Business
Page: 313
This is The Legal Beat, a weekly newsletter about music law from Billboard Pro, offering you a one-stop cheat sheet of big new cases, important rulings and all the fun stuff in between.
This week: The owners of the rights to the “Space Jam” theme song are demanding payment for a song that’s been heavily used in internet memes and online mashups; Cardi B and Megan Thee Stallion beat a copyright lawsuit over ‘WAP’; Karol G and Tiësto are sued for infringement over a little-known song; and much more.
Want to get The Legal Beat newsletter in your email inbox every Tuesday? Subscribe here for free.
THE BIG STORY: Everybody Get Up, It’s Time To Sue Now
The theme song to the movie Space Jam, performed by Florida hip-hop trio Quad City DJ’s, is a mid-1990s classic, with bass-heavy dance beats that instantly call to mind Michael Jordan and the characters from Looney Tunes squaring off in a basketball game against alien invaders. I know you can hear it now: Here’s your chance, do your dance, at the Space Jammmm….
But it’s also, weirdly, a mid-2000s classic. Somewhere in the hazy early days of social media, the theme embarked on a bizarre second act as a meme – the basis for hundreds or thousands of absurdist “slam remix” videos that combined the song with other audio and video, often inexplicably featuring NBA star Charles Barkley. By the early 2010s, the trend had largely faded away – most memes do. But many slam remixes still exist on YouTube, and whole websites dedicated to the art of slamming are still live in 2023.
Now, that might be something of a problem — because, two decades later, the Space Jam theme song has new owners who are carrying out an increasingly active legal campaign to demand payment from people who used it.
Watson Music Group, a company that bought the rights to “Space Jam” the song in 2019 from its three original songwriters, has filed three federal lawsuits in the last three months, accusing companies of infringing its copyrights by using the song on the internet without permission. It’s also sent legal threats to an unknown number of other alleged infringers, arguing that unauthorized users must pay a “retroactive license” to avoid legal liability.
For more about the legal campaign over the rights to “Space Jam,” go read our full story, featuring details about the latest lawsuit and a response from the company’s lawyer.
Other top stories this week…
CARDI & MEGAN BEAT COPYRIGHT CASE – A federal judge tossed out a lawsuit accusing Cardi B and Megan Thee Stallion of stealing the lyrics to their smash hits “WAP” and “Thot Shit” from an earlier track called “Grab Em by the P—-,” ruling that short lyrics like “p—- so wet” were simply too unoriginal to be covered by copyright law.
EARTH, WIND & FIRE NAME LAWSUIT – A tribute band that was sued earlier this year by Earth, Wind & Fire for trademark infringement is firing back with a bold counterargument: That the famed R&B act has actually abandoned any intellectual property rights to its name.
NICK CARTER ABUSE LITIGATION – The Backstreet Boys member, who is facing multiple accusations of sexual assault from the 2000s, was hit with a third such lawsuit, this time from an unnamed woman who claims he assaulted her when she was 15 years old. But Carter also won a ruling allowing him to proceed with a defamation countersuit, which claims he’s victim of “conspiracy” orchestrated by his accusers.
KAROL’S COPYRIGHT CLASH – Karol G and Tiësto were hit with a copyright lawsuit over their song “Don’t Be Shy,” filed by a Cuban-American songwriter (Rene Lorente) who says their track features elements that are “practically identical” to his earlier tune called “Algo Diferente.”
TEXAS DRAG LAW BLOCKED – Following similar rulings in Tennessee and Florida, a federal judge in Texas blocked the state from enforcing a newly-enacted law restricting drag performances, ruling that the law likely violates the First Amendment.
Timothy Xu is the new chairman and CEO of Universal Music Greater China (UMGC).
With effect from Monday, Sept. 4, the veteran executive takes the reins of Universal Music Group’s Greater China division, which covers Mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan.
As head of the biggest music company’s business in the world’s most populous market, Xu wields a resume stacked with major label and indie experience.
He joins UMGC from Taihe Music Group, the leading independent music company in China, where he served for the past five years as president and CEO.
Before that, he led Sony Music’ Greater China activities as chairman and CEO, from 2012-16. And earlier, he had roles with EMI Music, EMI Music Publishing China, and Warner Music China, having kicked off his career in 1992 with China National Publications Import & Export Corporation (CNPIEC).
Xu’s appointment follows the retirement of longstanding chairman Sunny Chang earlier in 2023.
“I am thrilled to welcome Timothy to lead our operations in Greater China,” comments Lucian Grainge, chairman and CEO of Universal Music Group in a statement.
“He’s a real music exec, given his deep experience generating creative and commercial success in the region. I’m confident Timothy be instrumental as we continue to drive growth in the exciting and vibrant Chinese music market.”
Adds Adam Granite, UMG’s executive VP, market development, “Having worked together in the past, Timothy’s unique and versatile experience across the sector will bring new opportunities to expand all areas of our business operations within Greater China, whilst also accelerating our focus on introducing Chinese music, culture, and artist talent to new markets and audiences around the world.”
In 2021, UMGC became the first major music company to establish multiple frontline label operations across China with the launch of Republic Records China, and re-launch of historical Chinese labels Polygram Records China and EMI China alongside Universal Music China.
Those moves would reinforce Universal Music’s “commitment to accelerating and introducing the next wave of Chinese music talent to the world across a variety of genres,” the company said in a press release at the time.
A group of men who say they were sexually abused by a Japanese boy band producer expressed hope Monday (Sept. 4) that the company will provide financial compensation and introduce measures to prevent a recurrence.
They say producer Johnny Kitagawa sexually preyed on young dancers and singers for decades, having them stay at his luxury home, handing them cash and leveraging promises of potential fame. The company, Johnny & Associates, is a powerful force in Japan’s entertainment industry.
The men said at a news conference Monday that they have been ignored for decades by the company, Japanese society and mainstream media.
Company Chief Executive Julie Keiko Fujishima released a brief statement on YouTube in May about the accusations but has not appeared before reporters. The company has set a news conference for Thursday.
“We want Julie to apologize, as the chief executive and company owner,” said Shimon Ishimaru, one of nine men who have formed a group demanding an apology and compensation from the company. “For a company behind this big a crime to do nothing is unimaginable.”
Johnny’s, as the company is known, is family-run and not publicly listed. Kitagawa, Fujishima’s uncle, died in 2019 and was never charged.
A special team set up by the Tokyo-based company recently spoke to 23 accusers, but has said the total will likely balloon to at least several hundred people. The team also recommended Fujishima resign.
Junya Hiramoto, another member of Ishimaru’s group, said they hope to set an example for others who have suffered.
“Our wounds never fade,” Hiramoto said. “Do you think we aren’t still hurting? Do you think we can forget? Do you know what it’s like for us to come forward like this, filled with shame?”
Over the years, persistent allegations against Kitagawa have generally been dismissed as malicious rumors. Mainstream media stayed silent.
The U.N. Working Group on Business and Human Rights has urged the Japanese government to act to make sure that Johnny’s provides an apology and compensation and that government oversight of businesses be improved. The government has yet to take action.
Japan tends to be behind the West on issues of gender equality, children’s rights and awareness about sexuality.
It was only after a BBC documentary about Kitagawa aired this year that the scandal again became a topic of scrutiny.
Another accuser, Kauan Okamoto, spoke at the Foreign Correspondents Club in April, saying he trusted foreign media more than Japanese media. Okamoto, like many others who have come forward, was part of a backup boys’ group called Johnny’s Jr.
The Associated Press does not usually identify people who say they were sexually assaulted, but Kitagawa’s recent accusers decided to be named publicly in news accounts.
Sean “Diddy” Combs has reassigned his publishing rights back to all the artists and songwriters who helped build the label he founded, Bad Boy Entertainment. Ma$e, Faith Evans, The LOX, 112 and the Estate of the Notorious B.I.G. are among the creatives who have already signed agreements to regain those rights, Billboard has learned.
A Bad Boy representative declined to disclose the terms of those deals. However, sources with knowledge of the situation say the process of reaching out to the artists and writers began in May 2021 after Combs had turned down various offers to sell the catalog. While most of the parties have been contacted and have since signed their offers, the search to locate and resolve agreements with a few others is still ongoing. Publishing on behalf of Bad Boy in past years has been administered by EMI, which is owned by Sony Music Publishing/Sony Corporation of America. And EMI continues to administer Combs’ own publishing.
Coinciding with Bad Boy’s 30th anniversary this year, the surprise move by Combs arrives after a public dispute of several years between him and Bad Boy hitmaker Ma$e. After Combs upbraided the Recording Academy for taking Black artists in R&B and rap for granted during a 2020 acceptance speech for the organization’s Industry Icon award at Clive Davis’ pre-Grammy gala, Ma$e took his former label boss to task for doing the same thing.
In a since-deleted Instagram post, Mase revealed he’d offered Combs $2 million to buy back his publishing but it was declined. In the post, Ma$e alleged, “Your past business practices knowingly has continued purposely starved your artist and been extremely unfair to the very same artist that helped u obtain that Icon Award on the iconic Badboy label. For example, u still got my publishing from 24 years ago in which u gave me $20k. Which makes me never want to work w/ u as any artist wouldn’t … This is not Black excellence at all.”
And last year during an interview with The Breakfast Club, Combs alleged that Ma$e owed him $3 million for an album advance that was never delivered on.
“My n—- murder had to sit this one out. He just got his publishing back from Puff. Just finished the paper work for that yesterday,” Cam’ron wrote in an Instagram post on Aug. 30. “Congrats @rsvpmase while he getting his music back in order, I’m dumping my hard drive pause. The lost files vol 1. Sept 8.”
Founded by Combs in 1993, Bad Boy garnered success out of the gate with a string of gold, platinum and multiplatinum albums and singles by Craig Mack, the Notorious B.I.G., Faith Evans, Ma$e, Total, 112, The LOX and Diddy himself, among others. Over the years, the legendary label’s roster has also boasted artists such as Carl Thomas, Shyne, Dream, Danity Kane and French Montana. It was also home to an inhouse writer/producer collective called The Hitmen, whose membership at times has featured the late Chucky Thompson, Stevie J, Deric “D-Dot” Angelettie and Mario Winans. Recent Bad Boy release credits include Machine Gun Kelly’s 2022 album Mainstream Sellout and Janelle Monae’s latest, The Age of Pleasure.
Thursday’s announcement that AMC Theatres is partnering with Taylor Swift to present Taylor Swift / The Eras Tour Concert Film in thousands of North American cinemas starting Oct. 13 was a blockbuster — both in terms of cultural impact and ticket sales, which broke AMC’s record for single-day advance revenue with $26 million in the first 24 hours.
And according to a new report at Puck, the unorthodox deal that bypasses traditional studios and instead release the film directly in cinemas with AMC Theatres acting as distributor came about only after discussions with traditional distributors, including Universal Pictures, broke down.
The story claims that talks with AMC Theatres began more than three months ago — while Swift was already in the midst of her smash Eras Tour in the United States and before the concert film was shot at some of the Los Angeles shows in August — after AMC CEO Adam Aron received “a call from a friend who also happened to know [Swift’s father] Scott Swift” that Team Swift was interested in talking.
Citing sources, the report states that Aron personally negotiated the deal directly with Swift’s parents, Scott and Andrea Swift, over several weeks. Among the agreed-upon terms is that 43% of the gross will remain with theaters, while the remaining 57% will be shared (in an undetermined split) by the Swifts and AMC. (Variance Films, a small sub-distributor, was reportedly hired to book the film in Regal, Cinemark and other theaters on a fee-for-service basis.) Notably, standard tickets for the film will be priced at $19.89 (plus tax) for adults and $13.13 for children and seniors (plus tax).
All theaters playing the Sam Wrench-directed film will reportedly also take all concession revenue, including any commemorative Eras Tour items. The story claims that AMC and Cinemark have also ordered four million posters to give away to fans for free, while a “small offering” of paid merchandise is planned.
Other details in the report include that theaters playing the film (which reportedly came in at a budget of between $10 and $20 million) must agree to carry it for a minimum of four weeks and can play it for as many as 26 weeks without worrying that the terms of the deal will change. Additionally, after 13 weeks, the Swifts are free to put the film on streaming services (the streaming rights are still up for grabs).
At least one traditional film studio that had discussed distributing the film with the Swifts was reportedly under the impression that the film would be a 2025 release — after the completion of the tour’s global run — but according to the story, the Swifts decided to strike while fan demand for all things Taylor was at an all-time high.
Speculation that the unusual deal could lead to similar plays by AMC and other exhibitors to act as distributors for other major concert films has been rampant, and indeed, the Puck report notes that “AMC is already talking about what other major artists might want a Taylorstyle deal” — suggesting there may be more of these to come.
Representatives for Taylor Swift and AMC Theatres did not immediately return Billboard‘s requests for comment on this story.
Spotify led a group of high-flying streaming stocks this week by gaining 14.8% to $157.54 per share, increasing its market capitalization by nearly $4 billion to $30.7 billion. The world’s largest streaming company, which boasted 220 million subscribers as of June 30, has clawed back nearly all its losses since its share price dropped 14% […]
The first day of the Electric Zoo Festival on New York’s Randall’s Island was abruptly canceled hours before it was set to start, organizers announced Friday (Sept. 1) on X (formerly Twitter).
In the statement, organizers cited “global supply chain issues” as the cause of the cancellation and promised to reopen Saturday. Acts scheduled to play Friday include Kx5, Galantis, The Chainsmokers, Excision and many more.
“Despite our tireless efforts and round-the-clock commitment, we have made the painful decision to cancel the first day of Electric Zoo,” organizers wrote. “This year has presented unparalleled challenges for everyone. The global supply chain disruptions have impacted industries worldwide, and, sadly, our beloved festival has not been immune. These unexpected delays have prevented us from completing the construction of the main stage in time for Day 1.”
Fans who bought tickets for Friday will receive a refund. Fans with multiday tickets “will receive credit for one of the days” to be applied to a future event. The festival will now open at 1 p.m. on Saturday, and “we look forward to uniting with all of you to celebrate life and music, and dance through the sunset with the iconic backdrop of the New York skyline, right in the heart of New York City,” organizers wrote.
“While words cannot fully express the depth of our remorse about Day 1, please know that this decision was not made lightly,” organizers wrote. “We ask for your forgiveness and understanding during this challenging time. We are profoundly sorry for all the inconvenience and disappointment this will cause.”
Dear Electric Zoo Family,It is with a broken heart that we deeply regret to inform you that, despite our tireless efforts and round-the-clock commitment, we have made the painful decision to cancel the first day of Electric Zoo.This year has presented unparalleled challenges… pic.twitter.com/m5tunuANZY— Electric Zoo Festival (@ElectricZooNY) September 1, 2023
The festival’s social media pages announced the news just after 11:30 a.m. ET Friday, hours before doors for the event were set to open at 3 p.m.
Made Events, launched by Long Island City husband-wife team Mike Bindra and Laura De Palm and creators of the long-running Electric Zoo festival, was sold to an investment group that owns the Avant Gardner nightclub and venue in Brooklyn in July 2022 for $15 million.
In 2014, Made Event was acquired by Bob Sillerman‘s electronic dance music conglomerate SFX, which filed for bankruptcy in 2016 and eventually landed in the hands of senior creditor Andrew Axelrod. SFX was rebranded as LiveStyle by former chief executive Randy Phillips, who managed the festival properties for Axelrod and led efforts to sell off SFX’s assets to new buyers. Made Event was the last U.S. festival property held by LiveStyle to be sold.
Streaming service Slacker is looking to become the fifth music company to go public by merging with a special purpose acquisition corporation, or SPAC — and the clock is ticking. Its owner, LiveOne, has signed a letter of intent to combine Slacker, which it estimates will have a valuation of $160 million, with Roth CH Acquisition V Co.
But like many other SPAC deals, Slacker’s merger with Roth has faced challenges. For starters, many of Roth’s shareholders have opted not to take part in the Slacker deal. Roth experienced $93 million in redemptions in the second quarter, according to its latest 10-Q filing, as shareholders opted for a $10 redemption value rather than roll the dice on a music streaming company that expects to finish 2023 with 3.75 million free and paying users. That leaves Roth with $26.4 million to contribute to Slacker once the deal is done.
To shore up support ahead of a merger, Roth entered into non-redemption agreements with shareholders representing 2 million shares. Those shareholders agreed not to redeem public shares and will receive a payment of 4 cents per share per one-month extension, according to a Roth filing with the SEC.
Starting a SPAC gives the founders a limited window to put investors’ money to good use or return the funds to shareholders. Running out of time to close a deal with Slacker, in May, Roth received shareholder approval to extend the merger deadline by up to six months. The extension ends Dec. 4 — barely more than three months away. “It seems [like a] very tight [timeline],” says Megan Penick, an attorney at Michelman & Robinson. “I mean, conceivably they could still complete it. It just seems that they must still be conducting their due diligence and coming to terms on how the deal is going to be structured.”
A SPAC effectively puts the cart before the horse: It raises money through an initial public offering (IPO) before setting about finding an appropriately sized, high-growth company to take public. (Pursuing a target before the IPO, as Digital World Acquisition Corp. did with Donald Trump’s Truth Social, is against the rules.) The target company is spared the long and costly process typically incurred when taking a company public. The SPAC founders get a stake in the post-merger company and investors benefit when the post-merger stock rises above the redemption price. The number of SPAC IPOs jumped from 55 in 2019 to 610 in 2021, according to S&P Global Market Intelligence, while money raised increased from $14 billion in 2019 to $160.8 billion in 2021.
Overall, however, SPACs have failed to live up to their lofty expectations. “Too many SPACs, not enough suitable targets,” says Penick. After 265 SPACs closed mergers in 2021, only 187 did so in 2022. And while there were 100 SPAC deals in the first half of 2023, the value of the deals amounted to just one-tenth of the deals closed in the first half of 2021, according to S&P Global.
Faced with a shortage of good candidates, many SPACs have opted to dissolve and return capital to shareholders. Music Acquisition Corporation, co-founded by former Geffen Records president Neil Jacobson, dissolved in 2022 after raising $230 million in a 2021 IPO. Liberty Media did the same with its SPAC, Liberty Media Acquisition Corp., in November, more than two months before the deadline to complete a deal or return to shareholders the $575 million it raised in an IPO. “Frankly, getting an extension wasn’t worth it, given we had nothing on the table that was attractive enough for us to take [a] look,” said Liberty Media president and CEO Greg Maffei.
Perhaps the biggest problem with SPACs is they haven’t been a good investment for the original investors. Abu Dhabi-based music streamer Anghami has fallen 91% to 89 cents since merging with Vista Media Acquisition Corp. in February 2022. French music streamer Deezer has fallen 76% to 2.06 euros since merging with IPO2 in July 2022. And New York-based publisher and label Reservoir Media has fallen 43% to $5.45 since merging with Roth CH Acquisition II — the same team behind the SPAC that intends to merge with Slacker — in July 2021. All three stocks had a $10/10 euro IPO price.
Worse yet, Alliance Entertainment ended up trading over the counter in February after a high number of redemptions left its partner SPAC, Adara Acquisition Corp, with just $1.7 million to contribute to the merged company — probably not enough to cover investment banking and legal fees for the transaction. That also left Alliance short of the New York Stock Exchange’s float requirements. “The issue of having enough market volume and enough market cap to remain a listed security is a challenge that a lot of SPACs run into,” says Michael Poster, an attorney at Michelman & Robinson. Alliance has dropped 75% to $2.02 since it merged with Adara in February.
Slacker didn’t respond to a request for comment on the deal.
Cardi B and Megan Thee Stallion have won a court ruling tossing out a lawsuit that accused them of stealing the lyrics to their smash hits “WAP” and “Thot Shit” from an earlier track called “Grab Em by the P—-.”
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
In a decision issued Tuesday (Aug. 29), a Manhattan federal judge ruled that the lyrics Cardi and Megan were accused of copying in their songs — “p—- so wet” and “n—-s wild’n” — were simply too unoriginal to be covered by copyright law.
“The lyrics over which plaintiff asserts copyright protection are no more than common phrases, employed frequently in popular culture and other Hip-Hop songs,” U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter wrote.
“The concept of using ‘p—- so wet’ as a rhetorical device in a song is neither original nor unique to plaintiff,” the judge wrote. “Likewise, defendants have provided examples of at least three songs pre-dating [‘Grab Em’] which use some variation of the phrase ‘n—–s wild’n.’”
The ruling dismissed a lawsuit filed last year by Denise Jones, a rapper who performs under the name Necey X, against Cardi (Belcalis Marlenis Almanzar), Megan (Megan Pete) and Atlantic Records. Jones, who sued without the aid of a lawyer, claimed that the stars chose to “copy and paste” her lyrics into their songs.
But in Tuesday’s decision, Judge Carter said Jones not only lacked valid copyrights in those lyrics but that Cardi and Megan’s own words were not “substantially similar” to those in “Grab Em” — the key requirement for proving copyright infringement.
“Defendants’ lyric, ‘why you in the club with n—-s wild’n,’ poses a question to the rapper (or to the audience), while plaintiff’s lyric refers to the rapper’s effect on a single individual,” the judge wrote. “Thus, the phrase is used in different ways and has different meanings such that an ordinary listener would not identify defendants’ lyric as being appropriated from plaintiff’s song.”
The lawsuit also included additional claims beyond copyright law, including that Cardi and Megan had stalked and harassed Jones. But Judge Carter quickly dispatched those allegations as well.
“Plaintiff makes generalized allegations about fearing for her safety from alleged stalking and harassment by the ‘cartel’ that she equates to the music industry at large, but plaintiff neither identifies any negligent conduct on the part of defendants or any special duty to avoid causing emotional distress,” the judge wrote.
Jones did not return a request for comment on the ruling Friday.
Released in August 2020 by Cardi with guest vocals by Megan, “WAP” was a smash hit, spending four weeks atop the Hot 100. “Thot Shit,” released a year later by Megan, was partly inspired by the backlash that “WAP” had received from conservative critics; it reached No. 16 on the Hot 100.
Whether by coincidence, osmosis, common ancestry or, you know, theft, there are plenty of hit songs that sound strangely similar to pre-existing material… or do they? Enter the lawsuit. While some artists and songwriters shrug off similarities, others take it to court, demanding what they perceive is their due when it comes to alleged copyright infringement.
Of course, music history – especially when it comes to pre-recorded music – is rife with songs that were inspired by (or wholesale stolen from) previous material. Early rock n’ roll songs frequently lifted riffs, lyrics and chords from classic blues and country songs, which themselves were often based on folk tunes, African-American spirituals and work songs, nursery rhymes and even melodies from classical compositions. If you could time travel and track the authorship of songs as simple as “I’ve Been Working on the Railroad” or “Yankee Doodle,” the list of co-writers for each would probably run north of two dozen by modern standards of crediting songwriters for their contributions.
As recorded music became big business over the 20th century (and new technology made it easier to track song authorship and a writer’s exposure to previous material), copyright lawsuits became a regular occurrence in the music industry. But the litigation really took off in the 2010s, after a landmark lawsuit between the estate of Marvin Gaye and Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams over “Blurred Lines” made things a bit more muddled (or blurred, if you will).
In the aftermath of the “Blurred Lines” case, many songwriters opted to credit scribes whose copyrighted material bore even a passing resemblance to theirs, assuming it was easier to give credit than deal with a protracted, expensive lawsuit. But more recently, many artists have started to fight back, fearing that settling with accusers was leading to more unjustified lawsuits. Led Zeppelin, Katy Perry and Ed Sheeran have all won high-profile victories in recent years, defeating copyright cases by arguing that basic musical building blocks must be free for everyone to use.
It’s worth mentioning that technically, plagiarism (taking someone else’s efforts and presenting it as your own original work) is not illegal in the United States. If a dispute over a song reaches the courts, it’s over copyright infringement, not plagiarism, so the arguments over these songs are about whether someone ran afoul of copyright law. (Although most people tsk-tsk plagiarists, too.)
The songs on this list share two things in common: They topped the Billboard Hot 100, and some people believe they lifted elements from a previously existing song. Inclusion on this list doesn’t imply wrongdoing. Several of these disagreements settled out of court; one was settled without any lawsuit being filed; and one artist handily won their case against the accuser.
Read on to see how the rest of the songs fared.
“Come Together”