copyright infringement
A former employee of Eminem (Marshall Mathers) has been criminally charged in connection with the sale of unreleased music by the rap superstar, it was announced by Acting U.S. Attorney Julie Beck on Wednesday (March 19). According to the criminal complaint, the FBI was contacted by employees of Eminem’s music studio in Ferndale, Michigan, to […]
Karol G and Universal Music Group (UMG) are facing a copyright infringement lawsuit over a track from the Colombian superstar’s chart-topping album Mañana Será Bonito. In a case filed in Miami federal court, producers Ocean Vibes (Jack Hernandez) and Alfr3d Beats (Dick Alfredo Caballero Rodriguez) say the singer and her co-writers stole key elements of […]
Sony Music is suing the University of Southern California (USC) for more than $25 million over claims that the college sports powerhouse illegally used songs by Michael Jackson, Beyonce and AC/DC in TikTok and Instagram videos hyping its teams.
In a complaint filed Tuesday (March 11) in New York federal court, the music giant says the school posted more than 250 videos featuring over 170 unlicensed tracks to its social media channels, including those by Britney Spears, Harry Styles, SZA, Mariah Carey, OutKast, Pink Floyd and Travis Scott.
“USC has one of the most lucrative college sports programs in the world, realizing over $200 million annually in revenues from its participation in a multi-billion dollar college sports,” the label’s attorneys write. “Despite having been on notice of its infringing conduct, USC has repeatedly failed to obtain licenses for its use of Sony Music sound recording.”
Trending on Billboard
Seeking $150,000 in so-called statutory damages for every song used, the lawsuit is demanding more than $25 million in potential damages — or more, if Sony can prove that it suffered even greater losses.
According to Sony Music, USC was notified of the problem as early as June 2021 and has been repeatedly warned since
“Rather than cease this infringing conduct, USC chose to flout copyright law, repeatedly posting new videos to the USC Social Media Pages that use Sony Music sound recordings knowingly and willfully and without permission,” the company wrote. “USC even left many uses available online after being put on notice from Sony Music that they were infringing.”
Social media platforms like TikTok and Instagram provide huge libraries of licensed music for users to add to their videos. But there’s a key restriction: The songs can’t be used for commercial or promotional videos posted by brands. That kind of content requires a separate “synch” license, just like any conventional advertisement on TV.
That crucial distinction has led to numerous lawsuits in recent years.
Beginning in 2021, all three majors sued drink maker Bang Energy over its TikTok videos, with Universal Music Group (UMG) and Sony Music eventually winning large judgments. In May, Sony filed a case against Marriott over accusations that the hotel chain had used nearly 1,000 of its songs in social media posts. In July, Kobalt and other publishers sued more than a dozen NBA teams over the same thing. The restaurant chain Chili’s has been sued twice, once by the Beastie Boys and later by UMG over tracks from Ariana Grande, Justin Bieber and dozens of other artists.
In Tuesday’s case against USC, attorneys for Sony say that the school’s own social media brand guidelines expressly warned against using copyrighted music in videos: “If you want to feature ‘popular music’ in your video, as in music you hear on the radio, you must license it from the publishing company and or record company,” USC’s guide allegedly reads.
“In flagrant disregard of this clear guidance, USC itself has distributed hundreds of videos (if not more) which contain infringing uses of Sony Music’s sound recordings,” Sony’s lawyers write in the lawsuit. “These uses were made without permission, without compensation to Sony Music and its artists, and in violation of USC’s own written guidelines.”
A spokesperson for USC did not immediately return a request for comment on Wednesday (March 12).
R&B star Chloe Bailey (performing as Chlöe) has been accused of failing to properly credit and pay a songwriter who worked on her album Trouble in Paradise and of commercially releasing the songs he wrote without his consent, according to court documents filed in the Southern District of New York on Thursday (Feb. 20).
In the lawsuit, filed by attorney Tyrone Blackburn, songwriter Melvin “4rest” Moore alleges that the actions of Bailey, along with her label Parkwood Entertainment and Columbia Records, constitute “copyright infringement, fraudulent misrepresentation, violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), civil conspiracy and deceptive business practices.”
According to the complaint, Bailey “fail[ed] to appropriately credit or compensate” Moore in connection with the songs he worked on for Trouble in Paradise — “Favorite,” “Might As Well” and “Same Lingerie” — which Moore says were written about his own “personal and…lived experiences.” It also claims that Moore “did not grant consent to the commercial exploitation of the [songs]” he wrote for Bailey and that he did not get an opportunity to “engage in good-faith negotiations” with Bailey’s team around contractual terms, citing an email from Moore’s attorney to Bailey’s counsel on Aug. 8, 2024.
Trending on Billboard
(Records from ASCAP and BMI’s Songview repertory, which contain official accounts about which writers and publishers worked on a given song, indicate that Moore is listed as a writer for “Same Lingerie” and “Might As Well” but not for “Favorite.”)
The lawsuit calls Bailey, Parkwood and Columbia “modern-day swindlers” and claims that Moore’s attorney “repeatedly made good-faith attempts to amicably resolve the matter of [Bailey, Parkwood and Columbia’s] unauthorized commercial exploitation of the works” over the course of “almost 200 days.”
After not being able to reach an agreement, Moore’s attorney says he issued a DMCA takedown notice, asking for the songs Moore worked on to be removed from the internet. The complaint adds that Moore’s team feels their takedown was “willfully and blatantly ignored.”
Moore is asking for monetary damages up to $150,000 for each intentional violation; a court order to stop further commercial use of the songs; a complete investigation of Bailey, Parkwood and Columbia’s revenue from unauthorized use of the songs; repayment of all profits gained from the songs; a requirement for defendants to publicly retract their claims and properly credit Moore; punitive damages of $5 million per song; and any additional relief the court finds appropriate.
Representatives for Bailey, Parkwood and Columbia Records did not respond to Billboard‘s requests for comment by press time.
The independent label and publishing company Artist Partner Group (APG) sued Create Music Group on Tuesday (Jan. 21), accusing the company of violating copyrights by uploading and monetizing songs it didn’t actually own. APG also accused Create of interfering with its artists’ contracts.
“Create’s ‘business model’ is to steal the intellectual property and contractual rights of innocent rightsholders,” APG’s attorney writes.
APG’s complaint argues that Create has engaged in several forms of copyright infringement, including by “unlawfully uploading” APG artists’ songs to streaming services” and “collecting royalties for them” as well as releasing a song called “Montagem Diamante Rosa” “which flagrantly copies” another composition that is owned by APG.
The suit also argues that Create approaches acts who have signed with APG and offers them YouTube monetization deals despite the fact that this service is already part of APG’s agreements with its artists. (Recording or publishing agreements typically give an artist’s partner the right to collect royalties across all the different platforms.) “Create and its subsidiaries wrongfully induced these artists to sign these bogus ‘contracts’ by falsely asserting that [APG was] purportedly doing a bad job exploiting their works and leaving money on the table (thereby damaging Plaintiffs’ reputation),” according to the complaint. “Create and its subsidiaries further falsely induced these artists by telling them that these ‘contracts’ do not violate [APG]’s rights.”
Trending on Billboard
In a statement, Jeff Movit, head of litigation for Chaudhry Law, said “our complaint demonstrates that APG will aggressively protect its contracts and copyrights.”
A representative for Create was not immediately available for comment.
Create was founded in 2015 and built its profile in the music industry through its YouTube royalties collection business. It has also branched out into other areas: Create owns other companies including Label Engine, a distributor; Flighthouse, a TikTok-focused digital media studio; and a majority stake in The Nations, a collection of popular YouTube channels.
While APG’s complaint is multifaceted, part of it focuses on Create’s business practices on YouTube: “Create and its subsidiaries have falsely filed claims with YouTube in which Defendants baselessly assert that they own rights in sound recordings and musical compositions that third parties have posted.”
This is not the first time that Create’s tactics on the popular video platform have drawn criticism. More than 10 executives told Billboard in 2022 that they knew of instances where Create claimed YouTube royalties it had no right to, sharing email threads and screenshots to back up their claims.
In an interview at the time, Create co-founder Jonathan Strauss denied these allegations. “We’ve never been sued by a lawyer or manager for this activity,” he added. “You would have to think if there was any truly egregious activity they would do that.”
Lawsuits are expensive and time-consuming. In October 2023, however, the music management company DigiGlo — whose clients include the rapper Chief Keef — sued Create, alleging that it “lost out on years of payments for its content monetization” for more than 400 works on YouTube because of Create’s refusal to honor contracts. DigiGlo estimated that it had lost “hundreds of thousands of dollars in revenue.”
Create filed a terse answer to DigiGlo’s complaint two months later, denying “each and every allegation.” The suit is ongoing. (Create also faced a lawsuit from Cinq Music Group in 2022 that revolved around the use of a Shiloh Dynasty sample, though a judge dismissed Cinq’s claims last year.)
Meanwhile, Create has been raising money. In June, the company announced that it had received a $165 million investment from the private equity firm Flexpoint Ford. “Flexpoint’s investment will support our ambitious acquisition strategy,” Strauss said in a statement at the time, and “allow us to expand our market presence and create the scale to continue to provide unparalleled services to our clients and partners.”
Rapper Plies is suing Megan Thee Stallion, GloRilla, Cardi B and Souja Boy for copyright infringement over allegations that the 2024 song “Wanna Be” features an uncleared sample from his 2008 track “Me & My Goons.”
The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in Los Angeles federal court, says the Megan and GloRilla stole Plies’ material indirectly – that they used a legally-licensed sample of a Soulja Boy song that itself illegally borrowed from “Goons.”
“Defendant Soulja Boy authorized Megan thee Stallion and GloRilla to sample [his song,]” lawyers for Plies write. “[Wanna Be] incorporates substantial elements of the copyrighted material underlying ‘Me & My Goons,’ without authorization from plaintiffs.”
Trending on Billboard
“Wanna Be,” released by Megan and GloRilla in early April, debuted at No. 11 on the Hot 100. A remix, featuring Cardi, was released in late May. The song features a prominent sample of Soulja Boy’s 2010 track “Pretty Boy Swag,” which spent 16 weeks on the chart that summer.
Plies (Algernod Washington), best known for his 2007 singles “Shawty” and “Hypnotized,” names all four stars (Megan Pete, Gloria Woods, Belcalis Almanzar and Deandre Way) as defendants in the lawsuit, as well as various companies and labels allegedly involved in the song.
Reps for the defendants did not immediately return requests for comment.
Lawsuits like the one Plies filed Wednesday – claiming that a legal sample featured an unlicensed sample – sound strange but aren’t uncommon. In the modern music industry, all samples in major releases are strictly cleared, and even borderline interpolations are often licensed to avoid any risk of litigation. But copyrighted material featured within the sampled songs can be trickier to identify.
Last month, a lawsuit filed by Barry White’s estate claimed that Future and Metro Boomin’s “Like That” sampled from a 1980s hip-hop song that had ripped off White’s music. And in May, a little known New Orleans group sued Beyoncé for the same thing over a sample of Big Freedia featured in “Break My Soul,” though they dropped the case several months later. White’s case remains pending; the case against Beyoncé was quickly dropped.
Read the entire lawsuit here:
Universal Music Group (UMG), ABKCO and Concord Music Group have filed a lawsuit against Believe and its distribution company TuneCore, accusing them of “massive ongoing infringements” of their sound recordings, including tracks by Justin Bieber, Ariana Grande, Rihanna, ABBA, Kendrick Lamar, Lady Gaga, DJ Snake, Aqua and more. The companies are seeking “at least $500,000,000” in damages.
In a complaint filed Monday evening (Nov. 4) in Manhattan federal court by Andrew Bart and Gianni Servodidio at Jenner & Block, UMG, ABKCO and Concord Music Group accuse Believe of being “overrun with fraudulent ‘artists’ and pirate record labels” and distributing copies of those fraudulent recordings to various streaming services and social media sites.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs claim that “Believe makes little effort to hide its illegal actions” and that the allegedly infringing recordings are “often minor variants on the names of… famous recording artists and titles of their most successful works.” The complaint says the alleged fraudsters attempt to avoid detection of the allegedly infringing recordings — some of which, they claim, are “sped up” or “remixed” versions of popular songs — by using misspellings of popular artist names, including “Kendrik Laamar,” “Arriana Gramde,” “Jutin Biber” and “Llady Gaga.”
Trending on Billboard
“Believe is fully aware that its business model is fueled by rampant piracy” in “pursuit of rapid growth,” the lawsuit claims, adding that the company has “turned a blind eye” to the infringing content that makes its way to social media and streaming services through its platform.
Additionally, lawyers for UMG and the other plaintiffs say that “Believe has taken advantage of the content management claiming system” on YouTube “to divert” and “delay… payment of royalties” that belong to the record labels. It is “telling,” they add, that after YouTube resolves these conflicts regarding the rightful ownership of these sound recordings, “Believe continue[s] to distribute the exact same track to other digital music service providers and to seek royalties for use of that track from those providers.”
This is not the first time bad actors have been accused of using YouTube’s content management system to claim royalties that are not rightfully theirs. In 2022, two men in Phoenix, Arizona pled guilty to claiming $23 million worth of YouTube royalties from unknowing Latin musicians like Julio Iglesias, Anuel AA, and Daddy Yankee despite having no actual ties to those artists. To facilitate claiming those royalties, the two men, operating under the company name MediaMuv, used AdRev, a rights management firm owned by Downtown.
“Believe is a company built on industrial-scale copyright infringement,” said a spokesperson for UMG in a statement. “Their illegal practices are not limited to cheating artists on major labels but artists on independent labels as well — including artists on the independent labels within the trade bodies of which Believe is itself a member. It’s no wonder that Believe has been outspoken against the streaming reform principles for which so many major and independent labels have been advocating. Why? Because such reforms would undermine and expose their system of building scale and market presence by distributing music for which they have no rights and illegally collecting royalties to enrich themselves and their co-conspirators.”
The complaint specifically charges Believe with direct copyright infringement, contributory copyright infringement, vicarious copyright infringement, direct infringement of pre-1972 sound recordings, contributory infringement of pre-1972 sound recordings and vicarious infringement of pre-1972 sound recordings.
Representatives for Believe and TuneCore did not immediately respond to Billboard‘s requests for comment.
It’s been a busy year for TuneCore’s parent company Believe. On March 1, the French music giant, which was publicly traded on the Euronext Paris stock exchange, announced that its board of directors had approved the move to take it private and that there was an “interested party” looking to acquire it. First, however, the bidder was requesting due diligence information and financial data ahead of making a formal bid. Later that month, the name of the bidder was revealed when it was announced that Warner Music Group (WMG) had issued a formal notice to disclose its interest in acquiring Believe, which also owns publishing administrator Sentric as well as labels like Naïve, Nuclear Blast and Groove Attack.
In early April, however, WMG called off its plans to submit a formal offer. The label did not elaborate on its decision, stating only that it was made “after careful consideration.” On April 19, Believe’s board of directors announced it was supporting an offer to take the company private at 15 euros ($15.98) per share from a consortium of funds managed by TCV, EQT X and Believe chairman/CEO Denis Ladegaillerie. The board’s three independent members unanimously voted in favor of an opinion that the bid was in the interest of minority shareholders.
Fraud and copyright infringement have been hot-button issues in the music business as the industry becomes more and more democratized, offering anyone the opportunity to release music in hours — sometimes minutes — at the click of a button. In response, TuneCore, along with CD Baby, Distrokid and other competitors, set up “Music Fights Fraud,” a coalition designed to stop bad actors from hopping from service-to-service to release songs they don’t own the rights to. A number of initiatives, including Credits Due, have since launched to try to fix metadata problems in the music business that can leave artists susceptible to royalty stealing and fraud, particularly on sites like YouTube.
Still, despite these efforts, TuneCore and other DIY distributors have been accused of allowing bad actors to use their sites to upload infringing or fraudulent content. In August 2020, Round Hill Music’s publishing arm sued TuneCore for “willful and unauthorized use” of 219 of their sound recordings. And in 2022, Billboard reported that some music executives believe Create Music Group games the system on YouTube to claim royalties, with one label source claiming the company was doing so “egregiously.”
Just last month, TikTok also rang the alarm bell about fraudulent content when it backed out of licensing negotiations with Merlin, a coalition of indie labels and distributors, to allegedly curb users uploading works they don’t own the rights to on the platform. TikTok said it would instead pursue individual licensing deals with labels and distributors that it considered to be safe.
Ed Sheeran’s “Thinking Out Loud” did not infringe the copyright to Marvin Gaye‘s “Let’s Get It On,” a federal appeals court ruled Friday (Nov. 1), saying the two songs share only “fundamental musical building blocks” that cannot be owned by any single songwriter.
In a ruling issued more than a decade after Sheeran’s chart-topping hit was first released, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rejected an infringement lawsuit filed by Structured Asset Sales, a company that owns a small stake in the rights to Gaye’s song.
The case argued that Sheeran’s song copied a chord progression and rhythm from Gaye’s, but the appeals court said the lawsuit was essentially seeking “a monopoly over a combination of two fundamental musical building blocks.”
Trending on Billboard
“The four-chord progression at issue—ubiquitous in pop music—even coupled with a syncopated harmonic rhythm, is too well-explored to meet the originality threshold that copyright law demands,” a panel of appeals court judges wrote. “Overprotecting such basic elements would threaten to stifle creativity and undermine the purpose of copyright law.”
Looking at the two songs more broadly, the Second Circuit also ruled that Sheeran’s track was clearly not similar enough to Gaye’s to amount to copyright infringement: “Neither the melody nor the lyrics of ‘Thinking Out’ Loud bears any resemblance to those in ‘Let’s Get It On.’ Undeniable and obvious differences exist between them.”
Sheeran has faced multiple lawsuits over “Thinking,” a 2014 track co-written with Amy Wadge that reached No. 1 on the Billboard Hot 100 and ultimately spent 46 weeks on the chart. He was first sued by the daughter of Ed Townsend, who co-wrote the famed 1973 tune with Gaye. That case ended in a high-profile trial last year, resulting in a jury verdict that cleared Sheeran of any wrongdoing.
The case decided on Friday is a separate lawsuit filed by SAS, an entity owned by industry executive David Pullman that controls a different one-third stake in Townsend’s copyrights — meaning a one-ninth stake in the rights to Gaye’s iconic track. In May, weeks after the big jury verdict, a federal judge tossed out the SAS lawsuit, ruling that it was seeking an “impermissible monopoly over a basic musical building block.”
In upholding that decision on Friday, the Second Circuit echoed the earlier ruling’s concern about overprotecting copyrights and threatening future songwriting.
The chord progression and harmonic rhythm at issue in the case are “garden variety” elements that had been used in numerous songs, the appeals court said, pointing to evidence that they had appeared in “Georgy Girl” by The Seekers and “Since I Lost My Baby” by The Temptations — two tracks that predated Gaye’s song by years. The appeals court noted that there is a “limited number of notes and chords available” and that “common themes frequently reappear.”
“In the field of popular songs, many, if not most, compositions bear some similarity to prior songs,” the court wrote, quoting from a treatise on copyright law. “So while a similar chord progression and harmonic rhythm may create a similar sound and feel, that is not enough.”
The ruling is a major victory for Sheeran, but the battle over “Thinking” isn’t quite over yet. SAS also has another lawsuit against Sheeran pending, advancing an unorthodox effort to cite a more expansive copyright covering the sound recording to “Let’s Get It On” rather than the written music. That case has been paused while the earlier lawsuit played out.
In a statement to Billboard following Friday’s decision, SAS owner Pullman criticized the appeals court for citing “two songs out of over 60 million registered songs” in its analysis. And he stressed that the decision had not addressed his company’s arguments relying on a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision about federal regulatory power.
Sheeran’s attorney, Donald Zakarin of the law firm Pryor Cashman, told Billboard that he and his clients were “gratified” by the court’s ruling: “This ruling is consistent with the jury’s rejection of any claim of infringement in the [earlier] case, finding that Ed and Amy independently created ‘Thinking Out Loud.’”
Universal Music Group (UMG) has filed a lawsuit claiming Chili’s used more than 60 copyrighted songs from Ariana Grande, Justin Bieber and others on social media without permission, just months after the Beastie Boys accused the restaurant chain of the same thing.
In a complaint filed Tuesday (Oct. 10) in Manhattan federal court, the music giant accused Chili’s owner Brinker International Inc. of willfully using unlicensed music in dozens of promotional videos across YouTube, TikTok, Instagram and Facebook.
“In order to draw the attention of consumers in the fast-moving world of social media, defendants chose to rely on the use of popular music as an integral part of their Chili’s messaging,” UMG’s lawyers write. “But despite this success, defendants have failed to pay plaintiffs for the music that serves as the soundtrack for Chili’s social media ads.”
Trending on Billboard
In addition to Grande and Bieber, UMG says the videos featured music from dozens of other stars, including Mariah Carey, Lady Gaga, Snoop Dogg, Lana Del Rey, ABBA, Luke Bryan, Travis Scott, Bruno Mars, Lil Nas X, Earth Wind & Fire, The Weeknd and more.
The new case comes less than three months after Chili’s was accused of largely the same thing by the Beastie Boys. In that case, which remains pending, the iconic rap trio accuses the restaurant of using their 1994 smash “Sabotage” online, including in a video that mimicked the song’s 1970s-themed music video.
Social media platforms like Instagram and TikTok provide huge libraries of licensed music for users to add to their videos. But there’s a key exception: The songs can’t be used for commercial or promotional videos posted by brands. That kind of content requires a separate “synch” license, just like any conventional advertisement on television.
That crucial distinction has led to numerous lawsuits in recent years.
Beginning in 2021, all three major labels sued drink maker Bang Energy for using hundreds of copyrighted songs in promotional TikTok videos, with Universal and Sony eventually winning large judgments. In May, Sony filed a case against Marriott over accusations that the hotel chain had used nearly 1,000 of its songs in social media posts. And in July, Kobalt and other publishers sued more than a dozen NBA teams over the same thing.
In Tuesday’s case against Chili’s, UMG argued that a sophisticated company with more than 1,600 restaurant locations would have known that it needed sync licenses to use well-known music in ads — or at least that it should have known.
“Defendants include successful companies promoting multiple restaurant franchises with their own legal departments and protecting their own intellectual property interests,” UMG’s lawyers write. “Despite defendants’ prior history of licensing music from plaintiffs for use in commercials, defendants did not seek to determine which of the videos at issue in this complaint used plaintiffs’ musical works.”
Brinker did not immediately return a request for comment.
Barry White’s estate is suing over allegations that a prominent sample at the heart of Future and Metro Boomin’s chart-topping “Like That” infringes the copyright to a 1973 song by the legendary singer — but they aren’t accusing the stars of any wrongdoing.
In a complaint filed last week in Manhattan federal court, White’s estate claimed that a 1986 hip-hop song called “Everlasting Bass” by the duo Rodney-O (Rodney Oliver) & Joe Cooley stole key elements from White’s 1973 song “I’m Gonna Love You Just a Little More Baby.”
Attorneys for the White estate say they waited nearly four decades to sue over the song because it was “released prior to the internet and was not widely distributed,” leaving the estate “unaware of the song when it was first released.”
Trending on Billboard
White’s heirs are certainly aware of “Everlasting” now, and it’s not hard to guess why: The song was heavily sampled in “Like That,” which debuted at No. 1 on the Hot 100 earlier this year — so prominently that Future and Metro Boomin credited Rodney-O & Joe Cooley as co-writers.
By using an infringing sample, the lawsuit claims that “Like That” also infringes White’s copyrights: “‘Like That’ copies substantial elements of ‘I’m Gonna Love You Just A Little More, Babe’ … including but not limited to the iconic, immediately recognizable bass line,” the estate wrote in its Thursday (Oct. 3) complaint.But crucially, the White estate isn’t accusing Future, Metro Boomin or co-creator Kendrick Lamar of any legal wrongdoing. The lawsuit pins the blame solely on Rodney-O & Joe Cooley, saying they agreed to defend the stars against such accusations when they cleared the sample.
The duo did not immediately return a request for comment on the lawsuit’s allegations.
Released in March as the third single off Future and Metro’s collaborative album We Don’t Trust You, “Like That” reigned at No. 1 for three weeks and spent another 28 weeks on the chart. At the time of its debut, most of the focus was on the lyrics — since the track was one of the early salvos in the diss war between Kendrick and Drake.
But the underlying music featured a sample from “Everlasting Bass,” a classic early hip-hop track that’s also been sampled by Three 6 Mafia, Lil Wayne and E-40. In an April interview with Vibe, Rodney-O said he loved what Future and Metro did with his song.
“It is crazy because the song was big when it came out and for it to be even bigger now all these years later, it’s crazy,” he said. “I heard the song, I knew it was good, but when it comes out and the world hears it how you hear it and react to it the way you reacted to it, that’s confirmation.”
As for White’s song, “Gonna Love You” is one of the legendary singer’s top commercial hits, peaking at No. 3 on the Hot 100 in June 1973 and ultimately spending 18 weeks on the chart.