talent between the institutes.
The TPD establishes a flagship AI for Science research program between the U.S. Departments of Energy, Health, and the National Science Foundation and its UK counterparts geared towards cutting-edge biotechnology research and precision medicine. As part of this, we’ll collaborate on automated labs and new scientific data sets,focusing especially on cancer and chronic disease research that will improve the lives of our peoples.
On Civil Nuclear Energy:
The TPD aligns the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the UK Office for Nuclear Regulation, and the UK Environment Agency to streamline and accelerate licensing, targeting reactor design reviews within two years and site licensing within one year;
The TPD also commits the UK to achieve full independence from Russian nuclear fuel by the end of 2028 – bringing the UK in alignment with U.S. statutory commitments – ensuring a secure and reliable supply chain for advanced nuclear fuels in both countries.
The TPD facilitates coordination of fusion energy research and development, including through the use of artificial intelligence, with enhanced collaboration to develop harmonized, responsible, and pro-innovation policies to enable commercial development of fusion technologies.
On Quantum Computing:
The TPD advances trusted, interoperable standards for quantum technologies and establishes a joint benchmarking taskforce that will cover across quantum computing hardware, software, and algorithms.
Additional partnerships between our top quantum institutions will lead to more a secure quantum supply chain and capability to accelerate breakthroughs in defense, finance, energy, and beyond.
The Bank of England has left interest rates on hold at 4% and will slow the pace of its “quantitative tightening” programme in the year ahead to avoid distorting jittery government bond markets.
The central bank’s nine-member monetary policy committee voted 7-2 to leave borrowing costs unchanged, after five cuts since summer 2024, including a reduction last month.
The MPC had been widely expected to pause rate cuts this month as annual inflation remained at 3.8% in August, nearly double the target level.
The Bank’s governor, Andrew Bailey, said: “Although we expect inflation to return to our 2% target, we’re not out of the woods yet so any future cuts will need to be made gradually and carefully.”
Bank policymakers have been balancing the risks of rising inflation, caused in part by a jump in food prices, against a continuing slowdown in the jobs market, with unemployment at a four-year high.
In the minutes of Thursday’s meeting, the MPC said its own estimates showed employment growth at zero, which it said was “partly attributable to the impact of increases in employers’ national insurance contributions”. The £25bn NICs increase at last year’s budget prompted a furious backlash from business groups.
Two members of the committee, Swati Dhingra and Prof Alan Taylor, voted for another quarter-point rate cut this month. The MPC’s decision to hold rates widens the gulf between its stance and that of the US Federal Reserve, which reduced interest rates by a quarter of a point on Wednesday, its first rate cut since December.
Bailey also announced that the Bank would slow the pace of reductions to its balance sheet through quantitative tightening (QT), which involves selling off the government bonds the Bank accumulated through the emergency policy of quantitative easing after the 2008 financial crisis.
Threadneedle Street has come under pressure to moderate QT amid volatile yields – effectively the interest rate – on government bonds, known as gilts.
The Bank has acknowledged that QT has put some upward pressure on gilt yields, which affect the cost of borrowing for the Treasury, and critics have accused it of distorting fragile bond markets. Given the gilts are now being sold at a loss, the policy also has an impact on the public finances.
In the past year the Bank has been aiming to reduce its stock of government bonds by £100bn. This has involved selling off gilts as well as retiring others when they reach maturity.
In Thursday’s announcement, which was widely anticipated by markets, the Bank opted to cut the planned reduction in its stock for the year ahead to £70bn.
skip past newsletter promotion
after newsletter promotion
Bailey said: “Today we reduced the size of our annual QT target from £100bn to £70bn. The new target means the MPC can continue to reduce the size of the Bank’s balance sheet in line with its monetary policy objectives while continuing to minimise the impact on gilt market conditions.”
However, with fewer bonds in the Bank’s portfolio set to mature in the next 12 months, the pace of Bank bond sales will actually increase, to about £21bn, from £13bn in the current year.
Pointing to recent volatility in global government bond markets, the minutes of the MPC meeting said that “although the UK gilt market had continued to function in an orderly manner, these factors could pose a risk that QT would have a greater impact on market functioning than previously”.
The chancellor, Rachel Reeves, welcomed the Bank’s decision, adding that it should continue to liaise with the Debt Management Office, which issues government debt, “to ensure the Bank’s operations do not impact on the government’s wider gilt issuance strategy”.
Rising interest costs on government debt are one of the factors likely to put her on course to break her fiscal rules, in forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility before the 26 November budget.
As well as reducing the overall target for QT, the Bank said it would shift the balance of bond sales towards shorter-term gilts. The OBR recently warned that the decline in defined-benefit pensions had undermined demand for the longest-dated government bonds.
Uber Eats will soon be making some meal deliveries with drones.
Uber Technologies said Thursday that it’s partnering with drone company Flytrex Inc. The companies expect to begin deliveries in test markets by the end of this year. Uber didn’t say where those markets will be, but Flytrex is already operating in Texas and North Carolina.
It’s the latest partnership in the fast-growing drone delivery space. Flytrex, which is based in Tel Aviv, Israel, also makes deliveries for Uber Eats’ rival DoorDash.
Wing, a drone company owned by Google parent Alphabet, works with DoorDash and Walmart. Zipline, a drone company based in South San Francisco, works with Walmart and Panera Bread and also makes deliveries for hospitals. Amazon also making deliveries with its own Prime Air drones.
“Autonomous technology is transforming mobility and delivery faster than ever before,” said Sarfraz Maredia, Uber’s president of autonomous mobility and delivery, in a company statement. “With Flytrex, we’re entering the next chapter—bringing the speed and sustainability of drone delivery to the Uber Eats platform, at scale, for the first time.”
“The promise of autonomous vehicles is here, redefining logistics on the ground and in the air,” said Noam Bardin, executive chairman of Flytrex. “Autonomous drones are the future of food delivery—fast, affordable, and hands-free. Flytrex has already delivered over 200,000 meals to suburban households in the past three years. Partnering with Uber—pioneers of ground-based mobility—brings together proven logistics expertise with aerial innovation. Together, we’re building the infrastructure for a future where autonomous systems seamlessly move goods through our communities, making faster, safer, and more sustainable delivery the new standard.”
San Francisco-based Uber is making an investment in Flytrex as part of the deal. Financial details of the partnership weren’t shared Thursday.
Flytrex, which was founded in 2013, said it has made more than 200,000 deliveries across the U.S. Flytrex Executive Chairman Noam Bardin said the partnership combines Uber’s logistics expertise with Flytrex’s aerial innovation.
“Autonomous drones are the future of food delivery — fast, affordable and hands-free,” Bardin said in a statement.
The Dales are calling! Find your way back to Darrowby by learning everything we know so far about the upcoming season of All Creatures Great and Small. We’ve got a cast update, the new season’s storyline, official airdate, and more. We can almost smell the fresh air and hear the bleating lambs!
Are you a series megafan? Want to be the first to get news about the show? Sign up for the award-winning All Creatures Great and Small Insider newsletter and receive episode-themed emails sent during the broadcast season.
1.
When will All Creatures Great and Small Season 6 Air?
The newest season of All Creatures Great and Small comes to MASTERPIECE on PBS Sunday night, January 11, 2026 at 9/8c. If you need some soothing escapism, the pets and vets of this beloved dramedy are just the ticket.
2.
What Happens in All Creatures Great and Small Season 6?
Season 6 of All Creatures Great and Small takes us back to the rolling hills of the Yorkshire Dales, where life in Darrowby is starting to find its rhythm again as the war in Europe winds down. It’s 1945, and the Skeldale family is stepping into a new chapter—one shaped by change, hope, and the opportunities that come with a more peaceful future.
There are new veterinary cases to tackle, growing families, and a few new faces around town. But at its core, the show continues to celebrate what it always has: community, compassion, and connection. The war may have left its mark, but the people of Darrowby keep showing up for each other—and their creatures.
See what the cast has to say about hopes for their characters in Season 6.
3.
Who’s in the All Creatures Great and Small Season 6 Cast?
We have both returning characters and new faces in the upcoming season of All Creatures Great and Small. Fans will be delighted to see the original cast members back where they belong: Nicholas Ralph (James Herriot), Rachel Shenton (Helen Herriot), Samuel West (Siegfried Farnon), Anna Madeley (Mrs. Hall), and Callum Woodhouse (Tristan Farnon) all reprise their roles with warmth and heart. Also back on board are Patricia Hodge (Mrs. Pumphrey), Tony Pitts (Richard Alderson), and Imogen Clawson (Jenny Alderson).
Joining the cast for Season 6 are newcomers Lucy-Jo Hudson (Hollyoaks), Gaia Wise (The Dead of Winter), Jonathan Hyde (Titanic), Philip Martin Brown (Waterloo Road), and Chris Gascoyne (The Feud).
4.
How Many Episodes in All Creatures Great and Small Season 6?
All Creatures Great and Small Season 6 delivers seven brand-new episodes you will delight in.
5.
How Can I Stream Full Episodes of All Creatures Great and Small?
Whether you’re just discovering All Creatures Great and Small or only need to refresh yourself on what happened in Season 5, you have options! Watch with PBS Passport, an on-demand library of public media programming that includes All Creatures Great and Small and other MASTERPIECE favorites. With PBS Passport, you can stream All Creatures Great and Small Seasons 1 through 5 anytime. Stream full episodes of All Creatures Great and Small online and on the PBS app.
All Creatures Great and Small is also available on the PBS MASTERPIECE Prime Video Channel (available to Amazon Prime members for an additional monthly cost) or purchase seasons and/or individual episodes.
6.
Where Can I Learn More About All Creatures Great and Small?
Subscribe to the All Creatures Great and Small Insider email newsletter, which alerts you to breaking series news and then offers one joy-filled email related to each new episode during the broadcast window. [If you already subscribe to the MASTERPIECE email newsletter, please note this Insider email requires a separate sign up.]
Then explore the treasure trove of behind-the-scenes tidbits in our exclusive online features, ranging from topics like James Herriot (Alf Wight)’s real WWII experience, to quirky Yorkshire traditions, and even Mrs. Hall’s shortbread recipe! Watch entertaining video shorts with the cast behind the scenes, offering superlatives to each other, or being quizzed on Yorkshire slang.
And don’t miss All Creatures Great and Small cast members exploring their roles with host Jace Lacob on the award-winning MASTERPIECE Studio podcast.
7.
Watch the All Creatures Great and Small Season 6 Preview
