Copyright
Page: 3
A federal appeals court has rejected a copyright lawsuit that claimed Nickelback ripped off its 2006 hit “Rockstar” from an earlier song called “Rock Star,” ruling that the band can’t be sued simply for using “clichés” and “singing about being a rockstar.”
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
Upholding a judge’s decision last year that tossed the case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled Monday that Kirk Johnston had not even come close to proving that Nickelback infringed his earlier song when it released “Rockstar.”
Johnston, the lead singer of a Texas band called Snowblind Revival, had argued that the two songs have such similar lyrics that the lower judge should have ruled that they were “strikingly similar,” but the appeals court sharply disagreed.
Trending on Billboard
“Johnston’s expert categorizes the lyrics into common themes such as ‘making lots of money,’ ‘connections to famous people,’ and ‘references to sports’,” the three-judge panel wrote. “But these broad categories are mere clichés of being a rockstar that are not unique to the rock genre. Singing about being a rockstar is not limited to Johnston.”
Ditto for other lyrics about sports, the appeals court wrote. Johnston’s song included the line “Might buy the Cowboys and that’s how I’ll spend my Sundays,” while Nickelback’s song featured the line “And a bathroom I can play baseball in.”
“These lyrics reference different sports in different contexts, and do not approach the threshold of striking similarity,” the appellate judges wrote. “No reasonable juror would think that Nickelback could have produced its lyric about baseball only by copying Johnston’s lyric about football.”
Released on Nickelback’s 2005 album, All the Right Reasons, “Rockstar” has not aged well with critics. In 2008, the Guardian said the song “makes literally no sense and is the worst thing of all time.” In 2012, Buzzfeed listed it as the second-worst song ever written, citing it as an example of “why everyone hates Nickelback so much.” But the song was a commercial hit, eventually reaching No. 6 on the Billboard Hot 100 in September 2007 and ultimately spending nearly a year on the chart.
Johnston sued in May 2020, claiming the hit song had stolen “substantial portions” of his own “Rock Star,” including the “tempo, song form, melodic structure, harmonic structures and lyrical themes.” In particular, he cited similar lyrics about rock star lifestyles, making huge amounts of money and having famous friends.
But in March 2023, U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman that Johnston’s case at times “borders on the absurd.” He said any similarities between the two songs were just “outlandish stereotypes and images associated with being a huge, famous, rock star,” and that much of the rest of the songs were different.
“Stated simply, they do not sound alike,” the judge wrote. “Where both songs evoke similar themes, they are rendered dissimilar through the vivid detail of the original expression in Nickelback’s lyrics.”
On Monday, the Fifth Circuit upheld that decision – meaning that, barring an extremely unlikely trip to the U.S. Supreme Court, the case is over for good.
In the ruling, the appeals court also upheld another important finding: That there was zero evidence that frontman Chad Kroeger and the other members of the rock band ever heard Johnston’s earlier song. Such “access” is a key question in any copyright lawsuit; without showing “access”, an accuser like Johnston must prove that two songs are essentially identical.
In appealing that ruling, Johnston argued that his band Snowblind Revival and Nickelback were “moving in relatively the same circles,” or that UMG executives had potentially attended one of his band’s shows at an Austin concert venue. But the appeals court was unmoved, calling it “mere speculation.”
“Inferring access from this evidence would require ‘leaps of logic’ that are not supported by the record,” the appeals court wrote. “A jury would have to infer that the executives Johnston named actually attended Snowblind’s shows or received one of his demo CDs, and that these executives then showed the song to Nickelback. This “chain of hypothetical transmittals is insufficient …especially in the face of testimony from Nickelback members and relevant executives that they had never heard of Johnston’s song.”
Attorneys for both sides did not immediately return requests for comment on Wednesday.
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: Sony Music files a lawsuit claiming the Whitney Houston biopic didn’t pay to use her songs; one of Kanye’s new songs is pulled from streamers after accusations of copyright infringement; a federal judge orders Cam’ron to pay a photographer for using an image of himself; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: Was the Whitney Houston Movie Out of Sync?
If you’re going to make a musical biopic, it’s important to sign a sync licensing deal. But it doesn’t mean much if you don’t actually pay for it.
Trending on Billboard
In a lawsuit filed last week, Sony Music Entertainment accused the producers of the 2022 biopic Whitney Houston: I Wanna Dance With Somebody of doing exactly that. More than a year after the film was released, the label says it hasn’t been paid a dime for the use of more than 20 songs like “I Will Always Love You.”
Musical biopics are big business – 2018’s Bohemian Rhapsody earned more $900 million at the box office and Baz Luhrmann’s 2022 Elvis made $288 million. But as we noted in this space a few weeks back, they pose a unique challenge that isn’t present for a run-of-the-mill true-life movie: you essentially must secure the ability to play the music of the star in question.
In last week’s lawsuit, Sony made a point to note that dynamic: “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.”
So then what happened with Wanna Dance? Go read the full story here, including access to the actual lawsuit filed by Sony Music.
Other top stories this week…
KANYE SONG PULLED – Kanye West’s track “Good (Don’t Die)” was removed from Spotify and other platforms after the estate of legendary singer Donna Summer claimed that the song featured an unlicensed interpolation of her 1977 hit “I Feel Love.” Ye’s album itself, Vultures 1, was also briefly removed from digital platforms over a dispute with the original distributor – but still debuted at No. 1 on the Billboard 200.
CAM’RON’S CAMERA WRONG – A federal judge ordered Cam’ron to pay more than $50,000 to a photographer for using her photo – a famous shot of the Dipset rapper wearing a fuzzy pink coat and hat while holding a matching flip phone – on a slew of merchandise without permission. He’s just the latest in a long list of celebrities who have faced costly legal actions for using copyrighted images of themselves without paying the photographer.
CASE DISMISSED – Roddy Ricch won a ruling from a federal judge dismissing a copyright lawsuit that claimed the rapper stole key elements of his chart-topping 2019 song “The Box” from a 1975 song track called “Come On Down.” The judge said that Ricch’s song had “significant dissimilarities” from the earlier tune – a common sample in the hip-hop world – and that “no reasonable jury” would call Ricch an infringer.
RUSSELL SIMMONS ACCUSATIONS – The embattled music mogul was hit with a new lawsuit over allegations that he raped a former Def Jam video producer in the 1990s, the latest in a long list of public abuse allegations Simmons. Days later, the Def Jam founder was named in a second civil case – this time by a previous abuse accuser (former record executive Drew Dixon) over claims that Simmons defamed her by suggesting during a December interview that she was lying about her accusations against him.
SUSPICIOUS MINDERS? – Priscilla Presley is facing a lawsuit that claims she illegally turned her back on a former business partner named Brigitte Kruse, who claims she helped Elvis Presley’s ex-wife “dig herself out of impending financial ruin” and played a key role in getting the recent Priscilla movie made. Presley’s lawyer tell a different story, saying Priscilla rightly split with Kruse after discovering serious financial wrongdoing.
DANCE DANCE RESOLUTION – Fortnite owner Epic Games reached an agreement to end a lawsuit filed by celebrity choreographer Kyle Hanagami that claimed the gamemaker turned his dance moves into a lucrative “emote” that Fortnite players could buy. The deal with Hanagami, who has worked with BTS, Jennifer Lopez, Justin Bieber and Britney Spears, came months after a federal appeals court issued a first-of-its-kind ruling that allowed the case to move forward toward a scheduled trial this spring.
GLORIA TREVI CASE EXPLAINED – Mexican pop star Gloria Trevi is facing a complex legal battle over renewed allegations of serious sexual wrongdoing involving her former manager Sergio Andrade – claims she strongly denies by arguing that she, too, was a victim of his abuse. To get you up to speed, Billboard senior editor Griselda Flores put together a deep-dive timeline of Trevi’s legal woes – go read it here.
Even after Ozzy Osbourne denied Kanye West‘s sampling request on his new album with Ty Dolla $ign, Vultures 1, elements of the Black Sabbath hit “Iron Man” still appear on the album.
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
The version of Vultures 1 that West released does not use that sample of Ozzy Osbourne’s solo band performing “Iron Man” at the 1983 Us Festival. Instead, it uses a sample of West’s own track, “Hell of a Life,” released in 2010 with Universal Music Group (UMG), which also includes an interpolation of Black Sabbath’s “Iron Man” guitar riff. This use would likely also require approval from the members of that band — Osbourne, Tony Iommi, Geezer Butler and Bill Ward — all of whom have writing and publishing credits on “Hell of a Life.”
Because “Hell of a Life” includes several samples, there are actually more songwriters on that track than on “Iron Man” alone. They also include swamp rocker Tony White Joe and Sylvester Stewart, better known as Sly Stone. The Stewart song comes from a sample of “She’s My Baby” by The Mojo Men, a band which Stewart played with and wrote for early on in his career. Randall Wixen, founder of Wixen Music Publishing, which represents “She’s My Baby” and controls a 35% stake in the “Hell of a Life” songwriting and publishing, confirms the “Carnival” use was not cleared by his company either.
Trending on Billboard
“It’s ironic that Kanye replaced the unlicensed sample of the Ozzy Osbourne track ‘Iron Man’ with a sample of ‘Hell of a Life,’ which also samples a song by Osbourne and Tony Iommi,” says Wixen. “So, he’s just substituted one unauthorized Ozzy sample for another and now brought our song into the picture. In a perfect world, all samples would be approved and cleared prior to release. It is basic respect for the songwriter.”
It’s not the only unlicensed use of a song or recording on the record, either. A spokesperson for Primary Wave, which has a partnership with James Brown‘s estate, tells Billboard that a use of The Godfather of Soul’s oft-sampled “Funky President (People It’s Bad)” was not cleared for use on the Vultures 1 track “Fuk Sumn.”
It is not unusual for albums to be released with unsettled songwriter splits, often to writers and publishers’ consternation. It’s less common that an album is released without clearing samples or interpolations, though Rell Lafargue, president and COO of Reservoir Media, says it still happens. But the level of West’s popularity — and notoriety — makes album an extreme example.
West’s team is working with the sample clearance company Alien Music Services to license these works and, according to multiple sources, they have so far secured a patchwork of licenses needed. Some works are cleared, others are not and some only partially. For example, Lafargue says Reservoir is currently negotiating the use of a sample of Brand Nubian‘s “Slow Down,” for the album track “Keys to My Life,” but the deal is not done yet. Multiple sources also say they were only approached with licensing requests after Vultures 1 was released last Saturday. Now the album is a serious contender to debut at No. 1 on the Billboard 200 albums chart next week.
“On the level of Kanye in 2024 to put out an entire album with samples that haven’t even been requested to be cleared, I don’t think I’ve ever really seen that today,” says Lafargue, who helped release De La Soul’s recording catalog to streaming services last year after it was famously tied up in sample clearance issues. “That’s the exception for sure.”
This has already led to problems for the album. On Wednesday, the song “Good (Don’t Die)” was pulled from Spotify following a copyright infringement claim filed days earlier on behalf of Donna Summer‘s estate, and other streaming services soon followed suit. The estate claimed on a social media post that West’s team had asked for permission to use Summer’s iconic hit “I Feel Love” and had been denied, but the album was released with an interpolation on it anyway.
Separately, on Thursday, the platform used to distribute Vultures 1 to streaming services, FUGA, told Billboard it was removing the album from its systems. However, there was no suggestion that was related to sample or interpolation clearance issues. The album is now being distributed by Label Engine, a service owned by Create Music Group.
Che’ Pope from Yeezy Music says that licensing discussions are “in process” for the album and “everything’s in great shape, except for Ozzy Osbourne and Donna Summer.” He says that the Summer use should never have been released, and that the team is working on the “Carnival” issue now. With “Carnival,” Pope says West just needed a “guitar turnaround” on the track (the use appears around 1:43) and they can “figure out a way to play something else there,” unlike with “Good (Don’t Die)” where the interpolation was more material to the song. “There’s a few of us who play guitar,” Pope adds.
West plans to release Vultures as a trilogy project, and Pope says the licensing issues leading up to this album’s release were a matter of which songs were going to make the cut. “We didn’t know what was actually on the album until it got closer to release date,” he says. “So the thing is we had all the samples from what could potentially be all on any of the three volumes.”
It’s rare that streaming services will pull a major artist’s song over an unlicensed sample or interpolation. More typically, a deal is worked out between the artist’s and creators’ teams to put a license in place, and since the track is already out the artist loses leverage in those negotiations and will often give up a larger share of the rights. This was famously the case with The Verve‘s hit “Bittersweet Symphony,” which was based on a sample from a 1965 version of The Rolling Stones‘ song “The Last Time.” Since the band did not clear the song with The Rolling Stones’ former manager, Allen Klein, who owned the copyrights to their pre-1970 songs, frontman Richard Ashcroft was forced to relinquish all publishing to Klein’s company ABKCO Music and the songwriting credits were changed to The Stones’ Mick Jagger and Keith Richards.
While West built a name for himself as an all-time great hip-hop producer with exquisite use of samples and interpolations, with this release that’s been complicated by his recent history of antisemitism, starting in 2022 and after which he was widely condemned and lost numerous business deals. Speaking with Billboard on Feb. 9, Ozzy Osbourne’s wife and manager Sharon Osbourne noted that Ozzy often allows other artists to sample his work, “but the simple thing is, we don’t want to be associated with a hater.”
Sharon Osbourne, who is daughter of the U.K. music manager Don Arden and was raised Jewish, continued, “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, f— you, basically.”
In all, Vultures 1 has at least two dozen samples and interpolations across 16 tracks, according to the website WhoSampled.com and reviewed by Billboard. Those include several uses of West’s own older music, like with “Hell of a Life” on “Carnival” and his 2012 track “Cold” on “Vultures” — all of which would presumably require licenses with UMG, under which he released those earlier recordings. There are also uses of samples from the film Dogma and a TikTok video of a cheer group and an interview with Mike Tyson from a podcast with Hollywood Unlocked’s Jason Lee, who was formerly West’s head of media and partnerships. And, of course, there is a lot of other creators’ music.
Pope says the licensing process on this album has not been “different from any album” prior, but adds that as West’s first proper release as an independent artist after he no longer benefits from easier clearances within the UMG system. (Aside from West’s own tracks, the UMG record samples include “Back That Azz Up (Back That Thang Up)” by Juvenile, “Bring the Noise” by Public Enemy and “Jubilation” by Pierre Henry and Spooky Tooth, among others.) There are also the image issues. “The landscape, his reality is different,” says Pope. “He’s got an uphill battle in certain areas. Clearing samples is never easy, but this one is more challenging just because of how the landscape on everything is.”
Most record labels and publishers contacted for this story declined to comment, with many saying they do not speak on individual licensing deals and that their policy is to follow their artists’ and songwriters’ wishes in these cases. Not every artist and songwriter involved, however, may know that their work is featured on Vultures 1.
Indie R&B artist Dijon posted to Instagram Stories on Feb. 9, a day before the album’s release, suggesting that he was unaware his song “Good Luck” was being sampled on the track “Stars”. (Now Pope says Dijon “should be good,” though, and the artist’s reps declined to comment.) Wixen and Primary Wave only learned of their creators’ uses on the album until Billboard contacted the companies, and considering the complexity of licensing a sample that contains a sample, it’s easy to imagine that some rights holders still don’t know their work is being used.
Edie Brickell & the New Bohemians, for example, according to the Songview database, have songwriting credits on Brand Nubian’s “Slow Down” because it samples their 1988 hit “What I Am.” Universal Music Publishing Group, which reps the band’s publishing on the song did not respond to request for comment.
The song “Fuk Sumn” also samples late Three 6 Mafia member Koopsta Knicca‘s underground single “Smoking on a J,” which itself samples the Days of Our Lives theme song and Isaac Hayes‘ “Walk From Regio’s” off the 1971 Shaft soundtrack, according to WhoSampled.com and Billboard‘s own review.
West’s own “So Appalled” from 2010 is sampled on the track “Problematic,” but that also includes Manfred Mann on the songwriting credits due to a sample of “You Are – I Am,” according to Songview.
All said, a project like Vultures 1 could require upwards of 50 clearances, says Danny Zook, CEO of Alien Music Services. “We are working diligently to clear all the samples on this project,” he says.
A federal judge has ordered Cam’ron to pay more than $50,000 to a photographer for using her photo – a shot of the Dipset rapper wearing a fuzzy pink coat and hat while holding a matching flip phone – on a slew of merchandise without permission.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
A year after Djamilla Cochran sued the rapper (real name Cameron Giles) and his company Dipset Couture for slapping her image on merch, Judge William Martini ruled Thursday that he had indeed committed copyright infringement. It was an easy win for Cochran, since Cam never responded to the lawsuit or offered any defenses.
In his ruling, the judge ordered Cam to pay $40,530 in so-called statutory damages — many times the $5,790 licensing fee that Getty Images would have charged him to use the image on commercial products if he had sought permission.
Trending on Billboard
“The court finds that a statutory damages award of seven times the licensing fee is sufficient to compensate plaintiff for the infringement of her copyright and to deter future infringements by punishing the defendants,” the judge said. He also ordered the rapper to repay the $10,691 that Cochran spent to bring the lawsuit – a common add-on penalty in copyright cases.
A rep for Cam’ron did not immediately return a request for comment.
Cochran’s image (featured above this story) captured Cam’ron at a New York fashion show in 2003, wearing a flashy shade of pink that would become a key part of his brand identity. In 2016, GQ magazine used the photo atop an article titled “Cam’ron Is Very Particular When It Comes to the Color Pink,” saying that the rapper had “defined himself with an iconic pink mink coat” at that fashion show.
In an April lawsuit filed in New Jersey federal court, Cochran claimed that Cam had featured the image on t-shirts, jewelry and a slew of other merchandise sold by his Dipset Couture — including shower curtains, pillows, swimsuits, socks and even a birthday cake.
The complaint came with numerous screenshots of Dipset Couture’s product listings and Cam’ron’s posts promoting them, and said Cam’ron had been alerted numerous times that he was using the image without a license.
“Getty Images notified defendants of their infringing activities by mail and email on multiple occasions,” Cochran’s lawyers wrote. “Despite those notifications, defendants continued to sell merchandise and continued to display the photograph on website and accounts.”
While it might sound unfair to a celebrity, the copyrights to a photo are almost always retained by the person who snapped it. Being featured in an image doesn’t grant someone a right to use it for free, and certainly not on commercial merchandise.
That’s not a new dilemma for stars. Over the last few years, Miley Cyrus, Dua Lipa, Justin Bieber, Ariana Grande, Emily Ratajkowski, LeBron James, Katy Perry and others have all faced copyright cases after they re-used photos of themselves snapped by someone else.
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.