Copyright
Page: 5
Former Black Sabbath frontman Ozzy Osbourne called out Kanye West on social media on Friday (Feb. 9), saying that West had asked to sample a song but was “refused permission because he is an antisemite,” and used the sample anyway at a listening event for his new album at the United Center in Chicago on Thursday. “I want no association with this man!” Osbourne wrote.
Although Osbourne said online that West asked to sample “War Pigs,” the song he seems to have used is “Iron Man” – specifically a version performed by Ozzy Osbourne’s solo band at the 1983 Us Festival.
“We get so many requests for these songs,” his wife and manager Sharon Osbourne tells Billboard, “and when we saw that request, we just said no way.” Without permission, West would be unable to release a new song that used the sample. “We’ve been in touch with his team” about the legal issue,” says Sharon Osbourne. “And it’s also an issue of having respect for another artist.”
Starting in 2022, West, now known simply as Ye, made a series of antisemitic comments, for which he was widely condemned, and lost numerous sponsorship and fashion deals. Although he offered an online apology for his statements in December, the first song from his forthcoming album, Vultures, includes the lyric “How am I antisemitic? / I just fucked a Jewish bitch.” Although West does not seem to have finalized release details for the album – and Ozzy Osbourne’s comments suggest he may face issues clearing samples – he has held a number of listening events to promote it.
Ozzy Osbourne often allows other artists to sample his work. “But the simple thing is, we don’t want to be associated with a hater,” says Sharon Osbourne, who was raised Jewish. (Her father, the U.K. music manager Don Arden, was Jewish.) “To spread hate the way he does, it shouldn’t be allowed. All the excuses – he’s bipolar or whatever – doesn’t change that. It’s like, fuck you, basically.”
Like many early Black Sabbath songs, “Iron Man” was written by the band – Osbourne, Tony Iommi, Geezer Butler and Bill Ward. Who has the rights to license interpolations of a composition by more than one songwriter can depend on the agreement between them. In this case, Sharon Osbourne tells Billboard that the agreement says all four songwriters need to agree. There could also be permissions issues with the 1983 performance recording, to which Ozzy Ozbourne presumably has the rights.
Coincidentally, Ozzy and Sharon Osbourne dressed up as Kanye West and Bianca Censori for Halloween, but that was “a joke,” Sharon Osbourne said.
LONDON — Record labels, publishers and streaming services in the United Kingdom have signed up to a voluntary code of good practice that requires them to provide clear and transparent information to artists and creators about how their streaming royalties are calculated.
“The UK Code of Good Practice on Transparency in Music Streaming” was published Wednesday (Jan. 31) by the U.K. government’s Intellectual Property Office (IPO).
It obliges key players in the British music industry to supply musicians, songwriters, composers and producers with “timely, accurate and clear royalty accounting information,” as well as detail any deductions that have been applied.
Signatories include representatives of major and independent record labels, publishers, creators, collecting societies and streaming services.
Trade bodes BPI — which represents more than 500 labels, including the U.K. arms of Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment and Warner Music Group — and the Association of Independent Music (AIM), which acts on behalf of U.K. independent record labels and music companies, are among the music groups backing the pledge.
The U.K. government says the agreement forms a “significant point” in improving transparency around licensing deals and music streaming royalties that will build greater trust between record labels, streaming services and creators.
“This pioneering code, designed by the music industry with Government backing, has trust at its core,” said Viscount Camrose, minister for AI and Intellectual Property, in a statement.
The cross-industry pact, said Camrose, will “help ensure artists get the royalties and protections they deserve when their music is played on streaming platforms.”
Wednesday’s transparency agreement is the latest in an ongoing series of government-led interventions into the U.K. music industry fuelled by artist discontent over low payments from streaming.
In 2021, a Parliamentary inquiry into the music streaming business called into question the major record labels’ dominance of the industry and branded the global streaming model as unsustainable in its current form, saying it “needs a complete reset.”
Numerous government-led working groups, investigations and initiatives spun out of the eight-month-long Parliamentary probe, including last year’s industry-wide pledge – also made at the behest and overseen by the IPO – to improve the digital metadata for song recordings.
The new transparency agreement further increases the obligations on rights holders and digital services to address long-standing issues in music streaming, but it does not constitute a regulatory change and it is not clear what, if any, repercussions a record label or DSP would face for breaching its terms.
Rather, the voluntary code is intended as a stimulus for music companies to lift standards and deliver more accurate returns to artists by following a number of agreed principles.
They include labels, publishers and managers making it clear to artists the terms of their contracts, licence deals and remuneration terms, including any recoupable costs.
Streaming services are required to provide to all relevant rights holders accurate and timely usage data. The code also states that artists and creators should have a contractual right to audit financial information, including royalty payments, from labels, publishers, distributors, collecting societies and, in the case of self-releasing artists, streaming services that they hold contracts with.
Other music groups backing the transparency code include the Digital Entertainment and Retail Association (ERA), whose members include streaming services; the Music Publishers Association (MPA); Musicians’ Union (MU); Featured Artists Coalition (The FAC); Music Managers Forum (MMF); Music Producers Guild (MPG) and U.K. collecting societies PRS for Music and Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL).
The code will come into force on July 31 with the IPO set to carry out a first review of its implementation early next year.
In the meantime, several other government initiatives looking into the digital music business will continue to operate in the background, including a new working group –made up of industry stakeholders — looking into artist remuneration from music streaming.
Details on membership of the remuneration working group, which was first announced last May, will be published shortly, said the government. A report into equitable remuneration commissioned by the IPO is due to be published in the coming months
Commenting on the new transparency requirements, BPI chief executive Jo Twist said the “landmark agreement… builds meaningfully on the recent progress around metadata and other significant measures addressing creator concerns around music streaming.”
U.K. trade group The Council Of Music Makers said that while the commitments contained in the code “are modest, it provides a framework that can be used to start tackling the “systemic lack of transparency” in music streaming. The organization said it will be launching a complaints mechanism when the code comes into force for artists and their managers to report non-compliance with its terms.
“The big music and streaming companies need to stop using ‘artist-centric’ as a hollow buzzword and actually put artists and other music-makers at the centre of their businesses,” said a Council Of Music Makers spokesperson.
Did a celebrity tattoo artist violate copyright law when she inked a photographer’s portrait of jazz legend Miles Davis onto the arm of a friend? A jury is set to the decide that question in a trial set to kick off Tuesday.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
Photographer Jeffrey B. Sedlik filed his lawsuit back in 2021 against Katherine Von Drachenberg – better known as Kat Von D, a celebrity tattoo artist who rose to prominence in the 2000s on her TLC reality show “fLA Ink.” He claimed she infringed his 1989 image of Davis by using it as the basis for a tattoo.
After years of litigation – and a U.S. Supreme Court case over Andy Warhol that changed the legal landscape midway through – attorneys for Sedlik and Von D will head to a Los Angeles federal courthouse Tuesday for a jury trial that will settle the dispute once and for all.
Sedlik, who calls his photo “world-famous,” has argued that Von D clearly broke the law when she chose to “precisely replicate every aspect of the iconic Miles Davis portrait in the form of a tattoo.” Von D, meanwhile, says she only used the image as a reference and that her tattoo is protected by copyright law’s so-called fair use doctrine, which allows people to re-use protected works in certain situations.
Initially, Judge Dale S. Fischer seemed inclined to side with Von D on a key question: Whether she had “transformed” the photo into something new. In a May 2022 ruling, the judge said Von D had “changed its appearance to create what she characterizes as adding movement and a more melancholy aesthetic.”
But the case got a legal shakeup a year later, when the U.S. Supreme Court issued a major ruling on fair use. In that decision, the justices said that the late Andy Warhol had violated a photographer’s copyrights years earlier when he used her images of Prince to create one of his distinctive screen prints – a decision that was widely interpreted as making it harder to prove fair use.
After the Warhol ruling came out, Judge Fischer ruled against Von D on that same key question of “transformative.” Citing the new Supreme Court precedent, the judge ruled that simply putting the same image in a new context and claiming new aesthetics was not enough to count as a fair use.
But even after that ruling, the overall question of fair use must still be decided by the jury at the trial set to kick off Tuesday. Jurors will be tasked with deciding whether Von D made “commercial” use of Sedlik’s image – a tough question, since she inked her friend free-of-charge but also promoted the work on her social media accounts. They must also decide whether her use of the image hurt Sedlik’s ability to license the image himself, another key question in any fair use case.
Ice Spice is facing a copyright lawsuit over allegations that her recent hit “In Ha Mood” was copied from a Brooklyn rapper’s earlier track.
In a complaint filed Wednesday in Brooklyn federal court, the rapper D.Chamberz (Duval Chamberlain) says Ice Spice’s 2023 song is “strikingly similar” to his own “In That Mood” that he released in 2021.
“By every method of analysis, ‘In Ha Mood’ is a forgery,” D.Chamberz’s attorneys write in their complaint, obtained by Billboard. “Any proper comparative analysis of the beat, lyrics, hook, rhythmic structure, metrical placement, and narrative context will demonstrate that ‘In Ha Mood’ was copied.”
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
In addition to naming Ice Spice (Isis Naija Gaston) as a defendant, the lawsuit also names her frequent producer, RiotUSA (Ephrem Lopez, Jr.), as well as Universal Music Group, Capitol Records and 10K Projects.
Released early last year following Ice Spice’s 2022 breakout, “In Ha Mood” reached No. 58 on the Hot 100 and No. 18 on the US Hot R&B/Hip Hop Songs chart. It was later included on her debut EP Like..?, and she performed the song during her October appearance as the musical guest on Saturday Night Live.
But D.Chamberz says the song shares so many similarities with “In That Mood” that the overlap “cannot be purely coincidental.” He says the similar elements “go the core of each work,” and are so obvious that they’ve already been spotted by listeners.
“Non-expert listeners have independently pointed out that Defendants ‘stole’ ‘In That Mood’ in creating In Ha Mood,” the rapper’s lawyers write. “The two songs clearly employ numerous noticeably similar composition elements and lyrics, which result in a sound and feel that are very much alike.”
In any copyright lawsuit, an accuser like D.Chamberz must show that an alleged infringer had “access” to their work in order to copy it. That requirement might seem technical, but it’s often the fatal flaw in copyright cases filed by lesser-known acts, like one filed against Dua Lipa over “Levitating.”
In an effort to show “access,” Tuesday’s lawsuit notes that D.Chamberz shared “In That Mood” to his Instagram followers, and that the song got “significant airplay” on New York City radio stations, including Hot 97 and Power 105.1. It even cites one instance in which Riot allegedly posted an Instagram story of him listening to Hot 97 “less than two minutes” before the song was played on the air. And Chamberz’s lawyers also point out that Riot’s father is the well-known New York City radio personality DJ Enuff, who hosts a show on Hot 97 and allegedly “actively engaged with D.Chamberz’s social media content.”
“Based on all of the facts and circumstances known to plaintiffs, as described above, it is probable – or, at the very least, reasonably possible – that defendants heard the work and knew about the work prior to the creation and publication of ‘In Ha Mood,’” his lawyers write.
Read the full lawsuit filed against Ice Spice here:
This is The Legal Beat, a weekly newsletter about music law from Billboard Pro, offering you a one-stop cheat sheet of big new cases, important rulings and all the fun stuff in between.
This week: A judge clears French Montana of copyright infringement but sympathizes with his accuser; T.I. and his wife face the latest sexual assault accusations to rock the music industry; Cher battles with her son over a potential conservatorship; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: French Montana’s “Technical” Copyright Victory
Imitation might be the “sincerest form of flattery,” but it isn’t always copyright infringement. That was the key takeaway from an unusual federal court ruling last week, in which a judge dismissed a copyright lawsuit against French Montana – but almost seemed to regret that she had to do so?
The case against French (Karim Kharbouch) was filed by a little-known Chicago artist named Hotwire The Producer (Eddie Lee Richardson), who claimed the star rapper’s 2013 hit “Ain’t Worried About Nothin’” featured an unlicensed sample of his earlier song “Hood Pushin’ Weight.”
In a decision Thursday, Judge Nancy L. Maldonado ruled that French’s song did not technically infringe the rights that Richardson had secured – he registered only the copyright to a sound recording, not the underlying musical composition. But she also expressed “great sympathy” for Richardson, lamenting that he had failed to fully register his copyrights and saying that the outcome of the case “might have been very different” if he had.
“If it is any consolation, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and the Court hopes that Richardson will not be deterred in his musical endeavors, now armed with a better understanding of copyright law,” Judge Maldonado wrote. “As it is, though, Richardson’s evidence in this particular case is insufficient to establish copyright infringement.”
For more on what the judge had to say in her opinion — including advising French not to celebrate too much over a “technical win” – go read our full story.
Other top stories this week…
T.I. SEX ASSAULT CASE – The rapper and his wife Tiny were hit with a civil lawsuit claiming they drugged and sexually assaulted a woman they met in a Los Angeles nightclub in 2005. In the complaint, lawyers for the unnamed Jane Doe accuser said that T.I. (Clifford Harris) and Tiny (Tameka Harris) gave her a spiked drink after she was introduced to them in the VIP section of a club, then brought her back to their hotel room where they “forced her to get naked” and assaulted her. In a statement to Billboard, the couple “emphatically and categorically” denied the allegations and vowed to fight back against a lawsuit that they said the plaintiff had been threatening to file for years.
JIMMIE ALLEN ATTORNEY SHAKEUP – More than six months after Jimmie Allen was hit with a pair of sexual assaults, news broke that the country star was parting ways with the legal team that’s been representing him (from the Tennessee law firm Baker Donelson) in the cases. The move to swap lawyers quickly prompted objections from his accusers, who say he’s obstructing the progress of the litigation by “moving through attorneys.”
CHER FIGHTS SON OVER CONSERVATORSHIP – A Los Angeles judge declined to immediately put Cher’s son (Elijah Blue Allman) into a legal conservatorship – an arrangement she is seeking over his opposition — but said he would take up the issue again later this month. Cher petitioned for the conservatorship late last year, arguing that Elijah’s struggles with addiction and mental health have left him unable to manage his money and potentially put his life in danger by making him able to buy drugs.
TUPAC MURDER BAIL BATTLE – A hearing is set for Tuesday over whether Duane “Keffe D” Davis, the former Los Angeles-area gang leader charged with orchestrating the killing of hip-hop music legend Tupac Shakur, should be released on bail. The proceedings had initially been scheduled for last week, but were delayed after prosecutors raised new arguments for why Davis poses a threat to the public if he is released.
MAREN MORRIS DIVORCE SETTLED – Maren Morris reached a settlement to resolve her divorce proceedings against singer/songwriter Ryan Hurd, her husband of five years. Under the terms of the deal, Morris, 33, will pay Hurd, 37, $2,100 per month in child support as the two evenly split time with their three-and-a-half-year-old son, Hayes Andrew. Most of the rest of the settlement was stipulated in a prenuptial agreement, which the couple signed in 2018 and updated in 2022.
Throughout history, music has embraced constructive change and innovation. And we will do so again as we confront the opportunities and risks of artificial intelligence.
Done right, AI should offer avenues for new growth and artistic accomplishment. When creators’ rights are respected, innovation thrives.
Already, music companies have unveiled compelling projects that use AI technologies in groundbreaking ways — with full consent and participation of the artists and rights holders involved. Working together with responsible AI companies, music companies are finding new ways to enhance production and marketing, gain new understandings from data and research, and improve wellness and health. They’ve used it to help identify new audiences for artists and pioneer new ways to celebrate iconic catalogs and performers. This is just the beginning of a new era of possibilities.
But many AI developers are resisting collaborative efforts by the creative sector to develop a responsible policy framework for AI, even though the elements of such a framework are straightforward and common-sense. In short, AI companies must honor:
Authorization: only use copyrighted music if it is authorized (for example, through a license)
Transparency: keep and disclose adequately detailed records of the content on which they train their systems
Authenticity: prevent deepfakes, voice clones, and similar violations of individuals’ rights in their own voice, image, name likeness and identity.
These foundational, consensus principles are detailed by the Human Artistry Campaign and supported by virtually the entire creative community. They set forth a baseline for responsible development and deployment of AI.
But as if on cue, some of the worst instincts of Big Technology have returned. Some AI developers claim it’s “fair use” to scrape up protected music so it can be copied and repackaged by their models. That’s just wrong.
Put bluntly, that’s digital theft.
In every legitimate market in the world, the use of others’ property requires the owner’s consent and agreed-upon compensation. Together, for example, music and technology have developed a burgeoning streaming market built on the common-sense principle that use of copyrighted creative works requires licensing and consent.
Indeed, the developers’ claim that they can use decades’ worth of iconic and extremely valuable recordings for AI without bothering to ask or pay the rightsholders is so far-fetched that former Stability AI developer Ed Newton-Rex quit his job in November rather than be party to an extreme effort to rip off artists and misappropriate their work, explaining via X:
“Companies worth billions of dollars are, without permission, training generative AI models on creators’ works, which are then being used to create new content that in many cases can compete with the original works. I don’t see how this can be acceptable[.]”
It’s not.
This is why transparency is essential. AI developers must keep accurate records of the copyrighted works used by their models and make them available to rights holders seeking to enforce their rights. We need rules requiring that developers maintain adequately detailed records and share this information — or bear the consequences if they fail to produce it. We were pleased to see that the European Union enshrined this as a core principle in its landmark AI Act.
AI policy must also establish clear rules protecting every performer’s right to their own voice, image, name and likeness — the most fundamental cornerstones of individual identity. AI fakes that mine an artist’s body of work to create artificial replicas and voice clones, fashion phony endorsements, or depict individuals in ways they haven’t consented to represent the worst kind of personal invasion. Congress needs to put an end to wrongful appropriation of the most central components of individual human identity.
These are the challenges of 2024.
We either work to continue a strong and sustainable foundation for music in the era of generative AI that moves both art and technology forward together, or generative AI devolves into just another “move fast and break things” novelty that fails to deliver anything of value while eroding our culture.
These are the choices policymakers will face this coming year. Let’s work to help them forge the right path.
Mitch Glazier is chairman/CEO of the Recording Industry Association of America.
Imitation might be the “sincerest form of flattery,” but it isn’t always copyright infringement.
That was the unusual message from an Illinois federal judge Thursday, as she dismissed a lawsuit accusing French Montana (Karim Kharbouch) of illegally sampling from a little-known Chicago hip hop producer on his song “Ain’t Worried About Nothin’.”
Eddie Lee Richardson – aka Hotwire The Producer – had claimed that French’s 2013 hit ripped off his instrumental song “Hood Pushin’ Weight.” But Judge Nancy L. Maldonado ruled that the superstar’s song did not technically infringe the rights owned by Richardson.
“The mere fact that the songs may share certain musical elements is simply not enough for a jury to conclude that such sampling actually occurred,” the judge wrote, ending the lawsuit.
Though she sided with French, Judge Maldonado was highly sympathetic to Richardson. She included an unusual note at the end of the ruling, stressing that it was merely a “technical win” for French — and one that he “should not claim as a substantive victory.” And she repeatedly suggested that, had Richardson secured a more complete set of intellectual property rights, the outcome might have been different.
“If it is any consolation, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and the Court hopes that Richardson will not be deterred in his musical endeavors, now armed with a better understanding of copyright law,” Judge Maldonado wrote. “As it is, though, Richardson’s evidence in this particular case is insufficient to establish copyright infringement.”
Richardson sued French in 2019, claiming the star and others stole core elements from “Hood Pushin’ Weight” – an instrumental track Richardson published in 2012 on the platform SoundClick – when they wrote “Ain’t Worried About Nothin’,” which reached No. 14 on Billboard’s Hot Rap Songs chart in August 2013.
But the fatal flaw in the lawsuit, as explained by Judge Maldonado on Thursday, was that Richardson only secured a copyright registration to the song’s sound recording, and did not lock up such protection for the underlying musical composition. That means that French would only have infringed “Hood Pushin’ Weight” if he directly sampled from it, the judge said, and not if he merely made a song that included similar music elements.
“Unfortunately for Richardson, his express admission in this case that he has only a sound recording copyright, and not one for a musical composition, means that he does not have exclusive rights in the generic sounds or melodies of HPW,” the judge wrote.
If he had gone the extra step and registered for a copyright on the musical composition, Judge Maldonado said the outcome of the case “might have been very different” than Thursday’s dismissal.
“In that case, Richardson’s expert evidence as to the similarity of the ‘sounds’ or melodies of the songs likely would have been enough to send this case to trial,” the judge wrote. “But with a sound recording registration only, Richardson’s means for establishing infringement are much more limited.”
With his more restricted rights, Richardson needed to provide evidence that French or someone else involved in “Ain’t Worried About Nothin’” directly copied his actual recording into the new song. But Judge Maldonado said the producer had “failed to do so.”
It likely won’t mean much in the wake of a failed lawsuit, but the judge said she had “great sympathy for Richardson’s situation.”
“He created HPW as a teenager, registered a copyright on his own, and brought this action seeking to protect his rights in his original work of music, as provided under the Copyright Act,” the judge wrote. “Unfortunately for Richardson, in the Copyright Act, Congress established a very firm distinction.”
“Put plainly,” the judge wrote, “Richardson cannot bring a claim for copyright infringement of his sound recording based solely on the contention that the songs sound alike.”
Attorneys for both sides did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the decision.
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: Lawyers for Michael Jackson’s estate send a legal threat letter over the recent release of a rare Jackson 5 recording; Sean “Diddy” Combs and a former Recording Academy boss are both hit with sexual assault lawsuits as music’s #MeToo wave continues; Google loses an epic antitrust battle over smartphone apps; and much more.
Want to get The Legal Beat newsletter in your email inbox every Tuesday? Subscribe here for free.
THE BIG STORY: MJ’s Estate Threatens Lawsuit Over Rare Recording
“We write to put you on notice regarding several matters that expose you to liability to the Jackson Estate.”
That’s never a great thing to read, but it’s particularly problematic if you’ve just announced to the world that you’re about to digitally release a rare Jackson 5 song that holds the distinction as “Michael Jackson’s first ever studio recording.”
A day after a Swedish company called anotherblock did precisely that, attorneys for Michael’s estate sent a letter warning that they weren’t happy about the plan. They said the release “violates” the estate’s trademark and likeness rights, and that the company was potentially “misleading the public” by claiming the song was the first-ever Jackson recording.
“We have serious doubts that Michael would have ever wanted these recordings released and commercialized,” the estate’s attorneys wrote. “What you are doing is the opposite of honoring Michael Jackson.”
Go read the entire story here, including access to the full letter sent by the estate.
Other top stories this week…
DIDDY SUED YET AGAIN – Another woman — the fourth in three weeks — filed a lawsuit against Sean “Diddy” Combs over allegations of sexual assault. The unnamed Jane Doe accuser claims she was “sex trafficked” and “gang raped” by Combs, former Bad Boy Records president Harve Pierre and another man in 2003 when she was 17 years old. Combs, who had mostly stayed quiet since allegations started flying, responded that “ENOUGH IS ENOUGH” and that he “did not do any of the awful things being alleged.”
MORE MUSIC #METOO CLAIMS – Former Recording Academy CEO Mike Greene and the academy itself were hit with a lawsuit alleging Greene sexually assaulted an Academy employee named Terri McIntyre in the 1990s. The woman claims that during her tenure at the Academy from 1994 to 1996, she was “forced to endure pervasive, incessant and routine sexual harassment and/or sexual assault” from Greene and that the Academy enabled it by failing to take action.
GOOGLE LOSES MONOPOLY CASE – A jury found that Google violated federal antitrust laws by maintaining an illegal monopoly over the Android app market, siding with Epic Games, the maker of the hit video game Fortnite. The case had been closely watched by digital music services like Spotify because Epic’s lawsuit challenges the fees that Google and Apple require apps to pay for in-app transactions and subscriptions.
LIL DURK DOUBLE DIP? – The Chicago rapper was sued by a fintech firm called Exceed Talent Capital, which claims that Durk agreed to grant the company the recording royalties from his song “Bedtime” even though he had already signed an exclusive deal with Sony’s Alamo Records — an alleged double-dip that Exceed called a “manifest fraud.”
TYGA’S INFRINGING SNEAKERS – A federal appeals court sided with Vans and ruled that Tyga‘s “Wavy Baby” sneakers — a parody of the company’s classic Old Skool — likely violate the shoe company’s trademarks. The company that partnered with the rapper to create the sneaker (MSCHF) argued that it had been designed to criticize “sneakerhead” consumerist culture and was thus protected by the First Amendment. But the court said that the shoe was entitled to “no special First Amendment protections” and that the sneaker was likely to confuse consumers into thinking it was an authentic Vans partnership.
TWITTER SUED OVER COPYRIGHTS – SUISA, the music royalties collecting society in Switzerland, sued X Corp. (formerly Twitter) in German court over allegations that the social media site has allowed infringing content to be posted to the platform. The lawsuit mirrors a similar case filed against Twitter in U.S. court in June by dozens of music publishers who are seeking as much as $255 million in damages.
TICKETING REFORM ADVANCES – Legislation that aims to make buying concert tickets an easier, more straightforward process was voted forward by a U.S. House of Representatives committee, clearing the way for a full House vote. Among other features, the proposed STOP Act would require sellers to post final “all-in” prices that include fees, as well as ensure buyers can get refunds after cancellations. Days after the vote, a similar bill, The Fans First Act, was introduced in the Senate by a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers.
CRIP MAC FACES GUN CHARGE – YouTuber and rapper Trevor Hurd, who goes by the name Crip Mac, was arrested in Los Angeles on federal gun charges. The arrest by U.S. Marshals came moments after a California judge agreed to drop state gun charges against Mac over the same alleged wrongdoing — a not-uncommon step after state prosecutors coordinate with the U.S. Attorneys Office.
Linkin Park is facing a lawsuit that claims it has refused to credit or pay royalties to an ex-bassist who played with the band in the late 1990s — a legal battle triggered by an anniversary re-release of the band’s smash hit 2000 debut album.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
In a complaint filed Wednesday (Nov. 8) federal court, Kyle Christner says he helped creating many songs that were included on the 2020 box-set edition of Hybrid Theory, which holds the lofty distinction as the best-selling rock album of the 21st century. But he says his contributions have been effectively erased.
“Christner has never been paid a penny for his work with Linkin Park, nor has he been properly credited, even as defendants have benefitted from his creative efforts,” his lawyers wrote in the lawsuit.
Christner claims he was a member of Linkin Park for several months in 1999, until he was “abruptly informed” that he had been fired shortly before the band signed a record deal with Warner Records. But before his exit, Christner claims he played bass on a self-released EP and on several demo recordings, some of which he says he “helped compose.”
His lawsuit claims that as many as 20 of those recordings were released as goodies on the 2020 re-release, making him “a joint creator of many tracks in the box set.” That includes a song called “Could Have Been,” a never-before-released demo track that has amassed 949,000 views on YouTube.
According to Christner, the situation came to a head earlier this year when he was contacted by a Linkin Park representative offering him royalties for the Hybrid Theory re-release. The email allegedly read: “You get mechanical royalties for 3 demos and the 6-song Hybrid Theory EP that you performed on.”
Christner responded by pressing the band for a more detailed explanation of his royalty breakdown, and arguing that he was entitled to a cut from a greater number of tracks — “more than twenty songs.” He later told the band: “If you do not believe I deserve writing credits on these songs, please state your reasons for that in your response.”
Later, after lawyers got involved, Christner says the band backtracked, denying that his work appeared in the box set at all.
“In other words, after admitting that Christner played on at least some tracks included in the box set and admitting that Christner was entitled to at least some ‘mechanical’ royalties, which are royalties paid for compositions, defendants repudiated Christner’s co-authorship and co-ownership of the works at issue,” his lawyers wrote in Wednesday’s complaint.
In technical terms, the lawsuit is asking a judge to issue a so-called declaratory judgment that says Christner is a co-author and co-owner of the copyrights in question, and to weigh in on the “rights and obligations of the parties” — meaning, whether the band owes him a cut of royalties and how much. He also is asking for a court-ordered accounting of royalties for the disputed songs.
As defendants, the lawsuit personally names Linkin Park’s living members (Mike Shinoda, Rob Bourdon, Brad Delson and Joseph Hahn), as well as its business entity, Machine Shop Entertainment LLC, and the band’s label Warner Records.
A rep for Linkin Park did not immediately return a request for comment.
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: Mariah Carey is hit with a copyright lawsuit over “All I Want for Christmas Is You”; a federal appeals court issues a first-of-its-kind ruling on copyright protections for dance routines; Taylor Swift gets named-dropped at the Supreme Court; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: Mariah Sued Over Iconic Christmas Track (Again)
Just in time for the holidays, Mariah Carey is facing rebooted allegations that she ripped off her perennially-chart-topping “All I Want for Christmas Is You” from an earlier song of the same name.
Vince Vance (real name Andy Stone) first sued Carey last summer, claiming her 1994 holiday blockbuster infringed the copyrights to a 1989 song of the exact same name recorded by his Vince Vance and the Valiants. But the bare-bones complaint included few details about the alleged infringement, and the case was quickly dropped a few months later.
Now, Stone is back — both with new lawyers and with a more fleshed-out lawsuit.
Those new attorneys hail from Gerard Fox Law, the same firm that represented two songwriters in their lawsuit accusing Taylor Swift of stealing the lyrics to “Shake It Off” from 3LW’s “Playas Gon’ Play,” which also featured lyrics about “playas” and “haters.” After five years of litigation against the biggest pop star in the world, including a successful trip to the Ninth Circuit, Stone has certainly found himself battle-tested plaintiff lawyers to go after Carey.
And where the original complaint was short on specifics, the new one is chock full of them, including that she made up the story of how she wrote the song and that her own co-writer, Walter Afanasieff, has disputed that story.
“Carey has without licensing, palmed off these works with her incredulous origin story, as if those works were her own,” Vance’s new lawyers wrote in the re-filed complaint. “Her hubris knowing no bounds, even her co-credited songwriter doesn’t believe the story she has spun. This is simply a case of actionable infringement.”
Go read our entire story here, including the full complaint filed against Carey.
Other top stories this week…
CHOREOGRAPHY COPYRIGHTS – The Ninth Circuit issued a first-of-its-kind ruling on copyright protections for dance routines, reviving a case that accuses Fortnite creator Epic Games of stealing copyrighted moves from choreographer Kyle Hanagami, who’s worked with BTS, Jennifer Lopez, Justin Bieber and Britney Spears. The decision came after years of efforts by other dancers to secure better ownership of their routines, including Beyoncé and Megan Thee Stallion choreographer JaQuel Knight, as detailed by Rebecca Milzoff in her excellent 2020 Billboard cover story.
SCOTUS SWIFTIES? – Capping a year in which Taylor Swift’s name has dropped on Capitol Hill, at the Department of Justice and on NFL broadcasts, it came up last week during Supreme Court arguments in a major case over social media and the First Amendment, as part of legal hypothetical raised by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
YSL CASE SET FOR TRIAL – After months of delays, a jury was finally seated in the massive criminal case against Young Thug and other alleged members of an Atlanta street gang, clearing the way for a trial to begin later this month. But will it feature rap lyrics as evidence? Stay tuned this week…
STEVEN TYLER ACCUSED AGAIN – The Aerosmith frontman was hit with a second lawsuit accusing him of sexually assaulting a minor decades ago, this time by a woman who says he forcibly kissed and groped her in New York City in 1975 when she was just 17.
AI FAIR USE ARGUMENT – Artificial intelligence firm Anthropic PBC told the U.S. Copyright Office this week that the massive scraping of copyrighted materials to train AI models ought to be considered “quintessentially lawful” – perhaps offering a preview of arguments the company will make in its upcoming legal battle with Universal Music Group (UMG) over those very same issues.
TICKET BOT CRACKDOWN – As reported by Billboard’s Dave Brooks, Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) announced that she would roll out new legislation to beef up the BOTS ACT — a rarely-enforced 2016 law that outlawed the use of bots to attack ticket sales and jump the line to buy tickets ahead of consumers. If passed, the amendment will create a new forum for online ticket sellers to report successful bot attacks to the Federal Trade Commission, which is tasked with enforcing the statute.
CONTRACT RESTRICTIONS (TAYLOR’S VERSION) – Will trying to prevent the next ‘Taylor’s Version’ backfire on record labels? Following up on Steve Knopper’s reporting on new contractual restrictions pushed by labels in the wake of Taylor Swift‘s massively-successful re-recording campaign, music attorney Chris Castle argues that record companies might want to think twice.