State Champ Radio Copyright
Page: 3
The Trump Administration fired U.S. Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter on Saturday (May 10), sparking concerns in the music business that the White House will take the side of technology companies in debates about AI and copyright.
The move came just two days after the dismissal of Perlmutter’s boss, Librarian of Congress Carla Hayden, and a day after the Copyright Office posted a report on the legal issues in training AI algorithms on copyrighted works. Although the White House has not given any reason for the move, it comes as the media business once again finds itself in conflict with Silicon Valley – this time as technology companies have far more influence in Washington.
The Register of Copyrights reports to the Librarian of Congress, and speculation on the reason for Hayden’s May 8 firing varied. Hayden, appointed by President Obama, was the first African-American and woman to hold the position, leading some to view her dismissal as politically motivated. At a May 9 press conference, the White House suggested that “there were quite concerning things that she had done at the Library of Congress,” involving DEI and “putting inappropriate books in the library for children” — although the institution isn’t a lending library, let alone one that’s set up for young readers.
Trending on Billboard
Perlmutter’s subsequent dismissal suggests that the Trump administration may be more concerned with copyright policy – and that Hayden’s firing was at least partly a step toward changing the leadership of the Copyright Office. The Copyright Office has the power to issue guidance on the state of copyright law and report to lawmakers on related legislation, and judges often use its interpretations in court decisions. Currently, the office is preparing a multi-part report, “Copyright and Artificial Intelligence,” the third part of which, about whether scanning works to train AI algorithms would qualify as infringement, was expected to come out this spring. Given the number of court cases involving this issue, as well as the potential damages faced by technology companies in them, the stakes are high.
Late on Friday (May 9), the Copyright Office posted online a “pre-publication version” of the report, which is not its usual practice. Although the issues are complicated, it interprets the law in a way that suggests such copying – especially for commercial purposes, involving generative AI products – would not qualify as fair use. The Copyright Office has no lawmaking power, but courts could be influenced by its analysis of case law.
The next day, according to several sources, Perlmutter received an email telling her she was terminated.
There has been some speculation that Perlmutter’s dismissal was the result of the decision to post the report. However, several sources who had no direct knowledge of the situation, pointed out that Perlmutter might have known her dismissal was imminent, or at least possible, and had the report posted before that occurred. (Right now, no one knows, and neither the White House nor Perlmutter has commented.) And while the report is generally seen to favor rightsholders, it is an expert interpretation of existing law, not a set of policy recommendations.
Certainly, the issue of whether scanning works to train AI qualifies as fair use or copyright infringement has become a hot one. And since the early days of the second Trump administration, music and media lobbyists have worried about the influence of the technology business. In March, the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz responded to a request for public comments on the White House AI Action Plan by saying that “neither the Copyright Office nor any other government agency should release guidance related to this issue—or other issues critical to American competitiveness in AI—until the conclusion of the National AI Action Plan process.”
In late April, the right-wing American Accountability Foundation accused both Hayden and Perlmutter of being “deep-state liberals” and suggested that the Trump Administration “return an America First agenda to the nation’s intellectual property regulation.” Although both are Democrats, Perlmutter served in the first Trump Administration as the head of copyright policy in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, which is part of the Department of Commerce. Copyright has generally been one of the few non-partisan issues in Washington, since it usually unites Democrats who support the arts with Republicans who favor strong protections for property rights.
Perlmutter’s firing is likely to intensify the copyright debate, potentially creating a rift between Silicon Valley venture capitalists aligned with the Trump administration and Democrats, as well as some Republicans, who support copyright protections and believe in the independence of government agencies. Immediately after Perlmutter’s dismissal, Rep. Joe Morelle (NY-25) released a statement calling Trump’s termination of Perlmutter “a brazen, unprecedented power grab with no legal basis.”
On Friday afternoon, the U.S. Copyright Office released a report examining copyrights and generative AI training, which supported the idea of licensing copyrights when they are used in commercial AI training.
On Saturday (May 10), the nation’s top copyright official – Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter – was terminated by President Donald Trump. Her dismissal shortly follows the firing of the Librarian of Congress, Carla Hayden, who appointed and supervised Perlmutter. In response, Rep. Joe Morelle (D-NY) of the House Administration Committee, which oversees the Copyright Office and the Library of Congress, said that he feels it is “no coincidence [Trump] acted less than a day after [Perlmutter] refused to rubber-stamp Elon Musk’s efforts to mine troves of copyrighted works to train AI models.”
This report was largely seen as a win among copyright owners in the music industry, and it noted three key stances: the Office’s support for licensing copyrighted material when a “commercial” AI model uses it for training, its dismissal of compulsory licensing as the correct framework for a future licensing model, and its rejection of “the idea of any opt-out approach.”
Trending on Billboard
The Office affirms that in “commercial” cases, licensing copyrights for training could be a “practical solution” and that using copyrights without a license “[go] beyond established fair use boundaries.” It also notes that some commercial AI models “compete with [copyright owners] in existing markets.” However, if an AI model has been created for “purposes such as analysis or research – the types of uses that are critical to international competitiveness,” the Office says “the outputs are unlikely to substitute” for the works by which they were trained.
“In our view, American leadership in the AI space would best be furthered by supporting both of these world-class industries that contribute so much to our economic and cultural advancement. Effective licensing options can ensure that innovation continues to advance without undermining intellectual property rights,” the report reads.
While it is supportive of licensing efforts between copyright owners and AI firms, the report recognizes that most stakeholders do not hold support “for any statutory change” or “government intervention” in this area. “The Office believes…[that] would be premature at this time,” the report reads. Later, it adds “we agree with commenters that a compulsory licensing regime for AI training would have significant disadvantages. A compulsory license establishes fixed royalty rates and terms and can set practices in stone; they can become inextricably embedded in an industry and become difficult to undo. Premature adoption also risks stifling the development of flexible and creative market-based solutions. Moreover, compulsory licenses can take years to develop, often requiring painstaking negotiation of numerous operational details.”
The Office notes the perspectives of music-related organizations, like the National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA), American Association of Independent Music (A2IM), and Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), which all hold a shared distaste for the idea of a future compulsory or government-controlled license for AI training. Already, the music industry deals with a compulsory license for mechanical royalties, allowing the government to control rates for one of the types of royalties earned from streaming and sales.
“Most commenters who addressed this issue opposed or raised concerns about the prospect of compulsory licensing,” the report says. “Those representing copyright owners and creators argued that the compulsory licensing of works for use in AI training would be detrimental to their ability to control uses of their works, and asserted that there is no market failure that would justify it. A2IM and RIAA described compulsory licensing as entailing ‘below-market royalty rates, additional administrative costs, and… restrictions on innovation’… and NMPA saw it as ‘an extreme remedy that deprives copyright owners of their right to contract freely in the market, and takes away their ability to choose whom they do business with, how their works are used, and how much they are paid.’”
The Office leaves it up to the copyright owners and AI companies to figure out the right way to license and compensate for training data, but it does explore a few options. This includes “compensation structures based on a percentage of revenue or profits,” but if the free market fails to find the right licensing solution, the report suggested “targeted intervention such as [Extended Collective Licensing] ECL should be considered.”
ECL, which is employed in some European countries, would allow a collective management organization (CMO) to issue and administer blanket licenses for “all copyrighted works within a particular class,” much like the music industry is already accustomed to with organizations like The MLC (The Mechanical Licensing Collective) and performing rights organizations (PROs) like ASCAP and BMI. The difference between an ECL and a traditional CMO, however, is that under an ECL system, the CMO can license for those who have not affirmatively joined it yet. Though these ECL licenses are still negotiated in a “free market,” the government would “regulat[e] the overall system and excercis[e] some degree of oversight.”
While some AI firms expressed concerns that blanket licensing by copyright holders would lead to antitrust issues, the Copyright Office sided with copyright holders, saying “[the] courts have found that there is nothing intrinsically anticompetitive about the collective, or even blanket, licensing of copyrighted works, as long as certain safeguards are incorporated— such as ensuring that licensees can still obtain direct licenses from copyright owners as an alternative.”
This is a “pre-publication” version of a forthcoming final report, which will be published in the “near future without any substantive changes expected,” according to the Copyright Office. The Office noted this “pre-publication” was pushed out early in an attempt to address inquiries from Congress and key stakeholders.
It marks the Office’s third report about generative AI and its impact on copyrights since it launched an initiative on the matter in 2023. The first report, released July 31, 2024, focused on the topic of digital replicas. The second, from Jan. 29, 2025, addressed the copyright-ability of outputs created with generative AI.
The Trump administration has fired the nation’s top copyright official, Shira Perlmutter, days after abruptly terminating the head of the Library of Congress, which oversees the U.S. Copyright Office.
The office said in a statement Sunday (May 11) that Perlmutter received an email from the White House a day earlier with the notification that “your position as the Register of Copyrights and Director at the U.S. Copyright Office is terminated effective immediately.”
On Thursday (May 8), President Donald Trump fired Librarian of Congress Carla Hayden, the first woman and the first African American to be librarian of Congress, as part of the administration’s ongoing purge of government officials perceived to oppose the president and his agenda.
Trending on Billboard
Hayden named Perlmutter to lead the Copyright Office in October 2020.
Perlmutter’s office recently released a report examining whether artificial intelligence companies can use copyrighted materials to “train” their AI systems. The report, the third part of a lengthy AI study, follows a review that began in 2023 with opinions from thousands of people including AI developers, actors and country singers.
In January, the office clarified its approach as one based on the “centrality of human creativity” in authoring a work that warrants copyright protections. The office receives about half a million copyright applications per year covering millions of creative works.
“Where that creativity is expressed through the use of AI systems, it continues to enjoy protection,” Perlmutter said in January. “Extending protection to material whose expressive elements are determined by a machine … would undermine rather than further the constitutional goals of copyright.”
The White House didn’t return a message seeking comment Sunday.
Democrats were quick to blast Perlmutter’s firing.
“Donald Trump’s termination of Register of Copyrights, Shira Perlmutter, is a brazen, unprecedented power grab with no legal basis,” said Rep. Joe Morelle of New York, the top Democrat on the House Administration Committee.
Perlmutter, who holds a law degree, was previously a policy director at the Patent and Trademark Office and worked on copyright and other areas of intellectual property. She also previously also worked at the Copyright Office in the late 1990s. She did not return messages left Sunday.
Bad Bunny is facing a lawsuit over allegations that a track from his chart-topping Un Verano Sin Ti featured an unlicensed sample from a Nigerian artist – and that the superstar’s reps later “stonewalled” efforts to resolve the problem.
In a copyright case filed May 2 in Los Angeles federal court, attorneys for the artist Dera (Ezeani Chidera Godfrey) claim that Bad Bunny’s “Enséñame a Bailar” illegally sampled from a 2019 track called “Empty My Pocket.”
Dera’s lawyers say they’ve raised the issue with reps for Bad Bunny and others behind the song, but that they’ve “turned a blind eye” and left him with “no choice but to file this lawsuit.”
Trending on Billboard
“It is not very often that a musical artist of Bad Bunny’s caliber and sophistication uses someone else’s music without permission, and then ignores the person’s efforts to resolve the problem,” writes Dera’s attorney Robert A. Jacobs, a litigator at the top music law firm Manatt Phelps & Phillips. “Such a response is especially surprising when the unauthorized use pervades the entirety of the musical artist’s work. Unfortunately, these are the circumstances here.”
The lawsuit also names as defendants The Orchard, which distributed the album, and Bad Bunny’s Rimas Entertainment, among others. Representatives for both Bad Bunny and The Orchard did not immediately return requests for comment.
Released in 2022, Un Verano Sin Ti was a mega-hit – spending 13 weeks atop the Billboard 200 and more than 150 weeks total on the album chart. “Enséñame a Bailar” was a hit in its own right, charting on the Hot 100 for two weeks and earning 72 million views on YouTube.
In his lawsuit, Dera says Bad Bunny’s song was essentially built on top of his “Empty My Pocket” – that the usage is so “extensive” that the sampling itself is “beyond question.”
“Plaintiffs’ works comprise virtually the entirety of the musical bed and a portion of the lyrics in the infringing recording and infringing composition, and, as such, account for a significant portion of the appeal of the infringing works,” his lawyers write.
They claim access to Dera’s song was provided producer Lakizo (Lekan Adesina), but that he had no authority to clear the use of the sample: “Lakizo … is not an author of ‘Empty My Pocket’ … and does not have – and never had – the right to prepare or authorize others to prepare derivative works.”
According to the lawsuit, when Dera discovered the unauthorized sample he tried to negotiate a good-faith resolution with Bad Bunny’s team, saying he wanted to “address past unauthorized uses” but also “allow future uses.” He says he also “unconditionally complied” with requests to substantiate his claim, including sharing documents showing that Lakizo had not been authorized to clear the sample.
“Despite plaintiffs’ cooperation, these defendants stonewalled plaintiffs after receiving the requested information, making clear that plaintiffs’ only option for obtaining redress for the violation of their rights would be through the courts,” Dera’s lawyers write.
A federal appeals court has revived a lawsuit claiming Sam Smith and Normani stole key elements of their 2019 hit “Dancing With a Stranger” from an earlier track, ruling that the case was tossed out too soon and should have been decided by a jury trial.
The decision, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, reversed a 2023 ruling by a lower judge that had dismissed the case – a copyright lawsuit claiming Smith and Normani ripped off a little-known earlier song called “Dancing with Strangers.”
At the time, the trial judge said the two songs were simply not similar enough to constitute copyright infringement. But in a ruling Tuesday, the appeals court said a jury of their peers might have decided the case differently if they’d been given the chance.
Trending on Billboard
A “reasonable jury” could potentially decide that the hooks of the two tracks share the same combination of musical elements “in substantial amounts,” the appeals court wrote, including lyrics, “metric placement” and the same “melodic contour.”
Though the two songs also have key differences, the appeals court said a trial judge cannot simply pick a winner if there are conflicting reports from musical experts: “Under that approach, expert testimony would not be required at all.”
The ruling is a loss for Smith and Normani, but is also a worrying decision for any artist hit with a song-theft copyright lawsuit. If such cases must be litigated all the way to trial to be decided, they become dramatically more expensive for defendants, and give accusers more leverage to secure settlements from artists wary of protracted litigation.
Released in 2019, “Dancing with a Stranger” peaked at No. 7 on the Hot 100 chart, making it one of Smith’s biggest hits and Normani’s peak spot on the chart. The song, released on Smith’s third studio album Love Goes, ultimately spent 45 weeks on the chart.
In March 2022, the two artists were sued over the track by songwriters Jordan Vincent, Christopher Miranda and Rosco Banlaoi, who claimed that the 2019 hit song was “strikingly similar” to their own “Dancing” — and that it was “beyond any real doubt” that their song had been copied.
A year later, the case was dismissed by Judge Wesley L. Hsu, who ruled that the two songs were not “substantially similar” – the legal threshold for proving copyright infringement. He granted Smith and Normani summary judgment, meaning he ended the case without a trial because he believed a jury could not validly side with the plaintiffs.
But in Tuesday’s decision, the Ninth Circuit overturned that ruling, saying that so long as there is “sufficient disagreement” among the musicologists retained by each side, then case “must be submitted” to a jury.
The ruling will send the case back to Judge Hsu for more litigation, including a potential jury trial.
Warner Music Group has filed a lawsuit against Crumbl, the Utah-based cookie company, for copyright infringement. The lawsuit, filed on April 22 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, accuses Crumbl of using WMG’s copyrighted sound recordings and musical compositions in its social media marketing campaigns without proper licenses.
Crumbl has built its brand primarily through social media platforms like TikTok and Instagram, often featuring popular music tracks in its promotional content. WMG claims that Crumbl has misappropriated at least 159 sound recordings and musical compositions in its videos. These tracks, which include works by artists such as Lizzo, Mariah Carey, Ariana Grande and Beyoncé, are said to be key to Crumbl’s marketing strategy. Many of these videos rely heavily on music, with little to no dialogue, highlighting the central role of the unlicensed tracks in Crumbl’s advertising efforts.
WMG’s complaint provides several examples of this alleged misappropriation. For instance, Crumbl’s TikTok video promoting its blueberry cheesecake features the unauthorized use of “Blueberry Faygo” by Lil Mosey, the label said. Another video promoting Crumbl’s yellow sugar cookie, while also advertising the film Minions: The Rise of Gru, uses Coldplay’s “Yellow” without permission. A video promoting a butter cake cookie features — you guessed it — BTS’ “Butter.” Additionally, there’s a video featuring Crumbl employees dancing to K CAMP’s “Lottery (Renegade),” and Crumbl even referenced music used in some videos, such as a TikTok post featuring Lizzo’s “Juice,” with the caption repeating the song’s lyrics.
Trending on Billboard
Other songs that WMG contends were infringed upon by Crumbl include Beyoncé’s “Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It),” Bruno Mars’ “Locked Out of Heaven,” Dua Lipa’s “Levitating,” George Michael’s “Careless Whisper,” Gwen Stefani’s “Holdback Girl,” Gotye’s “Somebody That I Used to Know,” Taylor Swift’s “All Too Well,” Miley Cyrus’ “Party in the U.S.A.,” Missy Elliott’s “Get Ur Freak On,” Mariah Carey’s “Fantasy” and dozens more.
WMG asserts that Crumbl’s actions constitute direct, contributory and vicarious copyright infringement. The plaintiffs argue that Crumbl, which has over a thousand stores nationwide and is reportedly exploring a sale, according to Reuters, should have been aware of the need to secure licenses for the music used in its promotional materials. Despite this, Crumbl allegedly persisted in using WMG’s music without authorization, even after similar cases, including separate lawsuits against Bang Energy by Universal Music Group and Sony Music Entertainment, brought attention to the overarching issue.
The lawsuit seeks a jury trial and a permanent injunction to prevent Crumbl from any further infringement. The company is also pursuing statutory damages of up to $150,000 for each infringed work, potentially totaling nearly $24 million if the court awards the maximum penalty for all 159 cited works.
This legal action underscores the music industry’s ongoing efforts to protect intellectual property rights in the digital age, particularly as brands increasingly leverage popular music in social media marketing. The outcome of this case could have broader implications for how companies approach the use of copyrighted music in online promotions.
WMG is being represented by Sidley Austin LLP and Workman Nydegger.
Crumbl has not responded to Billboard‘s request for comment on WMG’s lawsuit.
A TikTok user who says she created the viral “Apple dance” to a Charli XCX song is suing Roblox over allegations that the company violated copyright law by selling her dance moves as an “emote.”
In a lawsuit filed last week in Los Angeles federal court, Kelley Heyer says the online game platform used the dance – a viral sensation set to Charli’s “Apple” that was emulated by scores of celebrities and influencers – in a version of its “Dress To Impress” game that featured the singer Brat singer.
Though Roblox allegedly reached out to negotiate a license, Heyer says the talks never led to a deal – and that the company simply used her dance moves without permission.
Trending on Billboard
“Roblox proudly advertises that its platform allows creators to ‘create, scale and monetize,’” her lawyers write. “Yet, it has prevented Ms. Heyer from the crucial monetization of her work on the Roblox platform.”
Charli XCX is not named in the lawsuit nor accused of any wrongdoing.
Numerous copyright lawsuits have been filed in recent years over viral dance moves featured in online video games. Alfonso Ribeiro, who played Carlton on The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, sued Fortnite owner Epic Games over the use of his heavily-memed “Carlton dance” as an emote, as did the mother of Russell Horning, the so-called Backpack Kid who helped popularize the viral “Floss” dance.
For years, those cases faced skeptical judges who questioned whether simple dance moves were covered by copyright law. In 2020, a federal judge sided with Epic and tossed out a case filed by two former college basketball players over their “running man” dance. But in 2023 a federal appeals court issued a first-of-its-kind ruling reviving such a lawsuit against Epic Games, in which a panel of judges said they “see no reason to treat choreography differently” from longer dance routines.
In her lawsuit, Heyer says her dance was clearly protected by copyright law – and that Epic and Netflix have both struck licensing deals with her to use it. She says Roblox earned $123,000 in sales from selling the dance to users, but has refused to pay her any of it.
“Roblox has substantially benefitted and profited from its unlawful infringement of Ms. Heyer’s copyright and other uninvited misappropriations of Ms. Heyer’s intellectual property and proprietary rights in the Apple Dance,” her lawyers write.
In a statement responding to the lawsuit, Roblox denied any wrongdoing: “Roblox takes the protection of intellectual property very seriously and is committed to protecting intellectual property rights of independent developers and creators to brands and artists both on and off the platform,” the company said. “Roblox is confident in its position and the propriety of its dealings in this matter and looks forward to responding in court.”
Earlier this year, the Copyright Office opened a notice of inquiry (NOI) into U.S. performing rights organizations (PROs) – asking the music industry, venues and broadcasters that hold performance licenses to weigh in on whether or not they should face any new reform. Triggered by a so-called “proliferation” of new PROs in the market, and PROs alleged “lack of transparency,” it’s shaping up to be one of the most important issues facing the music publishing business this year. On Friday (April 11), the industry’s chance to submit comments came to a close. Ahead of all comments being made public, Billboard explains the origins of this inquiry and its possible implications.
How the NOI Started
On Sept. 12, 2024, Billboard broke the news that the House Judiciary Committee sent a letter to the Register of Copyrights, Shira Perlmutter, requesting the examination of “concerns” and “emerging issues” with U.S. PROs.
Trending on Billboard
The House Judiciary’s note cites two key issues: the “lack of transparency” surrounding PRO distributions and how they “currently gather information from…general licensees about public performance;” and the “proliferation” of PROs in the United States. This references the fact that, with newer entrants like Global Music Rights (GMR), PRO Music Rights (PMR) and AllTrack emerging over the last decade or so, the U.S. PRO total is up to six different options — making the licensing system more complicated and expensive for licensees. In contrast, most countries only have one PRO – while a small number have two – for writers to choose from.
Perlmutter and the Copyright Office replied to the letter by opening this inquiry in early 2025.
PRO History
The U.S. PRO system dates back to 1914 with the founding of the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP), which was created to help songwriters and publishers collect their earnings from public performances. This included collecting royalties from venues, restaurants, bars, college campuses and anywhere else music is played or performed in front of other people. It also included radio broadcasters. (In later years, as technology developed, performance monies also started to be collected from TV broadcasters and music streaming services.)
In 1931, the Society of European Stage Authors and Composers (SESAC) opened as a more boutique option, largely representing works published by European firms. In 1939, broadcasters in the radio business banded together in protest of some of ASCAP’s licensing practices, which they felt were unfair, to eventually form their own competing PRO, Broadcast Music Inc. (BMI).
For many years, ASCAP and BMI acted on a not-for-profit basis (BMI changed to for-profit status in 2022) and allowed any writer to join. Their open door policies meant that the two came to represent the vast majority of songwriters in the U.S., while SESAC continued as a smaller, for-profit player that allowed sign-ups by invitation only.
Alleging ASCAP and BMI were partaking in “anticompetitive business practices,” the Department of Justice (DOJ) sued ASCAP and BMI beginning in the 1930s. By 1941, the two PROs had settled their cases and entered consent decrees with the DOJ. One of the stipulations of these consent decrees said that ASCAP and BMI were subject to oversight by a “rate court” if a licensee couldn’t reach an agreement with them on an appropriate royalty. In short, ASCAP and BMI could no longer negotiate any rate they wanted to for their songwriters, which became increasingly challenging to navigate as performance licensees expanded over the years to include major tech platforms.
Royalty rates in the music publishing sector, unlike those in the recorded music business, are often overseen by government bodies in the U.S. That includes the rate court, which steps in to set performance license rates for ASCAP and BMI when they can’t agree with licensees; and the Copyright Royalty Board, which regulates the rates for all U.S. mechanical royalties. For that reason, the publishing business is particularly sensitive to talk of any additional criticism, restriction or regulation, which is a possible result of the U.S. Copyright Office’s inquiry should Congress find it appropriate to take further action afterwards.
Why the NOI Started
From the perspective of small venues around the country that have already been squeezed by the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. PRO system today — including having to pay up to six different PROs for music — is seen as complicated and increasingly expensive. Sources in the live industry say one of the newcomers, GMR, also charges higher prices than its competitors for its performance license. Because it was founded in 2013, long after ASCAP and BMI’s DOJ woes, and because it positioned itself as an invite-only, for-profit PRO for elite musicians like Drake, Bruce Springsteen and Billie Eilish, GMR charges a premium.
The other two newcomers, AllTrack and PMR, are less understood by some licensees. AllTrack was founded in 2017 by former SESAC board member Hayden Bower and focuses on mid-sized and/or independent talent, hoping to provide a modernized, streamlined approach to the over 100 year old PRO system of royalty collection; while PMR was founded in 2018 by serial entrepreneur Jake Noch. PMR is perhaps best known for suing “the entire music industry,” as the PRO put it, for allegedly “running an illegal cartel for the performance rights of musical works… [and entering] into an illegal agreement, combination and/or conspiracy to shut PMR out of the market and fix prices.”
The House Judiciary Committee also expressed concern that the increasing number of PROs in the U.S. “represents an ever-present danger of infringement allegations and potential litigation risk from new and unknown sources,” as it stated in its letter to Perlmutter.
Besides frustration about how many PROs there are in today’s market, the House Judiciary flags a number of areas where transparency might require improvement. “It is difficult to assess how efficiently PROs are distributing general licensing revenue based on publicly available data,” the letter reads. “[We] request that the Office examine how the various PROs currently gather information from live music venues, music services, and other general licensees about public performance; the level of information currently provided by PROs to the public; whether any gaps or discrepancies occur in royalty distribution; what technological and business practices exist or could be developed to improve the current system; the extent to which the current distribution practices are the result of existing legal and regulatory constraints; and potential recommendations for policymakers.”
Transparency issues have been flagged a number of times over the years by stakeholders who feel PROs – in the U.S. and abroad – can be unclear about how they calculate royalties, bonuses and advances distributed to talent. Some PROs, however, would likely disagree with that characterization. ASCAP, for example, is proud of its songwriter-led board of directors, which determines how it handles distributions.
What Happens Next
The comment period ended on Friday, and soon, the responses from publishers, PROs, venues, broadcasters and more will be made public. From there, the Copyright Office will review the comments, and it will eventually write up a report with its findings. There is no timeline for this report, and it should be noted that the Copyright Office does not have the remit to make any specific changes to PROs but its findings could be influential to Congress.
As artificial intelligence continues to blur the lines of creativity in music, South Korea’s largest music copyright organization, KOMCA (Korea Music Copyright Association), is drawing a hard line: No AI-created compositions will be accepted for registration. The controversial decision took effect on March 24, sending ripples through Korea’s music scene and sparking broader conversations about AI’s role in global songwriting.
In an official statement on its website, KOMCA explained that due to the lack of legal frameworks and clear management guidelines for AI-generated content, it will suspend the registration of any works involving AI in the creative process. This includes any track where AI was used — even in part — to compose, write lyrics or contribute melodically.
Now, every new registration must be accompanied by an explicit self-declaration confirming that no AI was involved at any stage of the song’s creation. This declaration is made by checking a box on the required registration form — a step that carries significant legal and financial consequences if false information is declared. False declarations could lead to delayed royalty payments, complete removal of songs from the registry, and even civil or criminal liability.
Trending on Billboard
“KOMCA only recognizes songs that are wholly the result of human creativity,” the association said, noting that even a 1% contribution from AI makes a song ineligible for registration. “Until there is clear legislation or regulatory guidance, this is a precautionary administrative policy.”
The non-profit organization represents over 30,000 members, including songwriters, lyricists, and publishers, and oversees copyright for more than 3.7 million works from artists like PSY, BTS, EXO and Super Junior.
Importantly, the policy applies to the composition and lyric-writing stages of song creation, not necessarily the production or recording phase. That means high-profile K-pop companies like HYBE, which have used AI to generate multilingual vocal lines for existing songs, are not directly affected — at least not yet.
While South Korea’s government policy allows for partial copyright protection when human creativity is involved, KOMCA’s stance is notably stricter, requiring a total absence of AI involvement for a song to be protected.
This move comes amid growing international debate over the copyrightability of AI-generated art. In the U.S., a federal appeals court recently upheld a lower court’s decision to reject copyright registration for a work created entirely by an AI system called Creativity Machine. The U.S. Copyright Office maintains that only works with “human authorship” are eligible for protection, though it allows for copyright in cases where AI is used as a tool under human direction.
“Allowing copyright for machine-determined creative elements could undermine the constitutional purpose of copyright law,” U.S. Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter said.
With AI tools becoming increasingly sophisticated — and accessible — KOMCA’s policy underscores a growing tension within the global music industry: Where do we draw the line between assistance and authorship?
This article originally appeared on Billboard Korea.
Dua Lipa won a ruling Thursday (March 27) dismissing a copyright lawsuit claiming she copied her smash hit song “Levitating” from two different decades-old songs.
The case, filed in 2022 by songwriters L. Russell Brown and Sandy Linzer, accused Lipa of ripping off their 1979 song “Wiggle and Giggle All Night” and their 1980 song “Don Diablo.” The lawsuit was one of two high-profile copyright cases filed over “Levitating,” a massive hit that spent 77 weeks on the Billboard Hot 100.
In her decision, Judge Katherine Polk Failla ruled that Lipa’s song shared only generic elements with Brown and Linzer’s songs — the kind of basic musical building blocks that are not covered by federal copyright law and cannot be owned by any one songwriter.
Trending on Billboard
“The court finds that a musical style, defined by plaintiffs as ‘pop with a disco feel,’ and a musical function, defined by plaintiffs to include ‘entertainment and dancing,’ cannot possibly be protectable,” the judge wrote. “To hold otherwise would be to completely foreclose the further development of music in that genre or for that purpose.”
The judge said that some of the material Brown and Linzer claimed Lipa stole — like a “patter style” featuring rapid singing of one syllable per note — had been “used for centuries” and existed in operas by Mozart and operettas by Gilbert and Sullivan. The judge said another allegedly infringing element, a rapid tempo, was also “common” and had appeared identically in “Stayin’ Alive” by the Bee Gees.
“It is possible that a ‘layperson’ could listen to portions of plaintiffs’ and defendants’ songs and hear similarities,” the judge said. “But … the similarity between the works concerns only non-copyrightable elements of the plaintiffs’ work.”
In a statement to Billboard, an attorney for Brown and Linzer said they “respectfully disagree” with the decision and would file an appeal.
“This case has always been about standing up for the enduring value of original songwriting, and we continue to believe in the strength of Mr. Brown and Mr. Linzer’s creative legacy,” attorney Jason T. Brown said. “There’s a growing disconnect between how these cases are decided — by academically analyzing briefs, bar lines, and musical notation — versus how audiences actually experience music.”
An attorney for Lipa did not immediately return a request for comment.
Released on Dua Lipa’s 2020 album Future Nostalgia, “Levitating” spent a whopping 41 weeks in the top ten of the Hot 100 — the longest ever such run for a female artist — and was later named the No. 1 Hot 100 song of 2021.
In early 2022, the star was sued over the track twice, both over accusations that she had lifted key elements from earlier songs. The first lawsuit came from a Florida reggae band named Artikal Sound System, which claimed Lipa lifted the core hook for her song from their 2015 “Live Your Life.” That case was dropped in 2023 after Lipa’s attorneys won a key early-stage ruling.
The second case came from Brown and Linzer, who alleged that Lipa had stolen the melody that starts just a few seconds into her song, when Lipa begins singing, “If you wanna run away with me…” They called it a “duplicate” of their own songs.
But in Thursday’s ruling, Judge Failla said that claim was merely over “a descending chord and the one additional note” — a “combination of two unprotectable elements” that she said are “not sufficiently numerous or original to constitute an original work entitled to copyright protection.”
In reaching that conclusion, the judge heavily cited from recent litigation against Ed Sheeran over accusations that his “Thinking Out Loud” infringed Marvin Gaye‘s “Let’s Get It On.” That case also ended with a ruling that Sheeran had used only common, unprotectible elements.
