Business
Page: 327
A songwriter named Vince Vance is once again suing Mariah Carey over accusations that she stole her perennially-chart-topping “All I Want for Christmas is You” from his earlier song, a year after he dropped a previous lawsuit making the same allegations.
In a complaint filed Wednesday (Nov. 1) in Los Angeles federal court, Vance (real name Andy Stone) made the same basic accusations as he did in his last lawsuit: that Carey’s 1994 holiday blockbuster infringed the copyrights to his 1989 song of the exact same name. That’s no small claim: Carey’s “All I Want” has reached No. 1 on the Billboard Hot 100 during each of the past four holiday seasons.
But the new case includes far more detailed — and far more personal — allegations against Carey, including that she made up the story of how she wrote the song, and that her own co-writer, Walter Afanasieff, has disputed that story.
“Carey has without licensing, palmed off these works with her incredulous origin story, as if those works were her own,” Vance’s new lawyers wrote in the re-filed complaint. “Her hubris knowing no bounds, even her co-credited songwriter doesn’t believe the story she has spun. This is simply a case of actionable infringement.”
Notably, Vance is now represented by Gerard P. Fox, the same attorney who represented two songwriters who accused Taylor Swift of stealing the lyrics to “Shake It Off.” That case went on for more than five years of litigation before it ended in December 2022 with a confidential settlement.
Just like his first lawsuit, Vance’s new complaint claims his own “All I Want for Christmas is You” was recorded by his Vince Vance and the Valiants in 1989 and had received “extensive airplay” during the 1993 holiday season — a year before Carey released her better-known song under the same name.
But his new lawsuit includes new details about the success of his earlier song, calling it a “a country music hit” that peaked at No. 31 on Billboard’s Hot Country Songs chart and later reached No. 23 on the Hot 100 Airplay chart (re-named the Radio Songs chart in 2014.) He’s also now joined as a plaintiff by Troy Powers, who claims to have co-written the earlier song.
The new version of the lawsuit also makes more detailed allegations about the similarities between the two songs, delving into the “unique linguistic structure” and musical elements that Carey allegedly copied in her song.
“The phrase ‘all I want for Christmas is you’ may seem like a common parlance today, in 1988 it was, in context, distinctive,” Vance’s new lawyers write. “Moreover, the combination of the specific chord progression in the melody paired with the verbatim hook was a greater than 50% clone of Vance’s original work, in both lyric choice and chord expressions.”
Notably, the new complaint lawsuit also mentions Love Actually, the 2003 Christmas movie that skyrocketed Carey’s song even further into the holiday canon. The lawsuit notes that Carey’s song appears in “a featured performance scene in the penultimate act in the mega hit film.”
A rep for Carey did not immediately return a request for comment on Wednesday evening.
Slacker, the music streaming service owned by LiveOne, called off its planned merger with Roth CH Acquisition V Co., a special purpose acquisition company, the companies announced Monday (Oct. 30).
LiveOne CEO Robert Ellin attributed the move to a poor market climate for small companies. “Market conditions for micro-cap stocks, for stocks under $1 billion, are just decimated this year as a whole,” he says. Companies that go public through SPAC mergers also face a difficult time, he adds. A SPAC is a blank-check company created and funded for taking a private company public. SPAC funding and mergers peaked in 2021, according to SPAC Research.
The SPAC market has softened considerably since 2021. Many SPACs failed to close a deal and returned their funds to shareholders. Music Acquisition Corp. returned funds to shareholders in Dec. 2022. Liberty Media closed down its SPAC in Nov. 2022 after a fruitless search for a takeover target. A record 123 SPACs liquidated in the first half of 2023, compared to just seven in the prior-year period, and the average redemption rate — SPAC shares redeemed for full value before merging with a target company — increased in the first half of 2023, according to Kroll. “It’s a tough market to come out in,” says Ellin.
Additionally, LiveOne believes Slacker has gained in value since it agreed to merge with Roth. LiveOne previously announced it had signed a letter of intent to merge Slacker with Roth and put a pre-money valuation of $160 million on the music streamer. But on Monday, LiveOne raised its revenue guidance for Slacker to the range of $63 million to $66 million for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2024. The company expects adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization of $17 million to $19 million.
“I think it’s worth $200 million at a minimum,” says Ellin, “and probably way higher than that when you’re looking at what Tidal sold for at $400 million and change, where Deezer trades at 300 million [euros, or $317 million]. We’re the only one that’s profitable. We make money every month, every quarter, every year.”
The market currently puts a far lower value on Slacker, however. LiveOne — including Slacker — has a $92 million market capitalization. That includes an 81% stake in PodcastOne, a podcast company LiveOne spun off in September that currently has a market capitalization of $70 million. LiveOne said that prior to the spin-off, PodcastOne was valued at between $230 million and $274 million by third-party valuation firm ValueScope.
Slacker was founded in 2007 and acquired by LiveOne — then called LiveXLive Media — in 2017 for $50 million. Many of its subscribers come from a white-label service that powers other brands’ digital radio. For example, nearly every new Tesla automobile sold in the United States comes with a subscription to Tesla Radio that’s provided by Slacker and paid for by the automaker. LiveOne says it added over 300,000 new paid Tesla subscribers in the first five months of its fiscal year, a 30% year-over-year increase. The company expects to add over 800,000 new subscribers this fiscal year.
With the SPAC merger off the table, Ellin sees numerous potential avenues for Slacker. “There’s an opportunity today to roll up multiple other companies in the space,” he said during an investor call on Wednesday (Nov. 1). “We have four to five potential acquisitions in the audio business alone that would fit in very nicely with the company and be extraordinarily accretive to revenues and bottom line. We also could explore a sale or a strategic investor, including some of our current customers or investors. We also will explore a direct IPO as the markets change and fair market value for the numbers that we’ve delivered are available.”
Roth “is currently exploring opportunities with other potential merger candidates in order to complete its business combination,” according to Monday’s press release.
A federal appeals court issued a first-of-its-kind ruling Wednesday (Nov. 1) on copyright protections for dance routines, reviving a case that accuses Fortnite creator Epic Games of stealing copyrighted moves from a celebrity choreographer who’s worked with BTS, Jennifer Lopez, Justin Bieber and Britney Spears.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
In a “novel” ruling on “one of the oldest forms of human expression,” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overturned a decision last year that dismissed choreographer Kyle Hanagami’s lawsuit, which claimed that Epic stole his dance moves and used them as “emotes” in Fortnite.
A lower court had tossed the case by ruling that Epic had copied only several unprotected “poses” from Hanagami’s routine. But in Wednesday’s decision, the appeals court said dance copyrights should be analyzed more holistically, more similarly to how courts dissect copyrighted music.
“We see no reason to treat choreography differently,” the court wrote. “Reducing choreography to ‘poses’ would be akin to reducing music to just ‘notes.’ Choreography is, by definition, a related series of dance movements and patterns organized into a coherent whole. The relationship between those movements and patterns, and the choreographer’s creative approach of composing and arranging them together, is what defines the work. The element of ‘poses,’ on its own, is simply not dynamic enough to capture the full range of creative expression of a choreographic work.”
The ruling does not mean Hanagami has won the lawsuit; instead, the appeals court merely said that the lower court should not have automatically dismissed the case. The two sides will now return to the lower court for more proceedings, potentially including an eventual trial.
A spokeswoman for Epic Games declined to comment on the decision.
In a statement to Billboard, Hanagami’s attorney David Hecht celebrated a ruling that he said would be “extremely impactful for the rights of choreographers, and other creatives, in the age of short form digital media.”
“Our client looks forward to litigating his claims against Epic and he is happy to have opened the door for other choreographers and creatives to protect their livelihood,” Hecht said.
Hanagami sued last year, claiming that Epic had copied a dance routine he created to a Charlie Puth song and used it without permission as the basis for a Fortnite “emote” — a pre-programmed dance move that players can purchase from Epic and employ using their digital avatars. He called it “intentional misappropriation” of his “fame and hard work.”
Attorneys for Hanagami compared the two dances as part of their legal filings:
[embedded content]
The case was one of many filed in recent years over the use of dance moves in games. Alfonso Ribeiro, the actor who played Carlton on The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, sued Epic over the use of his heavily-memed “Carlton dance” as an emote, as did the mother of the so-called Backpack Kid who popularized the viral “Floss” dance. But those cases have faced skeptical judges in court: In 2020, a federal judge sided with Epic and tossed out a case filed by two former college basketball players over their “running man” dance.
In August 2022, Hanagami’s case faced the same fate. Siding with Epic, Judge Stephen Wilson ruled that the individual steps of his dance routine were too basic for copyright protection, and that even when combined together, they were just a “short” routine that couldn’t be covered by copyright law.
But on Wednesday, the Ninth Circuit overturned that decision, ruling that the lower court had unfairly focused on those simple “poses” and had ignored other elements of the “selection and arrangement” that Hanagami claimed Epic had copied. When those elements are all considered together, the appeals court said, his case becomes “plausible” enough to proceed toward trial.
“He has plausibly alleged that the creative choices he made in selecting and arranging elements of the choreography — the movement of the limbs, movement of the hands and fingers, head and shoulder movement, and tempo — are substantially similar to the choices Epic made in creating the emote,” the court wrote.
The ruling sends the case back to Judge Wilson’s court, where the two sides will engage in more litigation. Eventually, Epic will again seek to dismiss the case; if that fails, the lawsuit will head to a jury trial.
It seems that even some members of the U.S. Supreme Court are Swifties.
Capping off a year in which Taylor Swift’s name has repeatedly been mentioned on Capitol Hill, at the Department of Justice and on NFL broadcasts, it came up Tuesday during Supreme Court arguments in a major case over social media and the First Amendment.
As part of a legal hypothetical aimed at probing the questions in the case, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked an attorney from the U.S. solicitor general’s office a question about how court should “evaluate a government employee controlling access to private property.”
“What if we have, you know, a big concert, Taylor Swift has a big concert in a private … area, a park something, and the police recognize there are going to be large crowds, et cetera, and so they come and they help with the screening of the bags and they, you know, kick out people who are rowdy,” Jackson asked. “Because it’s private, we would say that’s not state action?”
The case before the justices (Lindke v. Freed) is about whether or not public officials, including presidents, can block users on social media platforms like Facebook. Put another way: When is a government employee’s use of social media a “state action,” which is tightly governed by the First Amendment? And when is it just the action of a private citizen, which is not?
In her question, Jackson was trying to use the Taylor concert to illustrate the difficulty of pinpointing that dividing line, and testing one theory advanced by solicitor general’s office. Police are obviously agents of the government, but would their actions during such a private Swift concert not be an action by the state?
In her answer, Assistant U.S. Solicitor General Masha Hansford said the officers’ actions should still be treated as “state action” even at the Swift concert, since they would still be “carrying out their official duties.” But Justice Jackson pushed the question further.
“But Taylor Swift could have hired [a private security guard],” Jackson said. “I mean, they’re not doing anything more than a private security guard could have done, right? So what makes it that they are [engaging in] state action?”
Though Swift herself has never been directly involved in a Supreme Court case, Tuesday’s arguments were not the first time her name has come up at SCOTUS.
During arguments in a different case back in 2021, the justices repeatedly cited Swift’s lawsuit against a Denver radio DJ named David Mueller, who the superstar had claimed groped her at photoshoot. In that case, Swift sought only sought $1 in so-called “nominal damages” against Mueller – a legal tactic used in cases in which litigants want to prove a point but aren’t seeking a big payday.
The 2021 case before the justices dealt with that very same issue, and they repeatedly raised Swift’s case as a comparison.
“I’m not really interested in your money,” Justice Elena Kagan at the time, speaking from Swift’s point of view. “I just want a dollar, and that dollar is going to represent something both to me and to the world of women who have experienced what I’ve experienced.”
“What Taylor Swift wanted was, you know, vindication of the moral right, the legal right, that sexual assault is reprehensible and wrong,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett added later during the same arguments.
Maybe Swift’s case had an impact: Two months later, the Supreme Court ruled that litigants could indeed sue over the same kind of nominal damages Taylor had won against Mueller.
SoundCloud and veteran music executive Sickamore have partnered to launch IIIXL STUDIO, a Brooklyn-based enterprise devoted to signing and developing New York City artists, it was announced today (Nov. 1). The union between SoundCloud and Sickamore (born Randall Medford) will join the streaming company’s proprietary data and the executive’s eye for talent to scour through […]
Audius, a blockchain-based streaming platform, launched its music marketplace in beta on Wednesday (Nov. 1), meaning that its user base — which has ranged between 4 and 7 million in recent months — can now send direct payments to their favorite artists.
“We were a marketplace for engagement and attention,” Roneil Rumburg, co-founder/CEO of Audius, tells Billboard. “But talk to any artists — what’s top of mind for them is, ‘How am I going to pay rent next month?’ This feature allows them to make the following they have a financial asset. There’s a structure to monetize via Audius now rather than just building a fan base.”
More than 40 acts, including RAC, Matt Ox and Cheat Codes, will participate in the beta program, which Audius hopes to roll out widely in the first quarter of 2024. Artists can set prices for fans to stream a previously unreleased demo or download stems to participate in a remix competition, for example. And fans can pay artists more than that price if they’re particularly excited about an offering.
“What we heard [from users] is they were looking for a deeper way to engage with artists,” Romburg explains. He likens allowing them to tip extra on top to “the behavior pattern you see from the folks who buy vinyl even though they don’t have a record player at home — they want to support that artist.” (Users are further incentivized to support artists via a matching program: If an act sells access to a track for $1, for example, that act and the purchaser each get 1 $AUDIO tokens, which helps them gain more voting power on the community-run platform.)
Implementing a monetization option has also allowed Audius to build new bridges to the traditional music industry for the first time. “This monetization feature set saw fairly broad buy-in,” Rumburg says. The platform is partnering with DistroKid, allowing a large number of independent acts the option to put their music on Audius, and Beatport, an important hub for the dance music community. In addition, Audius is announcing its first set of label partners, a group that includes EMPIRE, Nettwerk Music, Circus Records and Anjunadeep, among others.
Rumburg cautions that “the way the deals with the labels coming on are structured, it’s not like their whole catalog gets shoved into Audius.”
“Uploading the same music that’s available everywhere else probably wouldn’t work,” he continues. “Where we’ve had the most success is when artists are sharing weird, different things that they probably wouldn’t feel comfortable sharing with their broader fan base. Something like sharing early draft versions of future content to get feedback — the most highly engaged part of the fan base loves that s—.”
But under the new deals, Romburg adds, “When content is shared on Audius that’s owned by a label, the payments will flow correctly.”
CTM Outlander has inked a deal with four-time BMI songwriter of the year winner Ross Copperman, including both the acquisition of Copperman’s catalog (via Iris in the Sky with Diamonds) as well as a publishing deal for his future works.
Copperman has had songs recorded by Keith Urban, Tyler Hubbard, Luke Bryan, Blake Shelton & Gwen Stefani, Gabby Barrett, Kenny Chesney & P!nk, Dierks Bentley, Brett Young, Darius Rucker and more. CTM will create new opportunities for Copperman through a creative partnership with SMACKSongs. Copperman was previously with Sony Music Publishing.
As part of the arrangement, CTM Outlander also acquires Copperman’s writer share for songs previously published by Plain Jane, including “Love Ain’t” by Eli Young Band, “Happy Anywhere” by Blake Shelton feat. Gwen Stefani, “Get Along” by Kenny Chesney and “Living” by Dierks Bentley.
Copperman said in a statement, “I am profoundly grateful for the opportunity to work alongside remarkable individuals like CTM and SMACK in my new team. CTM’s visionary leadership has already brought us exciting opportunities beyond Country, expanding our horizons. I’ve always held immense respect for SMACK, and I eagerly anticipate the promising collaborations and accomplishments that lie ahead.”
André de Raaff, CEO at CTM Outlander, said, “From the first moment we met Ross we felt his energy, passion and drive for music. His goal is set to break new artists and help creative new opportunities with the ones he’s already been working with. We are here to support him in any type of way and see Ross as somebody that is helping to develop the country music genre into a global genre.”
CTM Outlander is a partnership between the innovative and disruptive Dallas, Texas based Outlander Capital led by Les Ware and Mike McKool and the Dutch-based leading independent music entertainment company CTM, led by industry veteran André de Raaff. CTM Outlander previously acquired Shane McAnally‘s catalog earlier this year, in addition to other SMACKSongs works. In 2022, the CTM Outlander acquired catalogs of Natalie Hemby, Michael Tyler and Ben Burgess.
Mike McKool, director of CTM Outlander, said, “When we created CTM Outlander, we had no specific agenda as far as genre was concerned. It was only after meeting and developing relationships with the songwriting community in Nashville, that we decided to place an emphasis on country music. As we continue to invest and grow our portfolio, Ross is another example of the kind of artist we want to be in business with. We couldn’t be more excited to work with him moving forward, while also furthering our relationship with SMACKSongs.”
Robert Carlton, president of SMACKSongs, added, “SMACK is proud to further our partnership with CTM through this deal. Ross has been one of the premier writers and producers in Nashville over the last decade. We’ve been fortunate to share quite a bit of success with him through co-writes, but feel truly honored that he chose to entrust SMACK with this next chapter of his career.”
Kobalt, the digital-focused publishing administration company, has teamed up with investment funds managed by Morgan Stanley Tactical Value to invest more than $700 million into music IP in the next few years. The partnership will see Kobalt managing the creative, sync, licensing, administration and investment services for the copyrights that are purchased.
The deal, which was advised by Goldman Sachs, marks Kobalt’s return to managing investment for outside capital. Previously, Kobalt had two funds it worked with under Kobalt Capital, its investment management arm, both of which were sold in recent years. Kobalt’s first fund contained over 33,000 songs, including songs recorded by Lindsey Buckingham, Steve Winwood, the B52’s, 50 Cent, George Benson, Bonnie McKee, Nelly and Skrillex. It sold to Hipgnosis Songs Fund in late 2020 for a price tag of $323 million or 18.3 times the net publishers share, and it realized a $20 million gain for Kobalt. While it was the biggest sale for Kobalt at the time, the first fund represented less than 30% of Kobalt’s IP holdings at the time.
The second fund, Kobalt Music Royalty Fund II, sold to an investment group comprising of KKR and Dundee Partners the following year for $1.1 billion. To manage the investments of the royalty fund as well as other IP previously acquired by KKR, the partners formed a platform Chord Music Partners, which tapped Kobalt Music Publishing to continue to handle publishing administration for the works. The fund is believed to have included the SONGS publishing catalog, Insieme Music catalog, which it acquired from Glassnote, and the David Hodges catalog.
Since that sale, Kobalt has not worked with outside money for catalog acquisition.
Outside of Kobalt Capital, the publishing administrator, helmed by chief executive Laurent Hubert, has made a number of other major changes in its business. In 2021, it also sold off AWAL, the artist services company and distributor to some of music’s most successful independent talent, and its neighboring rights operations to Sony. In September 2022, following reports of its first-ever profitable year, Kobalt sold a majority stake to Francisco Partners.
“Kobalt is a pioneer in investing in music, increasing the value of copyrights, and creating music as a viable asset class,” says Hubert. “Morgan Stanley Tactical Value’s trust in Kobalt is a testament to our platform and leadership in the music industry. We are proud to form this unique partnership.”
“Morgan Stanley Tactical Value has profound respect for songwriters and the immense value of their art,” said Cameron Smalls, managing director, Morgan Stanley Tactical Value. “We are thrilled to partner with the leading creator-first publisher that is a pioneer in maximizing royalty collections for songwriters and rightsholders. Together with Kobalt’s infrastructure and deep commitment to bettering the music industry, we are excited about our partnership and the opportunities ahead.”
Colombian star Andrés Cepeda has signed a deal with Warner Music México, Billboard can announce today (Nov. 1). With this new alliance, the singer-songwriter of hits like “Desesperado” and “El Mensaje” seeks to continue developing his musical career in the coming years, according to a press release. “I feel very excited to start this new […]
In the TikTok era, homemade remixes of songs — typically single tracks that have been sped up or slowed down, or two tracks mashed together — have become ever more popular. Increasingly, they are driving viral trends on the platform and garnering streams off of it.
Just how popular? In April, Larry Mills, senior vp of sales at the digital rights tech company Pex, wrote that Pex’s tech found “hundreds of millions of modified audio tracks distributed from July 2021 to March 2023,” which appeared on TikTok, SoundCloud, Audiomack, YouTube, Instagram and more.
On Wednesday (Nov. 1), Mills shared the results of a new Pex analysis — expanded to include streaming services like Spotify, Apple Music, Deezer, and Tidal — estimating that “at least 1% of all songs on [streaming platforms] are modified audio.”
“We’re talking more than 1 million unlicensed, manipulated songs that are diverting revenue away from rightsholders this very minute,” Mills wrote, pointing to homemade re-works of tracks by Halsey or One Republic that have amassed millions of plays. “These can generate millions in cumulative revenue for the uploaders instead of the correct rightsholders.”
Labels try to execute a tricky balancing act with user-generated remixes. They usually strike down the most popular unauthorized reworks on streaming services and move to release their own official versions in an attempt to pull those plays in-house. But they also find ways to encourage fan remixing, because it remains an effective form of music marketing at a time when most promotional strategies have proved toothless. “Rights holders understand that this process is inevitable, and it’s one of the best ways to bring new life to tracks,” Meng Ru Kuok, CEO of music technology company BandLab, said to Billboard earlier this year.
Mills argues that the industry needs a better system for tracking user-generated remixes and making sure royalties are going into the right pockets. “While these hyper-speed remixes may make songs go viral,” he wrote in April, “they’re also capable of diverting royalty payments away from rights holders and into the hands of other creators.”
Since Pex sells technology for identifying all this modified audio, it’s not exactly an unbiased party. But it’s notable that streaming services and distributors don’t have the best track record when it comes to keeping unauthorized content of any kind off their platforms.
It hasn’t been unusual to find leaked songs — especially from rappers with impassioned fan bases like Playboi Carti and Lil Uzi Vert — on Spotify, where leaked tracks can often be found climbing the viral chart, or TikTok. An unreleased Pink Pantheress song sampling Michael Jackson’s classic “Off the Wall” is currently hiding in plain sight on Spotify, masquerading as a podcast.
“Historically, streaming services don’t have an economic incentive to actually care about that,” Deezer CEO Jeronimo Folgueira told Billboard earlier this year. “We don’t care whether you listen to the original Drake, fake Drake, or a recording of the rain. We just want you to pay $10.99.” Folgueira called that incentive structure “actually a bad thing for the industry.”
In addition, many of the distribution companies that act as middlemen between artists and labels and the streaming services operate on a volume model — the more content they upload, the more money they make — which means it’s not in their financial interest to look closely at what they send along to streaming services.
However, the drive to improve this system has taken on new urgency this year. Rights holders and streaming services are going back and forth over how streaming payments should work and whether “an Ed Sheeran stream is worth exactly the same as a stream of rain falling on the roof,” as Warner Music Group CEO Robert Kyncl told financial analysts in May. As the industry starts to move to a system where all streams are no longer created equal, it becomes increasingly important to know exactly what’s on these platforms so it can sort different streams into different buckets.
In addition, the advance of artificial intelligence-driven technology has allowed for easily accessible and accurate-sounding voice-cloning, which has alarmed some executives and artists in a way that sped-up remixes have not. “In our conversations with the labels, we heard that some artists are really pissed about this stuff,” says Geraldo Ramos, co-founder/CEO of the music-tech company Moises. “They’re calling their label to say, ‘Hey, it isn’t acceptable, my voice is everywhere.’”
This presents new challenges, but also perhaps means new opportunities for digital fingerprint technology companies, whether that’s stalwarts like Audible Magic or newer players like Pex. “With AI, just think how much the creation of derivative works is going to exponentially grow — how many covers are going to get created, how many remixes are gonna get created,” Audible Magic CEO Kuni Takahashi told Billboard this summer. “The scale of what we’re trying to identify and the pace of change is going to keep getting faster.”