copyright infringement
Page: 4
Drake is facing a new copyright lawsuit claiming he used an unlicensed sample from the song of a Ghanaian rapper on his chart-topping 2022 album, Honestly, Nevermind.
In a case filed Tuesday (April 18) in Manhattan federal court, an artist named Obrafour (real name Michael Elliot Kwabena Okyere Darko) claims Honestly, Nevermind track “Calling My Name” features a short clip of a vocal phrase — “Killer cut, blood, killer cut” — that was pulled directly from Obrafour’s earlier song, “Oye Ohene.”
Unlike many such cases, Obrafour claims to have smoking gun evidence: An email from someone at Republic Records seeking to clear the clip. The June 2022 note allegedly admitted that Drake had already “used samples from the above referenced song” and wanted permission to release it.
But according to the lawsuit, Drake’s album and song — complete with the unlicensed sample — were released just nine days later, before Obrafour had a chance to respond to the email.
“Defendants continue to engage in infringement, despite acknowledging that they needed to secure rights and authorization from Obrafour,” lawyers for the Ghanaian rapper wrote. “Defendants have never accounted to, credited, or otherwise compensated Obrafour for their unauthorized use of the copyrighted work.”
Honestly, Nevermind, which was surprise-released on June 17, 2022, debuted at No. 1 on the Billboard 200 and spent 43 weeks on the chart, though “Calling My Name” was less successful; the track debuted at No. 20 on the Hot 100 but dropped off the following week.
According to his lawsuit, Obrafour received an email nine days earlier bearing the subject line: “Drake ‘Darkness’ (working title) contains samples from ‘Oye Ohene’ Ft Tinny written and performed by Obrafour.”
The sender told Obrafour that they were “currently working on a sample clearance for Republic recording artist Drake” and were seeking “consent for both the master rights and publishing rights” to the clip. On June 13, Obrafuour received a second email that read: “Hi confirming you received this email thanks.”
Then he, says, the album dropped.
“Obrafour had not yet responded to the June 8, 2022 clearance email or the follow-up June 13, 2022 clearance email at the point when Drake’s ‘Honestly, Nevermind’ album was released,” his lawyers wrote in the complaint. “Nonetheless, the infringing work is one of the songs appearing on the “Honestly, Nevermind” album, as released to the world by ‘surprise’ on June 17, 2022.”
Reps for Drake and Republic Records did not immediately return requests for comment.
Sony Music Entertainment has quietly been battling for more than two years against the creator of a popular TikTok song over allegations that he prominently sampled a 1986 track by Japanese composer Toshifumi Hinata without “paying a cent.”
In a lawsuit first filed in December and refiled this week, Sony claims that Trefuego (real name Dantreal Daevon Clark-Rainbolt) made “flagrant” use of Hinata’s “Reflections” in his own song “90mh” — a track that’s allegedly been featured in 155,000 videos on TikTok and been streamed 100 million times on Spotify since it was released in 2019.
“In copying the ‘Reflections’ musical composition and sound recording, Trefuego brazenly sought to ride the coattails of Hinata’s creativity and popularity without regard to the United States copyright laws or the rights of Plaintiffs,” the label’s attorneys wrote.
Sony says it first took action back in January 2021, notifying Trefuego of the “infringing nature” of his song. After he allegedly refused to remove the song himself, the company filed takedown requests in August 2022 to get it pulled from TikTok, YouTube and Spotify. The company first sued Trefuego in December in Arizona federal court but refiled the case on Monday (March 20) in Texas federal court.
A manager for Trefuego did not immediately return a request for comment on Wednesday.
An instrumental featuring strings and piano, “Reflections” was released on a 1986 album but has made recent appearances in Netflix’s 2020 film Tigertail and in popular ambient music playlists on Spotify. Amid a “surge” in interest in such music on TikTok and other platforms, Sony says it’s been “highly selective” about allowing the song to be used, granting licenses “only for those projects that Hinata himself might endorse.”
But Trefuego “simply stole” the sample, Sony says.
“Trefuego took a very different approach,” the company claims. “He used and copied plaintiffs’ work without so much as asking, or paying a cent to plaintiffs, and he continued to exploit that music despite plaintiffs’ demand that he stop.”
In terms of the specific music borrowed, Sony claims that Trefuego sampled a 15-note melodic strings sequence accompanied by a looping chord progression played on the piano. That clip is looped throughout the entirety of “90mh,” Sony says.
“Trefuego’s infringement is blatant,” the company wrote. “[His] use of ‘Reflections’ permeates the entirety of the infringing works, and for many listeners, is the only reason they listen to them.”
An attorney for Sony did not immediately return a request for additional comment on the dispute with Trefuego.
The Rolling Stones members Mick Jagger and Keith Richards were hit with a copyright lawsuit on Friday (March 10) claiming their 2020 single “Living in a Ghost Town” — a rare new song from the rock legends — lifted material from a pair of little-known earlier tracks.
In a lawsuit filed in New Orleans federal court, songwriter Sergio Garcia Fernandez (stage name Angelslang) is claiming that Jagger and Richards “misappropriated many of the recognizable and key protected elements” from his 2006 song “So Sorry” as well as his 2007 tune “Seed of God.”
How would members of the iconic band have heard those songs, which have less than 1,000 spins on Spotify? Fernandez claims he gave a demo CD to “an immediate family member” of Jagger.
“The immediate family member … confirmed receipt … to the plaintiff via e-mail, and expressed that the musical works of the plaintiff and its style was a sound The Rolling Stones would be interested in using,” Fernandez’s lawyers wrote in Friday’s complaint.
A copy of the alleged email from Jagger’s relative was not included in public filings.
Released at the peak of the COVID-19 shutdowns in April 2020, “Living in a Ghost Town” was the first original material released by the Stones since 2012. The song, a blues-rock tune with reggae influences accompanied by a COVID-themed video, reached No. 3 on the Hot Rock & Alternative Songs chart in May 2020.
But Fernandez says the new song was created by borrowing key features from his songs, including the “vocal melodies, the chord progressions, the drum beat patterns, the harmonica parts, the electric bass line parts, the tempos, and other key signatures” from “So Sorry” and the “harmonic and chord progression and melody” from “Seed of God.”
“Defendants never paid plaintiff, nor secured the authorization for the use of ‘So Sorry’ and ‘Seed of God,’ his lawyers wrote.
A rep for The Rolling Stones did not immediately return a request for comment on Friday evening.
Lawyers for Ed Sheeran’s copyright accusers are firing back at the star’s efforts to ban an infamous YouTube clip from an upcoming trial over “Thinking Out Loud,” calling the video “among the most important and critical evidence in this case.”
With a trial looming in April over whether Sheeran’s smash hit infringed Marvin Gaye‘s “Let’s Get It On,” a pre-game showdown is brewing over whether jurors will get to watch the YouTube video. In it, Sheeran draws cheers at a 2014 concert by seamlessly toggling between the two songs.
Earlier this month, the star’s lawyers argued that the clip will confuse jurors. While such a performance might appear to be evidence of illegal copying, Sheeran’s lawyers argued that it really only showed that both songs feature a common chord progression that’s “freely available to all songwriters.”
But in a response on Thursday (Feb. 23), lawyers for Sheeran’s accusers said the clip was obviously relevant to the core dispute in the case: whether “Thinking Out Loud” shares enough similarities with “Let’s Get It On” to constitute copyright infringement.
“The video of the medley at issue provides helpful guidance to highlight and/or illustrate those similarities and why they are significant,” attorney Patrick Frank wrote. “The medley which defendants belatedly seek to exclude from admission at trial … is among the most important and critical evidence in the case.”
The current case against Sheeran was filed way back in 2017 by heirs of Ed Townsend, who co-wrote “Let’s Get It On.” Gaye’s heirs, who once famously sued Robin Thicke over accusations that his “Blurred Lines” was stolen from the legendary singer, are not involved in the case.
Sheeran’s lawyers have long argued that the star did nothing wrong, since “Thinking Out Loud” and “Let’s Get It On” share only “unprotectable and commonplace elements” that are not covered by copyright law. But Judge Louis D. Stanton has repeatedly refused to decide the case in their favor, ruling that the dispute is close enough that it must be decided by a jury.
In the lead-up to the trial, attorneys for the Townsend heirs filed a formal notice that they planned to play the YouTube clip for jurors. In the video — a six-minute snippet of a November 2014 concert in Zurich, Switzerland that’s been viewed nearly 300,000 times — Sheeran abruptly switches from “Thinking” to “Let’s” and back again, drawing huge cheers from the crowd.
In Thursday’s new filing, those same lawyers pointed out that the judge overseeing the case previously singled out the YouTube clip as potential evidence that might resonate with jurors, saying they “may be impressed” by the footage. “Presumably, if the court believed that the video … would be improper for a jury to view at trial, the court would have been reticent to state a jury’s possible interest in the same,” the Townsend lawyers wrote this week.
In seeking to exclude the clip, Sheeran’s lawyers argued earlier this month that allowing such evidence could have a broader “chilling effect” on the music industry and on medleys, which they called an “important, enduring aspect of live concerts.” But in Thursday’s response, the lawyers for the Townsend heirs sharply disagreed.
“Defendants have provided nothing beyond mere speculation that the inclusion of directly relevant evidence … would have any collateral impact on any aspect of the concert industry.”
An attorney for Sheeran declined to comment on the new filing. But earlier on Thursday, the star’s lawyers filed a motion arguing that the deadline for such a response had already expired; they can file a formal reply brief in the weeks ahead.
Music publishing companies Reservoir Media Management and PopArabia are suing Anghami Technologies Limited and its parent, Nasdaq-listed Anghami Inc., the Middle East’s largest legal streaming company, for copyright infringement related to a dozen Western and Arabic songs from artists like Lil Jon, 50 Cent and Kelly Clarkson.
The suit was filed Dec. 22 at the Abu Dhabi Global Markets Court.
In the filing, a copy of which Billboard procured, the court says the claim by Reservoir and PopArabia involves “the exploitation of a small number of songs in one territory” but that “the Anghami service exploits a very large number of songs in numerous territories across the Middle East region and beyond.”
Anghami is primarily a freemium audio-streaming service that says it has more than 73 million users across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), Europe and the United States, and a library of over 57 million songs. The service, which was launched by co-founders Elie Habib and Eddy Maroun in Beirut in 2012, relocated its headquarters in 2021 from Lebanon to Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates, where it’s part of the Abu Dhabi Global Market. (Anghami also operates a subscription service called “Anghami Plus” that allows users to download songs.)
PopArabia, which describes itself as the “leading music publisher” in the MENA region, is also based out of Abu Dhabi. In 2020, PopArabia entered into a joint venture with Reservoir to sign and develop Arab talent
The suit names 12 songs, including such international hits as “Take Me Home, Country Roads,” by John Denver; “Candy Shop,” written by Scott Storch and 50 Cent; “Yeah!” written by Lil Jon; “I Gotta Feeling,” co-written by Frédéric Riesterer; “Havana,” “Señorita” and “Break My Heart,” co-written by Ali Tamposi; and “Because Of You,” written by Kelly Clarkson, David Hodges and Ben Moody.
The Arabic tracks are “Laa,” written by Bassem Funky and Dok Dok; “Number 1,” written by Mohamed Saber, Fawzy Hassan, Islam Mohamed Ali and Abdel Hakim; and “LV COCO” and “Hallelujah” by Moroccan hip-hop star 7Liwa.
Reservoir and PopArabia are seeking an injunction to restrain Anghami from infringing its copyrights, as well as unspecified damages, interest and costs. The applicable law for the claim is U.K. Private International Law, the court says.
In an email response to Billboard, Saurabh Poddar, Anghami’s head of licensing, says the company intends to defend itself against the lawsuit. “Despite having this claim for a handful of songs, we assert that Anghami is more than willing to sign a license with publishers no matter how small or big they are, as long as such license is negotiated and implemented with a scientific method with regards to identification of actual market share, legal capacity and provided representation is confirmed especially in the case of a sub-publisher,” Poddar says.
A spokesperson for PopArabia says the company does not comment on ongoing litigation but notes that “we do take the protection of our rights and those of songwriters very seriously and believe it is essential to the development of a healthy ecosystem for music creators, which we have championed for in the UAE for over a decade.”
Anghami says on its website that it has licensing agreements in place with major international and Arabic music labels, as well as with “thousands of independent labels and distributors.”
In their suit, Reservoir and PopArabia counter that “while [Anghami] may indeed have licensed the copyright in certain sound recordings from record companies, it has not…obtained any license to use the underlying musical and lyrical works which are embodied in the sound recordings which it offers to consumers for streaming and downloading, or to reproduce the lyrics of those Songs.”
Two sources with knowledge of the case tell Billboard that in the past Anghami has questioned PopArabia about whether the company owns the rights it says it does. “In these court cases, one of the things that they will always challenge you on is the chain of title,” says a leading executive from a global publishing company who spoke to Billboard on background. “It’s much easier for PopArabia to instigate the case using [a handful of] works that they have directly signed to them.”
Licensing negotiations between PopArabia and Anghami were ongoing for at least three years before they reached a stalemate, says the source. “That’s when the question was raised, are they actually genuine in these attempts to license?”
Abu Dhabi-based media executive Michael Garin, who says he has seen the correspondence between the two companies, tells Billboard that Anghami has made licensing deals with the three major record companies, “who clearly protect their [own] intellectual property rights.” But in the case of Anghami, “it’s my understanding that for 10 years they’ve been using music from the region and from smaller publishers who they just felt were either too ignorant, too disorganized [or] too naive to ever sue for the collection of their rights,” says Garin, the former CEO of film and entertainment company Image Nation and media hub twofour54, of which PopArabia is “an investment and portfolio company.” (Anghami did not respond to Garin’s assertions.)
Garin, who until recently was also the director-general of the Abu Dhabi Creative Media Authority, a governmental organization, says he has been “working for the past decade to help protect the intellectual property rights of content creators.”
On the support section of its website, Anghami says it generates and pays out royalties after deducting 8% for publishing rights from revenues to be paid to music-collecting societies such as SACEM. However, SACEM no longer has a licensing deal with the platform.
“In 2018, we succeeded in getting a settlement with Anghami to cover the period of exploitation [from 2012] until 2018, but from 2019 we do not have any agreement,” says Julien Dumon, the director of development, phono and digital at SACEM. Significantly, the deal, which excluded the United States, covered usage in Europe and the Middle East. Talks for a renewal have been ongoing since 2019, says Dumon.
“We have been negotiating for close to five years now,” he says. “The fact that nothing has been signed whereas on the other side, SACEM has been able to close deals within a year with all the other actors in the industry clearly demonstrates that Anghami is not willing to properly engage and get an agreement in place.” (Anghami did not respond to a question about negotiations with SACEM.)
The Middle East and North Africa is the fastest-growing music market in the world, as per the IFPI’s Global Music Report for 2022, which said revenues from recorded music in the region grew by 35% in 2021 to $89.5 million. Streaming accounts for 95% of those revenues. A consumer research study conducted by the IFPI in April surveyed over 1,500 people aged 16 to 44 in the UAE and found that 54% of the respondents “typically listen to at least one Middle Eastern genre.”
With a claimed 58% share of the music streaming market in the region, Anghami is the dominant player; at least one report has said that Spotify was considering buying the streamer.
According to a source close to the matter, Anghami initially submitted a jurisdictional challenge to the case filed by Reservoir and PopArabia and subsequently withdrew it. The streamer now has about a month to file a response in the ADGM Court.
Beyond the copyright lawsuit, Anghami faces other challenges. The streaming service said in November that it was trimming its headcount by 22%, or roughly 39 employees, in order to maintain profitability. And on Jan. 9 the company received a notice from the Nasdaq indicating Anghami was not in compliance with the stock market’s listing rules due to its failure to file an interim balance sheet and income statement for its second quarter of 2022, according to a company filing. Nasdaq gave the company until Mar. 10 to submit a plan to regain compliance.
Bad Bunny‘s label and management company, Rimas Entertainment, is responding to accusations the super star artist “illegally used” an Afro-pop act’s song. Bunny’s team responded by saying they paid to use the material in question and, hence, its use in the track “Enséñame a Bailar” was not infringement.
Earlier on Thursday (Feb. 9), emPawa Africa founder Mr Eazi — himself a popular Nigerian singer — issued a press release claiming Bad Bunny used his artist Joeboy‘s song “Empty My Pocket” without consent in the track “Enséñame a Bailar” off Bad Bunny’s blockbuster 2022 album, Un Verano Sin Ti. Mr Eazi claimed he had been trying to settle the case privately since the record’s release nine months ago.
Listen to the first few seconds of two songs and the case could seem obvious. The jubilant rhythms of the Dëra-produced Joeboy track “Empty My Pocket” appear prominently as an interpolation and at the 2:30 minute mark on “Enséñame a Bailar,” where one can even faintly hear Joeboy’s vocals.
“We will not accept Bad Bunny and Rimas denying Joeboy and Dëra credits and a share in the ownership of a song they wrote, composed and, in Joeboy’s case, even performed on,” said Ikenna Nwagboso, co-founder and head of label services, distribution, and publishing with emPawa Africa, in a statement. “Give Joeboy his credit, publishing and royalties on the song, and give Dëra a producer credit alongside those already given to Bad Bunny’s Producers.”
emPawa Africa is demanding that Bad Bunny and Rimas Music grant Joeboy publishing, songwriting and feature credits on “Enséñame a Bailar,” and credit Dëra as the track’s co-producer. Though the statement seemed to threaten legal action, no lawsuit has yet been filed.
Not so fast, says Rimas Entertainment, which is denying any wrongdoing.
“We are deeply concerned by the copyright infringement accusations made by Oluwatosin Oluwole Ajibade (Mr Eazi), the founder of emPawa Africa, on the track ‘Enséñame a Bailar,’” a company spokesperson told Billboard Español in a statement. “We want to make it clear that at all times, Rimas Entertainment has acted properly and has followed standard industry protocols.”
The Rimas statement continues, “Before releasing [‘Enséñame a Bailar’], Rimas purchased the master track from record producer Lakizo Entertainment, listed as the track’s creator and owner in numerous public sources [editor’s note: including Spotify as of Thursday]. After the [‘Enséñame a Bailar’] release last year, emPawa contacted us, claiming ownership over the master. Our lawyers have had many communications with emPawa in an effort to resolve the ownership dispute between emPawa and Lakizo, but emPawa has so far failed to provide proof of ownership. Instead, emPawa has chosen only to send us a heavily redacted contract that did not confirm their claims and only served to raise more questions about the validity of their claims. Our numerous efforts to obtain the unredacted version of the agreement from emPawa have not been successful. It is entirely untrue that we have been unresponsive.”
For an artist to sample another act’s track, they must typically clear master and publishing rights for the recording and underlying composition, respectively. At time of publishing, a Rimas could not confirm whether the company had secured rights use the “Empty My Pocket” composition, but in the company’s statement noted, “Regarding the song’s composition, emPawa has also failed to forward documents to prove that they are authorized to act on the writer’s behalf.”
The Rimas statement concluded, “We look forward to resolving this matter cordially and are waiting for emPawa to provide us with the necessary documents that validate their claims.”
In 2019, Mr Eazi and Bad Bunny actually collaborated on the outro track “Como Un Bebé” — produced by Nigerian duo Legendury Beatz — off Bunny and J Balvin’s joint album Oasis.
Un Verano Sin Ti was released on May 6, 2022, becoming just the second Spanish-language album to reach No. 1 on the 66-year old chart Billboard 200. (the first was Bunny’s previous album, 2020’s El Último Tour del Mundo). It also became Spotify and Apple Music’s most-streamed album in the U.S. and globally.
HipHopWired Featured Video
Source: LULULEMON / LULULEMON
Nike continues to fiercely protect their trademark. The Swoosh is suing Lululemon for infringement for a second time.
As spotted on Hypebeast the Beaverton, Oregon-based brand believes the Athleisure imprint has repurposed their signature Flyknit technology for their own sneaker releases. The shoes in question include the Blissfeel, Strongfeel, Chargefeel Low and Chargefeel Low. According to Lulu’s website the Blissfeel, a runner exclusively for women, boasts that their “Comfort-focused upper moves like a supportive extension of your foot.” Nike claims its three patents at issue concern textile and other elements, including one addressing how the footwear will perform when force is applied; specifically “fabric that fits like a sock”.
A representative from Lululemon says “Nike’s claims are unjustified, and we look forward to proving our case in court” in a statement to Business Insider.
This is not the first time Nike has taken umbrage with Lulu. Back in January of 2022 they sued Lulu over their newly acquired Mirror Home Gym claiming they infringed on six Nike patents including determining a user’s exertion through sensory data and Mirror’s “Face Off” feature which allows users to compete against each other in workouts. Lululemon purchased Mirror Home Gym back in July 2020 for an estimated $435 million dollars. Recently Nike filed legal complaints against BAPE whose signature BAPESTA sneaker is a clone of the iconic Air Force 1.
Photo: Lululemon
HipHopWired Featured Video
Source: Tim Roney / Getty
Yung Gravy should be enjoying the fruits of his virtual track “Betty (Get Money)” that’s all the rage on social media. However, the Rochester, Minn. rapper is facing a lawsuit from 1980s hitmaker Rick Astley for an unauthorized imitation of the British singer’s voice.
Deadline reports that Yung Gravy, 26, sampled Astley’s “Never Gonna Give You Up” track from 1987. According to the suit, Astley, 56, approved the sample of the original but did not authorize Gravy to hire a performer to imitate his voice.
The suit was filed in Los Angeles and states that only the instrumentals to “Never Gonna Give You Up” were licensed and that Astley’s voice was a “resource that needs to be carefully managed.”
The outlet obtained the legal filing which cites Yung Gravy and producer Dillion Francis “conspired to include a deliberate and nearly indistinguishable imitation of Mr. Astley’s voice throughout the song.”
Also named in the lawsuit is Nick Seeley, better known as Popnick, who performed the vocal impersonation.
According to Astley’s filing, the impersonation upended a future collaboration with another artist who wanted to use Astley’s vocals.
Yung Gravy has not made a public response to the lawsuit.
[embedded content]
—
Photo:
Bad Bunny has reached a tentative settlement in a lawsuit that accused the Puerto Rican superstar and his collaborators of “unauthorized incorporation” of three DJ Playero songs into his 2020 track “Safaera,” according to legal documents obtained by Billboard.
The “settlement in principle” was reached Jan. 17 after both parties — in this case, Bunny and the Florida-based company AOM Music — participated in a mediation. After notice of the settlement was filed with the court, a federal judge in California suspended future hearings in the case.
The court document notes that the process will “take some time since the settlement is complex and will require the review and approval of multiple corporate and individual parties.” The parties are required to submit a joint report on the status of the settlement if a dismissal of the case hasn’t been filed by Feb. 17.
Filed by AOM Music, also known as BM Records, on Sept. 27, 2021, the lawsuit claimed that Bad Bunny “stole” samples from reggaeton pioneer DJ Playero’s “Besa Tu Cuerpo,” “Chocha Con Bicho” and “Sigan Bailando” for “Safaera,” a global hit that was included on the superstar’s history-making album YHLQMDLG. “No license or authorization was obtained,” the suit alleged.
After the complaint was filed, DJ Playero took to Instagram with a statement clarifying he knew nothing of the lawsuit and had nothing but respect for all the artists involved. “I am proud that I was part of opening the doors to these artists who are known worldwide today,” he wrote, “a song that sounds on the radio and in the world with part of a track of mine is a beautiful feeling that no one can imagine.”
Produced by Tainy, DJ Orma and Subelo Neo, the nearly five-minute “Safaera” — which features Jowell & Randy and Ñengo Flow — is a mashup of old school perreo and reggaetón beats and samples and interpolates various classic hits, including the signature six-note hook to Missy Elliott’s “Get Ur Freak On.”
When it was released in early 2020, “Safaera” was temporarily pulled from Spotify due to a claim that a fragment of the song had not cleared the corresponding rights. In a back-and-forth last year, rapper Missy Elliott weighed in on Twitter after successfully getting her royalties for the song.
Elliott’s response came after Jowell (of Jowell & Randy) claimed his royalties had dropped to 1% after the rapper was properly compensated. “Sadly you mislead all these people to make them think I have 99%,” Elliott wrote at the time. “Now I don’t talk business on line because that’s messy but now we are here I have 25% and there is 6 other samples & 15 other writers on this one song.”
Read the full settlement notice below:
Lawyers for Dr. Dre sent a scathing cease-and-desist letter to Marjorie Taylor Greene on Monday (Jan. 9), threatening her with legal action after she used the rapper’s 1999 smash hit “Still D.R.E.” without permission in a social media post.
Hours after the superstar publicly slammed the Republican congresswoman over the post — he said he’d never license his song to someone so “divisive and hateful” — his lawyers formally told Taylor Greene that her post constituted copyright infringement and that she had until Wednesday to remove it.
“You are wrongfully exploiting his work through the various social media outlets to promote your divisive and hateful political agenda,” wrote attorney Howard King in a copy of the letter obtained by Billboard.
The video in question — posted Monday morning on Greene’s social media accounts — features the Republican representative strutting through the halls of Congress in slow motion, grinning at the camera as Dre’s infamous piano riff from “Still D.R.E.” repeats on a loop. By Monday evening, the video had already been disabled by Twitter.
If actually unlicensed, the use of a copyrighted song in a political advertisement would almost certainly constitute infringement. In Monday’s letter, Dre’s lawyers told Greene as much — and then some.
“The United States Copyright Act says a lot of things, one of the things it says is that you can’t use someone else’s song for your political campaign promotions unless you get permission from the owner of the copyright in the song, a step you failed to take,” King wrote.
Top artists have long chafed at the use of their music by politicians, particularly conservatives. Foo Fighters and John Mellencamp blasted John McCain for using their music during the 2008 presidential election, and Neil Young, Guns N’ Roses, Pharrell, Rihanna and the estate of Tom Petty have all spoken out about their music being used at campaign events for Donald Trump.
Owing to the complex thicket of blanket licenses that govern the public performance of music, it’s actually more complicated than you might expect for artists to prevent their music from being played at political rallies. But the use of music in a video advertisement is far more straightforward; if a politician doesn’t secure a license, a musician has a great case for copyright infringement.
In Monday’s letter, Dre’s lawyers said that a federal lawmaker ought to know that.
“One might expect that, as a member of Congress, you would have a passing familiarity with the laws of our country,” King wrote. “It’s possible, though, that laws governing intellectual property are a little too arcane and insufficiently populist for you to really have spent much time on. We’re writing because we think an actual lawmaker should be making laws not breaking laws, especially those embodied in the constitution by the founding fathers.”
Greene’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Billboard, but she reportedly told TMZ: “While I appreciate the creative chord progression, I would never play your words of violence against women and police officers, and your glorification of the thug life and drugs.”