State Champ Radio Copyright
Page: 2
Sony Music Entertainment is suing the producers of the 2022 biopic Whitney Houston: I Wanna Dance With Somebody, accusing them of failing to pay for the more than 20 Whitney tracks that appeared in the movie.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
In a lawsuit filed Thursday in New York federal court, Sony claims that Anthem Films, Black Label Media and others behind the movie signed deals for sync licenses to feature songs like “I Will Always Love You” in the movie – but that more than a year after the film was released, the label hasn’t been paid a dime.
“To date, Anthem has not paid the fees, or any portion of the fees, due under the agreements,” Sony’s lawyer, Christine Lepera of the firm Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp, wrote in the complaint. As a result, the Sony says the use of the songs amounts to “willful and deliberate infringement” of its copyrights.
Trending on Billboard
Riding a wave of enthusiasm for musical biopics – 2018’s “Bohemian Rhapsody” earned more $900 million at the box office and Baz Luhrmann’s 2022 “Elvis” made $288 million – “I Wanna Dance” was released in December 2022 to middling reviews and an underwhelming return of $59.8 million gross.
According to Thursday’s lawsuit, Anthem and others signed a sync license agreement on Dec. 5, 2022 – less than ten days before the movie’s release – covering the use of Sony’s sound recordings of Houston’s songs, including “Greatest Love of All,” “I’m Every Woman” and the titular “I Wanna Dance with Somebody.”
“Unlike other types of films, musical biopics by their nature require use of the subject musician’s music, as it is nearly impossible to explain the importance of a musician’s creative genius or unique style and talent without the use of the musician’s music,” Sony wrote. “Aware of the need for authorization to use Plaintiffs’ sound recordings in order to produce a biopic about the life and music of Whitney Houston, and aware of the value of plaintiffs’ catalog, Anthem entered into a license agreement.”
But by August, Sony says it had not been paid anything. After notifying Anthem of the problem, the company allegedly told Sony that it was waiting on funds from a tax credit owed by the state of Massachusetts. But such a payment never came, Sony says.
“As a result of Anthem’s failure to pay the fees to SME, it is clear that there was no license or authorization to use the SME Recordings used in the Film,” the company’s attorneys wrote. “Nevertheless, the Film embodying the SME Recordings was, and continues to be, exhibited, distributed, and exploited.”
As defendants, the lawsuit names Anthem Films, a Boston-area film production company that allegedly produced the movie; NYBO Productions LLC, the entity that allegedly owns the copyright to the movie; Black Label Media, a Los Angeles film finance company; and WH Movie LLC, an entity allegedly created by Black Label to help finance the movie.
According to the lawsuit, the complex corporate structure behind “I Wanna Dance” potentially played into the lack of payment.
Though Sony says it notified Anthem that it was open to waiting for for the Massachusetts tax credit to be paid out, it demanded that such an agreement be formalized in writing. Anthem allegedly refused, saying that Black Label had “approval rights over Anthem’s and NYBO’s expenditures” and ultimately “ordered that Anthem neither pay SME out of the proceeds of the tax credit payment nor direct the relevant tax authority to credit SME the amount of the Fees.”
In technical legal terms, the lawsuit accused Anthem and NYBO of direct copyright infringement, while it accused Black Label and WH Movie of so-called vicarious copyright infringement – meaning they had some control over Anthem and profited from its alleged wrongdoing.
The defendants could not immediately be reached for comment. A spokeswoman for Sony Music did not return a request for comment on the lawsuit.
Roddy Ricch has defeated a copyright lawsuit that claimed the rapper stole key elements of his chart-topping 2019 song “The Box” from a decades-old soul song, with a judge ruling “no reasonable jury” would find the two songs similar.
Songwriter Greg Perry sued Ricch (real name Roderick Wayne Jr.) and Atlantic Records in 2022, claiming the hit track (which spent a whopping 11 weeks at the top of the Billboard Hot 100) had been ripped off from Perry’s 1975 “Come On Down” — an oft-sampled song in the hip-hop world.
But in a decision Monday (Feb. 12), Judge Analisa Torres ruled that the two songs were clearly very different: “No reasonable jury could find that the works are substantially similar,” the judge wrote, noting “significant dissimilarities” between the “aesthetic appeal” of each track.
While Perry’s track is a “soul song that contains a melodic tune” and is performed with acoustic instruments, Judge Torres said, Roddy’s track is “a hip-hop song delivered in a monotone rap” created primarily with a synthesizer. The tempo of the older song is “significantly faster” than that of “The Box,” the judge added, and the overall “feel” of the two songs is also clearly distinct.
“[‘Come On Down’] is a sentimental song about ‘love and heartbreak,’ while ‘The Box’ is a braggadocious song about ‘amassing wealth, sleeping with multiple women, and being more skilled than other rappers’,” the judge wrote.
Perry’s lawyers filed the case back in December 2022, claiming an average music fan would be able to hear the “strikingly similar” aspects of the two tracks simply by listening to them, but that more thorough investigation by music experts has more conclusively proven the theft.
“Comparative analysis of the beat, lyrics, hook, rhythmic structure, metrical placement, and narrative context by a musicology expert demonstrates clearly and convincingly that ‘The Box’ is an unauthorized duplication and infringement of certain elements of ‘Come On Down,’” the suit read.
“Come On Down” is a popular sample in hip-hop — featured in both Young Jeezy’s 2008 “Wordplay” and Yo Gotti’s 2016 “I Remember.” Perry’s lawyers said both of those songs had been fully cleared and licensed by giving him a songwriting credit and an ownership stake.
“Other [artists] in the rap world that have chosen to copy elements of ‘Come On Down’ have done so legally and correctly,” Perry’s lawyers wrote. “Defendants chose not to license the musical composition from plaintiffs and instead chose to intentionally infringe upon the copyright.”
But in Monday’s decision, Judge Torres said there was no need for Ricch to secure such a license because his song did not infringe Perry’s tune. She said that the central alleged similarity — a so-called “ascending minor scale played by violin” that Perry claimed was repeated 24 times in Ricch’s song — was “expressed differently” in the two works. Other important elements of Perry’s work, like a so-called tremolando, are “notably absent” from “The Box,” she added.
“The musical composition … differs from ‘The Box in each of the components where plaintiff claims similarity,” the judge wrote. “Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that defendants copied any protectable portion of the musical composition.”
With her ruling, Judge Torres dismissed Perry’s case permanently, ending the lawsuit entirely. Attorneys for both sides did not immediately return requests for comment on Tuesday.
Kanye West is no longer facing a copyright lawsuit that claimed he illegally posted a 2021 viral video clip of a public speech about his then-wife Kim Kardashian, after his accuser dropped the case.
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
The embattled Donda rapper (now legally named Ye) has been repeatedly sued over the past two years, and he might soon be hit with new lawsuits over allegations of illegal sampling from Ozzy Osbourne and Donna Summer. But at least one such lawsuit is now in the rearview mirror.
In court papers filed last week, videographer Elijah Graham agreed to voluntarily dismiss a lawsuit he filed against West last year. The case claimed the rapper had stolen Graham’s clip — which captured West speaking candidly about Kardashian and his kids while serving a Thanksgiving meal to homeless people on Skid Row in Los Angeles – and posted it to Instagram without permission.
“We’ve made mistakes. I’ve made mistakes. I’ve publicly done things that were not acceptable as a husband, but right now today, for whatever reason — I didn’t know I was going to be in front of this mic — but I’m here to change the narrative,” West says in the video, which went viral after he posted it.
In a complaint filed in October in Los Angeles federal court, Graham’s lawyers claimed that West’s post amounted to willful copyright infringement. But since filing the case, they have done little to move the case forward; in an order last month, the judge overseeing the lawsuit threatened to dismiss the case entirely because it was not being “prosecuted diligently.”
An attorney for Graham did not return a request for comment on why he was dropping the case. A rep for West did not immediately return a request for comment.
Graham’s case might be over, but Ye is still in legal hot water. He’s currently facing two separate lawsuits filed by employees at his Donda Academy over allegations of unsafe conditions and wrongful termination; he’s also defending against another copyright case that claims his “Life of the Party” illegally sampled a song by the pioneering rap group Boogie Down Productions.
And more copyright cases could be on the way. Last week, both Ozzy Osbourne and the estate of Donna Summer publicly accused West of using their songs without permission on his new album ‘Vultures 1’, even after they had specifically rejected his requests for licenses. In an interview with Billboard, Osbourne’s wife and manager Sharon said they had “been in touch with his team” about legal issues, while Summer’s estate directly alleged “copyright infringement.”
Former Black Sabbath frontman Ozzy Osbourne called out Kanye West on social media on Friday (Feb. 9), saying that West had asked to sample a song but was “refused permission because he is an antisemite,” and used the sample anyway at a listening event for his new album at the United Center in Chicago on Thursday. “I want no association with this man!” Osbourne wrote.
Although Osbourne said online that West asked to sample “War Pigs,” the song he seems to have used is “Iron Man” – specifically a version performed by Ozzy Osbourne’s solo band at the 1983 Us Festival.
“We get so many requests for these songs,” his wife and manager Sharon Osbourne tells Billboard, “and when we saw that request, we just said no way.” Without permission, West would be unable to release a new song that used the sample. “We’ve been in touch with his team” about the legal issue,” says Sharon Osbourne. “And it’s also an issue of having respect for another artist.”
Starting in 2022, West, now known simply as Ye, made a series of antisemitic comments, for which he was widely condemned, and lost numerous sponsorship and fashion deals. Although he offered an online apology for his statements in December, the first song from his forthcoming album, Vultures, includes the lyric “How am I antisemitic? / I just fucked a Jewish bitch.” Although West does not seem to have finalized release details for the album – and Ozzy Osbourne’s comments suggest he may face issues clearing samples – he has held a number of listening events to promote it.
Ozzy Osbourne often allows other artists to sample his work. “But the simple thing is, we don’t want to be associated with a hater,” says Sharon Osbourne, who was raised Jewish. (Her father, the U.K. music manager Don Arden, was Jewish.) “To spread hate the way he does, it shouldn’t be allowed. All the excuses – he’s bipolar or whatever – doesn’t change that. It’s like, fuck you, basically.”
Like many early Black Sabbath songs, “Iron Man” was written by the band – Osbourne, Tony Iommi, Geezer Butler and Bill Ward. Who has the rights to license interpolations of a composition by more than one songwriter can depend on the agreement between them. In this case, Sharon Osbourne tells Billboard that the agreement says all four songwriters need to agree. There could also be permissions issues with the 1983 performance recording, to which Ozzy Ozbourne presumably has the rights.
Coincidentally, Ozzy and Sharon Osbourne dressed up as Kanye West and Bianca Censori for Halloween, but that was “a joke,” Sharon Osbourne said.
LONDON — Record labels, publishers and streaming services in the United Kingdom have signed up to a voluntary code of good practice that requires them to provide clear and transparent information to artists and creators about how their streaming royalties are calculated.
“The UK Code of Good Practice on Transparency in Music Streaming” was published Wednesday (Jan. 31) by the U.K. government’s Intellectual Property Office (IPO).
It obliges key players in the British music industry to supply musicians, songwriters, composers and producers with “timely, accurate and clear royalty accounting information,” as well as detail any deductions that have been applied.
Signatories include representatives of major and independent record labels, publishers, creators, collecting societies and streaming services.
Trade bodes BPI — which represents more than 500 labels, including the U.K. arms of Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment and Warner Music Group — and the Association of Independent Music (AIM), which acts on behalf of U.K. independent record labels and music companies, are among the music groups backing the pledge.
The U.K. government says the agreement forms a “significant point” in improving transparency around licensing deals and music streaming royalties that will build greater trust between record labels, streaming services and creators.
“This pioneering code, designed by the music industry with Government backing, has trust at its core,” said Viscount Camrose, minister for AI and Intellectual Property, in a statement.
The cross-industry pact, said Camrose, will “help ensure artists get the royalties and protections they deserve when their music is played on streaming platforms.”
Wednesday’s transparency agreement is the latest in an ongoing series of government-led interventions into the U.K. music industry fuelled by artist discontent over low payments from streaming.
In 2021, a Parliamentary inquiry into the music streaming business called into question the major record labels’ dominance of the industry and branded the global streaming model as unsustainable in its current form, saying it “needs a complete reset.”
Numerous government-led working groups, investigations and initiatives spun out of the eight-month-long Parliamentary probe, including last year’s industry-wide pledge – also made at the behest and overseen by the IPO – to improve the digital metadata for song recordings.
The new transparency agreement further increases the obligations on rights holders and digital services to address long-standing issues in music streaming, but it does not constitute a regulatory change and it is not clear what, if any, repercussions a record label or DSP would face for breaching its terms.
Rather, the voluntary code is intended as a stimulus for music companies to lift standards and deliver more accurate returns to artists by following a number of agreed principles.
They include labels, publishers and managers making it clear to artists the terms of their contracts, licence deals and remuneration terms, including any recoupable costs.
Streaming services are required to provide to all relevant rights holders accurate and timely usage data. The code also states that artists and creators should have a contractual right to audit financial information, including royalty payments, from labels, publishers, distributors, collecting societies and, in the case of self-releasing artists, streaming services that they hold contracts with.
Other music groups backing the transparency code include the Digital Entertainment and Retail Association (ERA), whose members include streaming services; the Music Publishers Association (MPA); Musicians’ Union (MU); Featured Artists Coalition (The FAC); Music Managers Forum (MMF); Music Producers Guild (MPG) and U.K. collecting societies PRS for Music and Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL).
The code will come into force on July 31 with the IPO set to carry out a first review of its implementation early next year.
In the meantime, several other government initiatives looking into the digital music business will continue to operate in the background, including a new working group –made up of industry stakeholders — looking into artist remuneration from music streaming.
Details on membership of the remuneration working group, which was first announced last May, will be published shortly, said the government. A report into equitable remuneration commissioned by the IPO is due to be published in the coming months
Commenting on the new transparency requirements, BPI chief executive Jo Twist said the “landmark agreement… builds meaningfully on the recent progress around metadata and other significant measures addressing creator concerns around music streaming.”
U.K. trade group The Council Of Music Makers said that while the commitments contained in the code “are modest, it provides a framework that can be used to start tackling the “systemic lack of transparency” in music streaming. The organization said it will be launching a complaints mechanism when the code comes into force for artists and their managers to report non-compliance with its terms.
“The big music and streaming companies need to stop using ‘artist-centric’ as a hollow buzzword and actually put artists and other music-makers at the centre of their businesses,” said a Council Of Music Makers spokesperson.
Did a celebrity tattoo artist violate copyright law when she inked a photographer’s portrait of jazz legend Miles Davis onto the arm of a friend? A jury is set to the decide that question in a trial set to kick off Tuesday.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
Photographer Jeffrey B. Sedlik filed his lawsuit back in 2021 against Katherine Von Drachenberg – better known as Kat Von D, a celebrity tattoo artist who rose to prominence in the 2000s on her TLC reality show “fLA Ink.” He claimed she infringed his 1989 image of Davis by using it as the basis for a tattoo.
After years of litigation – and a U.S. Supreme Court case over Andy Warhol that changed the legal landscape midway through – attorneys for Sedlik and Von D will head to a Los Angeles federal courthouse Tuesday for a jury trial that will settle the dispute once and for all.
Sedlik, who calls his photo “world-famous,” has argued that Von D clearly broke the law when she chose to “precisely replicate every aspect of the iconic Miles Davis portrait in the form of a tattoo.” Von D, meanwhile, says she only used the image as a reference and that her tattoo is protected by copyright law’s so-called fair use doctrine, which allows people to re-use protected works in certain situations.
Initially, Judge Dale S. Fischer seemed inclined to side with Von D on a key question: Whether she had “transformed” the photo into something new. In a May 2022 ruling, the judge said Von D had “changed its appearance to create what she characterizes as adding movement and a more melancholy aesthetic.”
But the case got a legal shakeup a year later, when the U.S. Supreme Court issued a major ruling on fair use. In that decision, the justices said that the late Andy Warhol had violated a photographer’s copyrights years earlier when he used her images of Prince to create one of his distinctive screen prints – a decision that was widely interpreted as making it harder to prove fair use.
After the Warhol ruling came out, Judge Fischer ruled against Von D on that same key question of “transformative.” Citing the new Supreme Court precedent, the judge ruled that simply putting the same image in a new context and claiming new aesthetics was not enough to count as a fair use.
But even after that ruling, the overall question of fair use must still be decided by the jury at the trial set to kick off Tuesday. Jurors will be tasked with deciding whether Von D made “commercial” use of Sedlik’s image – a tough question, since she inked her friend free-of-charge but also promoted the work on her social media accounts. They must also decide whether her use of the image hurt Sedlik’s ability to license the image himself, another key question in any fair use case.
Ice Spice is facing a copyright lawsuit over allegations that her recent hit “In Ha Mood” was copied from a Brooklyn rapper’s earlier track.
In a complaint filed Wednesday in Brooklyn federal court, the rapper D.Chamberz (Duval Chamberlain) says Ice Spice’s 2023 song is “strikingly similar” to his own “In That Mood” that he released in 2021.
“By every method of analysis, ‘In Ha Mood’ is a forgery,” D.Chamberz’s attorneys write in their complaint, obtained by Billboard. “Any proper comparative analysis of the beat, lyrics, hook, rhythmic structure, metrical placement, and narrative context will demonstrate that ‘In Ha Mood’ was copied.”
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
In addition to naming Ice Spice (Isis Naija Gaston) as a defendant, the lawsuit also names her frequent producer, RiotUSA (Ephrem Lopez, Jr.), as well as Universal Music Group, Capitol Records and 10K Projects.
Released early last year following Ice Spice’s 2022 breakout, “In Ha Mood” reached No. 58 on the Hot 100 and No. 18 on the US Hot R&B/Hip Hop Songs chart. It was later included on her debut EP Like..?, and she performed the song during her October appearance as the musical guest on Saturday Night Live.
But D.Chamberz says the song shares so many similarities with “In That Mood” that the overlap “cannot be purely coincidental.” He says the similar elements “go the core of each work,” and are so obvious that they’ve already been spotted by listeners.
“Non-expert listeners have independently pointed out that Defendants ‘stole’ ‘In That Mood’ in creating In Ha Mood,” the rapper’s lawyers write. “The two songs clearly employ numerous noticeably similar composition elements and lyrics, which result in a sound and feel that are very much alike.”
In any copyright lawsuit, an accuser like D.Chamberz must show that an alleged infringer had “access” to their work in order to copy it. That requirement might seem technical, but it’s often the fatal flaw in copyright cases filed by lesser-known acts, like one filed against Dua Lipa over “Levitating.”
In an effort to show “access,” Tuesday’s lawsuit notes that D.Chamberz shared “In That Mood” to his Instagram followers, and that the song got “significant airplay” on New York City radio stations, including Hot 97 and Power 105.1. It even cites one instance in which Riot allegedly posted an Instagram story of him listening to Hot 97 “less than two minutes” before the song was played on the air. And Chamberz’s lawyers also point out that Riot’s father is the well-known New York City radio personality DJ Enuff, who hosts a show on Hot 97 and allegedly “actively engaged with D.Chamberz’s social media content.”
“Based on all of the facts and circumstances known to plaintiffs, as described above, it is probable – or, at the very least, reasonably possible – that defendants heard the work and knew about the work prior to the creation and publication of ‘In Ha Mood,’” his lawyers write.
Read the full lawsuit filed against Ice Spice here:
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: A judge clears French Montana of copyright infringement but sympathizes with his accuser; T.I. and his wife face the latest sexual assault accusations to rock the music industry; Cher battles with her son over a potential conservatorship; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: French Montana’s “Technical” Copyright Victory
Imitation might be the “sincerest form of flattery,” but it isn’t always copyright infringement. That was the key takeaway from an unusual federal court ruling last week, in which a judge dismissed a copyright lawsuit against French Montana – but almost seemed to regret that she had to do so?
The case against French (Karim Kharbouch) was filed by a little-known Chicago artist named Hotwire The Producer (Eddie Lee Richardson), who claimed the star rapper’s 2013 hit “Ain’t Worried About Nothin’” featured an unlicensed sample of his earlier song “Hood Pushin’ Weight.”
In a decision Thursday, Judge Nancy L. Maldonado ruled that French’s song did not technically infringe the rights that Richardson had secured – he registered only the copyright to a sound recording, not the underlying musical composition. But she also expressed “great sympathy” for Richardson, lamenting that he had failed to fully register his copyrights and saying that the outcome of the case “might have been very different” if he had.
“If it is any consolation, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and the Court hopes that Richardson will not be deterred in his musical endeavors, now armed with a better understanding of copyright law,” Judge Maldonado wrote. “As it is, though, Richardson’s evidence in this particular case is insufficient to establish copyright infringement.”
For more on what the judge had to say in her opinion — including advising French not to celebrate too much over a “technical win” – go read our full story.
Other top stories this week…
T.I. SEX ASSAULT CASE – The rapper and his wife Tiny were hit with a civil lawsuit claiming they drugged and sexually assaulted a woman they met in a Los Angeles nightclub in 2005. In the complaint, lawyers for the unnamed Jane Doe accuser said that T.I. (Clifford Harris) and Tiny (Tameka Harris) gave her a spiked drink after she was introduced to them in the VIP section of a club, then brought her back to their hotel room where they “forced her to get naked” and assaulted her. In a statement to Billboard, the couple “emphatically and categorically” denied the allegations and vowed to fight back against a lawsuit that they said the plaintiff had been threatening to file for years.
JIMMIE ALLEN ATTORNEY SHAKEUP – More than six months after Jimmie Allen was hit with a pair of sexual assaults, news broke that the country star was parting ways with the legal team that’s been representing him (from the Tennessee law firm Baker Donelson) in the cases. The move to swap lawyers quickly prompted objections from his accusers, who say he’s obstructing the progress of the litigation by “moving through attorneys.”
CHER FIGHTS SON OVER CONSERVATORSHIP – A Los Angeles judge declined to immediately put Cher’s son (Elijah Blue Allman) into a legal conservatorship – an arrangement she is seeking over his opposition — but said he would take up the issue again later this month. Cher petitioned for the conservatorship late last year, arguing that Elijah’s struggles with addiction and mental health have left him unable to manage his money and potentially put his life in danger by making him able to buy drugs.
TUPAC MURDER BAIL BATTLE – A hearing is set for Tuesday over whether Duane “Keffe D” Davis, the former Los Angeles-area gang leader charged with orchestrating the killing of hip-hop music legend Tupac Shakur, should be released on bail. The proceedings had initially been scheduled for last week, but were delayed after prosecutors raised new arguments for why Davis poses a threat to the public if he is released.
MAREN MORRIS DIVORCE SETTLED – Maren Morris reached a settlement to resolve her divorce proceedings against singer/songwriter Ryan Hurd, her husband of five years. Under the terms of the deal, Morris, 33, will pay Hurd, 37, $2,100 per month in child support as the two evenly split time with their three-and-a-half-year-old son, Hayes Andrew. Most of the rest of the settlement was stipulated in a prenuptial agreement, which the couple signed in 2018 and updated in 2022.
Throughout history, music has embraced constructive change and innovation. And we will do so again as we confront the opportunities and risks of artificial intelligence.
Done right, AI should offer avenues for new growth and artistic accomplishment. When creators’ rights are respected, innovation thrives.
Already, music companies have unveiled compelling projects that use AI technologies in groundbreaking ways — with full consent and participation of the artists and rights holders involved. Working together with responsible AI companies, music companies are finding new ways to enhance production and marketing, gain new understandings from data and research, and improve wellness and health. They’ve used it to help identify new audiences for artists and pioneer new ways to celebrate iconic catalogs and performers. This is just the beginning of a new era of possibilities.
But many AI developers are resisting collaborative efforts by the creative sector to develop a responsible policy framework for AI, even though the elements of such a framework are straightforward and common-sense. In short, AI companies must honor:
Authorization: only use copyrighted music if it is authorized (for example, through a license)
Transparency: keep and disclose adequately detailed records of the content on which they train their systems
Authenticity: prevent deepfakes, voice clones, and similar violations of individuals’ rights in their own voice, image, name likeness and identity.
These foundational, consensus principles are detailed by the Human Artistry Campaign and supported by virtually the entire creative community. They set forth a baseline for responsible development and deployment of AI.
But as if on cue, some of the worst instincts of Big Technology have returned. Some AI developers claim it’s “fair use” to scrape up protected music so it can be copied and repackaged by their models. That’s just wrong.
Put bluntly, that’s digital theft.
In every legitimate market in the world, the use of others’ property requires the owner’s consent and agreed-upon compensation. Together, for example, music and technology have developed a burgeoning streaming market built on the common-sense principle that use of copyrighted creative works requires licensing and consent.
Indeed, the developers’ claim that they can use decades’ worth of iconic and extremely valuable recordings for AI without bothering to ask or pay the rightsholders is so far-fetched that former Stability AI developer Ed Newton-Rex quit his job in November rather than be party to an extreme effort to rip off artists and misappropriate their work, explaining via X:
“Companies worth billions of dollars are, without permission, training generative AI models on creators’ works, which are then being used to create new content that in many cases can compete with the original works. I don’t see how this can be acceptable[.]”
It’s not.
This is why transparency is essential. AI developers must keep accurate records of the copyrighted works used by their models and make them available to rights holders seeking to enforce their rights. We need rules requiring that developers maintain adequately detailed records and share this information — or bear the consequences if they fail to produce it. We were pleased to see that the European Union enshrined this as a core principle in its landmark AI Act.
AI policy must also establish clear rules protecting every performer’s right to their own voice, image, name and likeness — the most fundamental cornerstones of individual identity. AI fakes that mine an artist’s body of work to create artificial replicas and voice clones, fashion phony endorsements, or depict individuals in ways they haven’t consented to represent the worst kind of personal invasion. Congress needs to put an end to wrongful appropriation of the most central components of individual human identity.
These are the challenges of 2024.
We either work to continue a strong and sustainable foundation for music in the era of generative AI that moves both art and technology forward together, or generative AI devolves into just another “move fast and break things” novelty that fails to deliver anything of value while eroding our culture.
These are the choices policymakers will face this coming year. Let’s work to help them forge the right path.
Mitch Glazier is chairman/CEO of the Recording Industry Association of America.
Imitation might be the “sincerest form of flattery,” but it isn’t always copyright infringement.
That was the unusual message from an Illinois federal judge Thursday, as she dismissed a lawsuit accusing French Montana (Karim Kharbouch) of illegally sampling from a little-known Chicago hip hop producer on his song “Ain’t Worried About Nothin’.”
Eddie Lee Richardson – aka Hotwire The Producer – had claimed that French’s 2013 hit ripped off his instrumental song “Hood Pushin’ Weight.” But Judge Nancy L. Maldonado ruled that the superstar’s song did not technically infringe the rights owned by Richardson.
“The mere fact that the songs may share certain musical elements is simply not enough for a jury to conclude that such sampling actually occurred,” the judge wrote, ending the lawsuit.
Though she sided with French, Judge Maldonado was highly sympathetic to Richardson. She included an unusual note at the end of the ruling, stressing that it was merely a “technical win” for French — and one that he “should not claim as a substantive victory.” And she repeatedly suggested that, had Richardson secured a more complete set of intellectual property rights, the outcome might have been different.
“If it is any consolation, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and the Court hopes that Richardson will not be deterred in his musical endeavors, now armed with a better understanding of copyright law,” Judge Maldonado wrote. “As it is, though, Richardson’s evidence in this particular case is insufficient to establish copyright infringement.”
Richardson sued French in 2019, claiming the star and others stole core elements from “Hood Pushin’ Weight” – an instrumental track Richardson published in 2012 on the platform SoundClick – when they wrote “Ain’t Worried About Nothin’,” which reached No. 14 on Billboard’s Hot Rap Songs chart in August 2013.
But the fatal flaw in the lawsuit, as explained by Judge Maldonado on Thursday, was that Richardson only secured a copyright registration to the song’s sound recording, and did not lock up such protection for the underlying musical composition. That means that French would only have infringed “Hood Pushin’ Weight” if he directly sampled from it, the judge said, and not if he merely made a song that included similar music elements.
“Unfortunately for Richardson, his express admission in this case that he has only a sound recording copyright, and not one for a musical composition, means that he does not have exclusive rights in the generic sounds or melodies of HPW,” the judge wrote.
If he had gone the extra step and registered for a copyright on the musical composition, Judge Maldonado said the outcome of the case “might have been very different” than Thursday’s dismissal.
“In that case, Richardson’s expert evidence as to the similarity of the ‘sounds’ or melodies of the songs likely would have been enough to send this case to trial,” the judge wrote. “But with a sound recording registration only, Richardson’s means for establishing infringement are much more limited.”
With his more restricted rights, Richardson needed to provide evidence that French or someone else involved in “Ain’t Worried About Nothin’” directly copied his actual recording into the new song. But Judge Maldonado said the producer had “failed to do so.”
It likely won’t mean much in the wake of a failed lawsuit, but the judge said she had “great sympathy for Richardson’s situation.”
“He created HPW as a teenager, registered a copyright on his own, and brought this action seeking to protect his rights in his original work of music, as provided under the Copyright Act,” the judge wrote. “Unfortunately for Richardson, in the Copyright Act, Congress established a very firm distinction.”
“Put plainly,” the judge wrote, “Richardson cannot bring a claim for copyright infringement of his sound recording based solely on the contention that the songs sound alike.”
Attorneys for both sides did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the decision.
