Copyright
Page: 4
The National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA) warned some of its members on Tuesday that the organizations’ license with TikTok ends April 30 and it “do[es] not anticipate” to renew, extend or form a new license with the platform, according to a letter obtained by Billboard.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
This means that a lot more music could be removed from TikTok come May, spreading the reach of recent music takedowns far beyond what users have already experienced since Universal Music Group began pulling its recorded music and publishing catalogs off the platform in the last month. The NMPA license is used by a number of independent music publishers, but the organization has previously declined to specify which ones.
“Recently, the press has highlighted concerns around TikTok’s licensing practices, concerns that NMPA has heard directly from many of our members,” says the organization in its letter to members.
Trending on Billboard
If publishers wish to continue to license their works to TikTok, the NMPA’s letter urges publishers using its license to “engage directly with TikTok to negotiate a license beyond April 30.” For those that wish to let the license lapse at the end of April, the NMPA says its attorneys are available to “discuss enforcement options.”
“It is important that all NMPA members understand that without a license in place, TikTok should not be using your musical works on its platform,” the organization wrote.
The NMPA negotiates its TikTok license an optional offering for its membership, allowing them to bypass the strain and cost of negotiating directly with the short-form video app. Though the major music publishers are part of the NMPA’s membership, they do not use the NMPA model license for TikTok and, instead, negotiate their deals directly.
David Israelite, the NMPA’s CEO and president, previously announced that the NMPA license was up for renewal in April, but this is the first time the organization has acknowledged that it will not be pursuing that renewal. “I’m only going to say two things about TikTok,” Israelite said at an Association of Independent Music Publishers’ event in Los Angels on Feb. 1. “The first is I think music is tremendously important to the business model of TikTok, and, secondly, I am just stating the fact that the NMPA model license, which many of you are using, with TikTok expires in April.”
The NMPA is known for its aggressive approach to licensing negotiations with social media sites, streaming services and gaming platforms. On Tuesday, it was announced that a federal judge will allow the NMPA’s multi-million dollar lawsuit against X to go forward, although it tossed some significant elements of the case. The NMPA has also similarly fought back against Twitch, Roblox, and Pandora in recent years.
Read the full letter to NMPA members below:
If you are receiving this Member Alert you are currently participating in a license with TikTok through NMPA’s 2022 model license opt-in.
NMPA is notifying all participants that these two-year licenses are set to expire on April 30, 2024.
Recently, the press has highlighted concerns around TikTok’s licensing practices, concerns that NMPA has heard directly from many of our members.
At this time, we do not anticipate that there will be an option to renew or extend the current NMPA licenses or participate in a new license with TikTok through NMPA.
NMPA members should make their own business determination whether to engage directly with TikTok to negotiate a license beyond April 30, 2024.
It is important that all NMPA members understand that without a license in place, TikTok should not be using your musical works on its platform.
Starting May 1, 2024, any members who are not licensed with TikTok and would like to discuss enforcement options can contact attorneys at NMPA.
If circumstances change prior to the expiration of the current TikTok licenses, NMPA will promptly notify members.
We are here to answer your questions.
A federal judge is allowing music publishers to move forward with a copyright lawsuit filed against X Corp. over allegations of widespread copyright infringement on the social media platform formerly known as Twitter.
In a split ruling Tuesday (Mar. 5), Judge Aleta A. Trauger tossed out major parts of the case, like the accusation that X itself directly infringed any music. But she allowed some of the lawsuit’s core allegations — that X essentially enabled illegal behavior by its users by refusing to crack down on them — to move ahead.
In one example, the judge ruled that the music companies could pursue their “particularly striking” allegation that Twitter had been less willing to crack down on users who had paid for “verified” status.
Trending on Billboard
“If X Corp. truly did allow some users to effectively purchase the right to be able to infringe with less severe consequences, then that was plausibly an instance of promoting X/Twitter’s use to infringe copyright,” the judge wrote.
The case against Twitter was filed in June by dozens of music publishers, who claim that users on the Elon Musk-owned site had infringed over 1,700 songs from writers like Taylor Swift and Beyoncé — a claim that, if proven, could put the social media giant on the hook for $255 million in damages.
The case was organized by the National Music Publishers’ Association, which has long argued that Twitter is the last major social media service that refuses to license music. TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and Snapchat have all allegedly entered into such deals with publishers, providing a library of licensed music for users to legally add to their posts. The lawsuit claimed that Twitter had, instead, effectively allowed its users to supply such music illegally.
The case was filed by Concord, Universal Music Publishing Group, peermusic, ABKCO Music, Anthem Entertainment, Big Machine Music, BMG Rights Management, Hipgnosis Songs Group, Kobalt Music Publishing America, Mayimba Music, Reservoir Media Management, Sony Music Publishing, Spirit Music Group, The Royalty Network, Ultra Music Publishing, Warner Chappell Music and Wixen Music Publishing.
Twitter moved to dismiss the lawsuit in August, arguing that social media sites clearly do not directly infringe copyrights when users upload illegal material. And they argued that digital services also cannot be sued for so-called secondary infringement unless they take active steps to aid the illicit behavior: “In this case, plaintiffs do not allege that X encouraged, induced, or took affirmative steps with the intent to foster the infringement of plaintiffs’ works,” the company’s lawyers wrote at the time.
In Tuesday’s ruling, Judge Trauger partly agreed with Twitter’s arguments. She easily dismissed the allegations of direct infringement, citing recent Supreme Court precedents, and also ruled that the company could not be held liable for “vicarious infringement” — meaning it profited directly from allowing illicit materials on the site. She also ruled that the music companies could not accuse X of so-called contributory infringement simply by offering tools that could sometimes be abused by infringers.
“Many of the supposedly problematic practices that the plaintiffs identify are unremarkable features of X/Twitter generally that X Corp. has simply failed to fence off completely from infringers,” the judge wrote. “The plaintiffs have not identified any basis for concluding that X Corp. was obligated to make its service worse for everyone, just to punish the people who misuse it.”
But Judge Trauger said other alleged conduct, if ultimately proven, could put Twitter on the hook for damages. One such claim, she said, is the allegation that X committed contributory infringement by failing to crack down on “severe serial infringers” who “openly and obviously used the service as a tool for repeatedly posting infringing content.”
“If … there was a class of X/Twitter users who were brazenly using the platform as an infringement tool, and X Corp. made the decision to unreasonably withhold enforcement of its own policies against those users … then X Corp. could plausibly be held contributorily liable,” the judge wrote.
Another claim Judge Trauger allowed to move forward was that X took too long to respond to takedown notices from copyright owners: “If X Corp. engaged in egregious delays in responding to valid takedown notices, or outright ignored some notices that were both facially and actually valid, that could support liability.”
Notably, Tuesday’s ruling did not address the thorny issue of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), a federal law that provides sites like Twitter with immunity — a “safe harbor” — from litigation over material uploaded by their users, so long as they promptly remove it when asked. The music publishers say X clearly failed to do so; the site strongly denies that point.
Though X’s initial motion to dismiss the case did not invoke the DMCA, the company’s lawyers will undoubtedly do so at a later stage of the case now that some of the claims are moving forward. When they do so, the statute will provide X lawyers with another avenue for defeating the allegations that Judge Trauger refused to dismiss on Tuesday.
An attorney for X did not return a request for comment on Tuesday evening.
In a statement to Billboard, a spokeswoman for the NMPA said the group was “pleased” with the ruling: “The spread of rampant music piracy on the platform is obvious and unacceptable, and we look forward to securing just compensation for the songwriters and music publishers whose work is being stolen.”
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 federal appeals court overturns a $1 billion verdict won by the major labels over internet piracy; Kanye West blasts Adidas for selling “fake Yeezys” while also “suing” him; Aerosmith singer Steven Tyler wins the dismissal of one of his sexual abuse cases; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: Billion-Dollar Piracy Verdict Gone – For Now
One billion dollars – with a “B.” Back in 2019, that’s the massive sum that a federal jury ordered Cox Communications to pay to Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment and Warner Music Group after concluding that the internet service provider had turned a blind eye to infringement by its users.
Piracy is no longer the existential threat it was once for the music industry. But in the mid-2010s, it was still a big deal — so much so, that music companies began suing ISPs to force them to take action. In 2018, the Big Three filed such a case against Cox, claiming that it had essentially helped its subscribers illegally share more than 10,000 of their copyrighted songs.
Trending on Billboard
ISPs are usually shielded from lawsuits over infringing conduct by their users, thanks to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and its system of so-called safe harbors. But the judge overseeing the case ruled that Cox had forfeited the DMCA’s protections by failing to terminate subscribers who had repeatedly pirated music. Stripped of immunity, Cox was ordered to pay the labels more than $99,000 for every song its users infringed — one of the largest ever awards in an intellectual property lawsuit.
Cox appealed the case, arguing that it was “unprecedented in every way” and would require ISPs to cut off vital internet access based on unproven accusations of piracy. The labels said it was a fair punishment for a company that had allegedly avoided the problem for fear of losing money.
After more than four years of waiting for a ruling (so long that file-sharing has become something of antique topic) a federal appeals court finally weighed in this week — overturning the huge verdict, but leaving Cox still facing the potential for massive damages. Go read the full story to find out more.
Other top stories this week…
IS ADIDAS SUING YE? – Kanye West took to Instagram to blast Adidas for “suing him” at the same time that it was selling “fake Yeezys” to consumers: “Not only are they putting out fake colorways that are non-approved, they’re suing me for $250 million.” So is Adidas really suing him? The answer is … complicated.
MORE DIDDY ALLEGATIONS – Sean Combs was hit with another abuse lawsuit, this time by a producer named Rodney “Lil Rod” Jones Jr. who says the rapper sexually assaulted and harassed him. But the case also includes more bizarre allegations, claiming that Diddy and others participated in a “RICO enterprise” – civil allegations under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, a federal law that’s more often used in criminal cases against mobsters and drug cartels. Combs’ lawyer Shawn Holley told Billboard that the claims were “pure fiction” filed by a man “shamelessly looking for an undeserved payday.”
…AND A NEW RESPONSE – Days earlier, Combs also filed his first legal response to one of his earlier abuse cases, in which a woman claims that he “sex trafficked” and “gang raped” her when she was a 17-year-old girl in 2003. In the filing, Combs told a federal court that the allegations are “fictional”; among other things, Diddy’s lawyers said the case was filed so late that it violates his constitutional right to defend himself.
EAGLES’ STOLEN NOTES TRIAL – Don Henley took the stand in an ongoing criminal trial of three memorabilia sellers who prosecutors claim tried to sell stolen draft lyrics to “Hotel California” and other Eagles hits. The accused defendants claim Henley willingly gave the pages to a journalist decades ago, meaning they were never stolen. But in his testimony, the rock legend said he only gave the writer access, not possession: “You know what? It doesn’t matter if I drove a U-Haul truck across country and dumped them at his front door. He had no right to keep them or to sell them.”
STEVEN TYLER RULING – A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit accusing Aerosmith singer Steven Tyler of sexually assaulting a teenage girl in 1975, ruling that she had waited too long to bring her case. Jeanne Bellino sued the rocker in November under New York’s “lookback” law that allows abuse victims to sue over decades-old claims. But the judge ruled that her allegations — forcible kissing and groping — were not covered by the law because they did not present a “serious risk of physical injury.”
NICKELBACK CASE DISMISSED – A federal appeals court 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.”
IDOL PRODUCER SUED AGAIN – Former American Idol producer Nigel Lythgoe was hit with another sexual assault lawsuit, this time by an unidentified woman who claims he forcibly touched her in 2016. Lythgoe was already facing an earlier lawsuit from Paula Abdul over two separate alleged incidents of sexual assault.
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.”