State Champ Radio Copyright
Page: 6
On Monday (May 8), President Joe Biden announced his intent to nominate Deborah Robinson as the next Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (IPEC). The role was formed in 2008 as part of the Executive Office of the President and advises the president on U.S. intellectual property strategy.
Robinson most recently served as the head of intellectual property enforcement at Paramount Global (formerly ViacomCBS), but before that, she worked at the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) for five years, protecting music rights. She also spent seven years as an assistant district attorney for Philadelphia.
Along with her strong history of employment in the entertainment business, Robinson serves as co-chair of the diversity committee of the IP section of the New York State Bar Association and as a Board Member of Aequitas, a non-profit focused on access and quality of justice in cases of human trafficking and gender-based violence.
Robinson would replace Vishal Amin, who was confirmed as IPEC under President Donald Trump and left the post in 2021. Since then, the position has been vacant, something pointed out by Congressman Adam Schiff and Mark Cohen — a distinguished senior fellow and director of Asia IP Project, Berkeley Center for Law and Technology — in a recent meeting for the Congressional subcommittee on courts, intellectual property, and the internet.
“RIAA applauds President Biden’s nomination of Deborah Robinson to serve as Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator,” said RIAA chairman/CEO Mitch Glazier in a statement. “Deborah is deeply qualified to serve our nation as IPEC and will bring unmatched policy depth and appreciation for the economic and cultural importance of strong IP enforcement to this vital role. Deborah will be an extremely welcome and effective addition to the Executive Office of the President, filling a position that has been vacant for the past three years and leading an exceptional team. We thank President Biden for selecting such an outstanding nominee to advance smart, pro-growth IP policies and enforcement practices around the world.”
“We welcome the nomination of Deborah Robinson to serve as the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (IPEC),” added NMPA president/CEO David Israelite. “Ms. Robinson brings incredible experience and insight to the role which serves an important function to spotlight and safeguard creator’s work across the globe. In addition to an extensive career as a prosecutor, she has held senior positions specifically in the field of music and copyright enforcement. We look forward to engaging with Ms. Robinson and supporting her important work once confirmed.”
A Manhattan federal jury on Thursday (May 4) cleared Ed Sheeran of allegations that his “Thinking Out Loud” infringed the copyright of Marvin Gaye’s famed “Let’s Get It On,” allowing the star to avoid millions in potential damages.
After a closely-watched trial before a packed courtroom, the seven-person jury issued a verdict that determined Sheeran had proved he didn’t infringe upon the copyright of the soul classic. Following the verdict, he briefly put his hands over his face in relief and hugged his lawyer, according to the Associated Press. As jurors left the courtroom, Sheeran quietly mouthed the words “thank you” in their direction. He then spoke for about 10 minutes with the plaintiffs, including the daughter of Ed Townsend, who co-created the 1973 soul classic with Gaye. They hugged and smiled with each other.
If he’d been found liable, Sheeran would have been facing millions in potential damages and could have been forced to change the credits on his song. After a jury verdict in 2015 that found Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams‘ megahit “Blurred Lines” had infringed Gaye’s “Got To Give It Up,” the two stars were ultimately ordered to pay a $5 million judgment, plus ongoing royalties from their song.
The verdict came nearly seven years after Sheeran was first sued by the heirs of Ed Townsend, Gaye’s longtime producer who co-wrote “Let’s Get It On,” over “Thinking Out Loud” — a commercial and critical success that hit No. 2 on the Hot 100 before winning the Grammy Award for song of the year. (Gaye’s actual heirs, who won the verdict over “Blurred Lines” are not involved in the case.)
In their suit, Kathryn Townsend Griffin and other heirs of Ed Townsend said Sheeran had “knowingly and intentionally infringed” the earlier tune, stealing the “heart” from one of the most “instantly recognizable songs in R&B history.”
The trial, taking place at the U.S. federal courthouse in Lower Manhattan, kicked off Tuesday with opening statements from both sides. Benjamin Crump, representing Griffin, told the jury to use their “common sense” to see that the pop star had stolen the “magic” from the earlier song. But Sheeran’s attorney, Ilene Farkas, said Griffin had not right to monopolize the “exceedingly common musical building blocks” featured in both songs. “Plaintiffs do not own them, because nobody does,” Farkas said. “All songwriters draw from this same basic toolkit.”
Later that same day, jurors then heard testimony from Sheeran himself, who strongly denied the allegations and insisted that he be allowed — over complaints from opposing attorneys — to offer additional context to defend his actions: “I feel like you don’t want me to answer because what I’m going to say is going to make quite a lot of sense,” Sheeran said.
One key piece of evidence during the trial was a video clip from a 2014 concert, in which Sheeran seamlessly switches from “Thinking” to “Lets” and back again, drawing huge cheers from the crowd. Crump called it a “smoking gun” against the star: “That concert video is a confession.”
But Sheeran and his lawyers said the video simply underscored the fact that he had done nothing wrong by using a basic set of chords that appear in many songs: “Quite frankly, if I’d done what you’re accusing me of, I’d be an idiot to stand up in front of 20,000 people and do that,” the singer said from the witness stand.
Later in the week, jurors heard testimony from Amy Wadge, who co-wrote “Thinking” with Sheeran (but isn’t named as a defendant), and Jake Gosling, who produced the song (also not named as a defendant). And both sides called their own musicologists — Lawrence Ferrara for Sheeran and Alexander Stewart for the Townsends — who offered dueling expert testimony about whether the similarities between the two tracks met the legal requirements for copyright infringement.
The Associated Press contributed reporting.
A federal judge in Georgia ordered the hip-hop mixtape site Spinrilla and its founder Jeffery Copeland to pay Universal Music, Warner Music, Sony Music and others $50 million for copyright infringement related to the streaming and downloading of thousands of songs by Bob Marley, Beyonce, Kendrick Lamar and more, according to a settlement agreement filed Wednesday.
As part of the agreement, Copeland is also permanently forbidden from operating Spinrilla or any other website, platform or similar projects anywhere in the world.
The settlement this week stems from a six-year-old lawsuit filed by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) on behalf of UMG, Sony Music Entertainment, Warner Bros. Records, Atlantic Recording Corporation and LaFace Records, alleging that Spinrilla and Copeland allowed users to stream and download unlicensed content.
Copeland founded Spinrilla in early 2013 as an app for approved users to listen to and discover “independent and emerging hip-hop artists.” When the music industry filed its lawsuit, Spinrilla had 19 million users, including 14,000 who could upload content to the platform, and around 1.4 million songs available on the platform.
Over the course of the case, the RIAA said it identified more than 4,000 songs by Rihanna, Michael Jackson, Kanye West and others that were infringed, and in late 2020, U.S. District Judge Amy Totenberg found Spinrilla liable for copyright infringement.
UMG, WMG, Sony Music Entertainment and Spinrilla did not respond to requests for comment.
As part of the agreement, Spinrilla will transfer the domain name for its service to the music industry companies, which they have agreed not to use.
Attorneys for Ed Sheeran and his copyright accusers sparred before a Manhattan federal jury Tuesday morning, kicking off a closely-watched trial over whether his “Thinking Out Loud” infringed Marvin Gaye‘s famed “Let’s Get It On.”
With Sheeran himself watching impassively, attorney Benjamin Crump repeatedly told the jury to use their “common sense” to see that the pop star had stolen the “magic” from the earlier song.
“If you remember nothing else about this case, simply remember it is about giving credit where credit is due,” Crump said during his opening statement, occasionally speaking directly to Sheeran just feet away.
Teasing testimony that will unfold during the trial, Crump said he would show jurors “smoking gun” evidence: a much-debated video of Sheeran toggling between the two songs at a concert.
“That concert video is a confession,” Crump said.
Firing back for Sheeran was attorney Ilene Farkas, who told the jury during her own opening statements that Sheeran had “independently created” his song. And more importantly, she said, the only overlap with “Let’s” were his use of “exceedingly common musical building blocks” that cannot be “monopolized” by his accusers.
“Plaintiffs do not own them, because nobody does,” Farkas said. “All songwriters draw from this same basic toolkit.”
Ed Sheeran arrives at Manhattan Court to testify on the copyright trial where he is accused of copying Marvin Gaye’s song, in New York, United States on April 25, 2023.
Fatih Aktas/Anadolu Agency via GI
She said her clients had been “wrongly accursed of taking something they did not take,” and warned jurors that a verdict for Sheeran’s accusers would “change the what that songwriters are able to write.”
“We ask you not to let that happen,” Farkas told the jury.
Tuesday’s opening statements mark the start of a long-awaited trial in a copyright lawsuit filed way back in 2017 by heirs of Ed Townsend, Gaye’s longtime producer who co-wrote “Let’s Get It On,” over Sheeran’s “Thinking Out Loud” — a commercial and critical success that hit No. 2 on the Hot 100 before winning the Grammy Award for song of the year.
The case claims that Sheeran infringed copyrights by stealing the “heart” from one of the most “instantly recognizable songs in R&B history.” But the pop star’s lawyers say he simply used commonplace musical elements that are free for all to use.
The trial, taking place at the U.S. federal courthouse in Lower Manhattan, kicked off Monday with jury selection on Monday before actually getting under way with opening statements on Tuesday. Testimony is expected to run at least through Friday, meaning a verdict could arrive Friday or early the following week.
Testimony will continue on Tuesday afternoon, potentially with Sheeran himself taking the witness stand.
If found liable, Sheeran could be facing millions in potential damages. After a jury ruled that the 2013 megahit “Blurred Lines” had infringed Gaye’s “Got To Give It Up,” Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams were ultimately ordered to pay a $5 million judgment, plus ongoing royalties from their song.
When Universal Music Group emailed Spotify, Apple Music and other streaming services in March asking them to stop artificial-intelligence companies from using its labels’ recordings to train their machine-learning software, it fired the first Howitzer shell of what’s shaping up as the next conflict between creators and computers. As Warner Music Group, HYBE, ByteDance, Spotify and other industry giants invest in AI development, along with a plethora of small startups, artists and songwriters are clamoring for protection against developers that use music created by professionals to train AI algorithms. Developers, meanwhile, are looking for safe havens where they can continue their work unfettered by government interference.
To someday generate music that rivals the work of human creators, AI models use a process of machine-learning to identify patterns in and mimic the characteristics that make a song irresistible, like that sticky verse-chorus structure of pop, the 808 drums that define the rhythm of hip-hop or that meteoric drop that defines electronic dance. These are distinctions human musicians have to learn during their lives either through osmosis or music education.
Machine-learning is exponentially faster, though; it’s usually achieved by feeding millions, even billions of so-called “inputs” into an AI model to build its musical vocabulary. Due to the sheer scale of data needed to train current systems that almost always includes the work of professionals, and to many copyright owners’ dismay, almost no one asks their permission to use it.
Countries around the world have various ways of regulating what’s allowed when it comes to what’s called the text and data mining of copyrighted material for AI training. And some territories are concluding that fewer rules will lead to more business.
China, Israel, Japan, South Korea and Singapore are among the countries that have largely positioned themselves as safe havens for AI companies in terms of industry-friendly regulation. In January, Israel’s Ministry of Justice defined its stance on the issue, saying that “lifting the copyright uncertainties that surround this issue [of training AI generators] can spur innovation and maximize the competitiveness of Israeli-based enterprises in both [machine-learning] and content creation.”
Singapore also “certainly strives to be a hub for AI,” says Bryan Tan, attorney and partner at Reed Smith, which has an office there. “It’s one of the most permissive places. But having said that, I think the world changes very quickly,” Tan says. He adds that even in countries where exceptions in copyright for text and data mining are established, there is a chance that developments in the fast-evolving AI sector could lead to change.
In the United States, Amir Ghavi, a partner at Fried Frank who is representing open-source text-to-image developer Stability AI in a number of upcoming landmark cases, says that though the United States has a “strong tradition of fair use … this is all playing out in real time” with decisions in upcoming cases like his setting significant precedents for AI and copyright law.
Many rights owners, including musicians like Helienne Lindevall, president of the European Composers and Songwriters Alliance, are hoping to establish consent as a basic practice. But, she asks, “How do you know when AI has used your work?”
AI companies tend to keep their training process secret, but Mat Dryhurst, a musician, podcast host and co-founder of music technology company Spawning, says many rely on just a few data sets, such as Laion 5B (as in 5 billion data points) and Common Crawl, a web-scraping tool used by Google. To help establish a compromise between copyright owners and AI developers, Spawning has created a website called HaveIBeenTrained.com, which helps creators determine whether their work is found in these common data sets and, free of charge, opt out of being used as fodder for training.
These requests are not backed by law, although Dryhurst says, “We think it’s in every AI organization’s best interest to respect our active opt-outs. One, because this is the right thing to do, and two, because the legality of this varies territory to territory. This is safer legally for AI companies, and we don’t charge them to partner with us. We do the work for them.”
The concept of opting out was first popularized by the European Union’s Copyright Directive, passed in 2019. Though Sophie Goossens, a partner at Reed Smith who works in Paris and London on entertainment, media and technology law, says the definition of “opt out” was initially vague, its inclusion makes the EU one of the most strict in terms of AI training.
There is a fear, however, that passing strict AI copyright regulations could result in a country missing the opportunity to establish itself as a next-generation Silicon Valley and reap the economic benefits that would follow. Russian President Vladimir Putin believes the stakes are even higher. In 2017, he stated that the nation that leads in AI “will be the ruler of the world.” The United Kingdom’s Intellectual Property Office seemed to be moving in that direction when it published a statement last summer recommending that text and data mining be exempt from opt-outs in hopes of becoming Europe’s haven for AI. In February, however, the British government put the brakes on the IPO’s proposal, leaving its future uncertain.
Lindevall and others in the music industry say they are fighting for even better standards. “We don’t want to opt out, we want to opt in,” she says. “Then we want a clear structure for remuneration.”
The lion’s share of U.S.-based music and entertainment organizations — more than 40, including ASCAP, BMI, RIAA, SESAC and the National Music Publisher’s Association — are in agreement and recently launched the Human Artistry Campaign, which established seven principles advocating AI’s best practices intended to protect creators’ copyrights. No. 4: “Governments should not create new copyright or other IP exemptions that allow AI developers to exploit creators without permission or compensation.”
Today, the idea that rights holders could one day license works for machine-learning still seems far off. Among the potential solutions for remuneration are blanket licenses something like the blank-tape levies used in parts of Europe. But given the patchwork of international law on this subject, and the complexities of tracking down and paying rights holders, some feel these fixes are not viable.
Dryhurst says he and the Spawning team are working on a concrete solution: an “opt in” tool. Stability AI has signed on as its first partner for this innovation, and Dryhurst says the newest version of its text-to-image AI software, Stable Diffusion 3, will not include any of the 78 million artworks that opted out prior to this advancement. “This is a win,” he says. “I am really hopeful others will follow suit.”
The rapper Cam’ron is facing a copyright lawsuit over allegations that he used a 2003 image of himself on t-shirts, jewelry and a slew of other merchandise sold by his Dipset Couture – all without any kind of license from the original photographer.
In a complaint filed Tuesday (April 11) in New Jersey federal court, photographer Djamilla Cochran claimed the “Hey Ma” rapper (real name Cameron Giles) splashed her image — a shot of Cam wearing a fuzzy pink coat and hat while holding a matching flip phone — across a wide range of Dipset products.
She says he also repeatedly posted the image to Instagram to promote those products, which also included 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, according to the lawsuit, Cam’ron was 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.”
Reps for Cam’ron did not immediately return a request for comment.
Cochran’s image (featured above) captured Cam’ron at the Mercedes-Benz Fashion Week Show in New York in 2003, wearing a flashy color 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.
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.
But the lawsuit against Cam’ron is potentially more serious than those earlier cases, which mostly dealt with stars just reposting an image on social media. His alleged unauthorized use of Cochran’s image on numerous commercial products, even after he was allegedly warned to stop, could leave him facing more substantial damages.
According to screenshots included in the lawsuit, Cam’ron had been doing so for years. Instagram posts from his mr_camron handle dating back as far as 2014 show Cochran’s image, including on skateboards, facemasks and reposted in full.
When the Rolling Stones released “Living In A Ghost Town” in 2020, a lot had changed in the eight years since the legendary rock band had last put out a new song. Streaming music had become dominant, the UK had exited the European Union and a global pandemic had taken grip.
It had also seemingly become more common for the creators of hit songs to face lawsuits. In the wake of a multimillion-dollar verdict in 2015 against Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams over “Blurred Lines,” a slew of major stars had faced similar copyright infringement cases over some of their biggest hits – including Taylor Swift, Katy Perry, Ed Sheeran, The Weeknd, Justin Bieber and Dua Lipa.
So it should have perhaps come as no surprise to Mick Jagger and Keith Richards when, last month, they were hit with a lawsuit claiming they’d illegally borrowed key parts of “Ghost Town.” Sergio Garcia Fernandez, who performs under the name Angelslang, alleged that they had “misappropriated many of the recognizable and key protected elements” from his 2006 song “So Sorry,” as well as his 2007 tune “Seed of God.” (Read the full complaint here.)
But such lawsuits, while plentiful, often face long odds. In just the past month, similar song-theft cases against Donald Glover (over his Childish Gambino chart-topper “This Is America”) and Nickelback (over the band’s 2005 hit “Rock Star”) have both been dismissed at the earliest stage of litigation. In Glover’s case, a federal judge ruled last week that the lyrics of the two songs were “entirely different.” In Nickelback’s dispute, another federal judge ruled the week prior that the case at times “borders on the absurd.”
And, according to legal and music experts, the new lawsuit against the Stones likely faces a similar fate.
“Living in a Ghost Town,” a blues-rock tune with some reggae vibes, does sound similar to “So Sorry” and “Seed of God.” Fernandez claims that’s because the new song borrowed key features from his songs, including the “vocal melodies, the chord progressions, the drum beat patterns, the harmonica parts [and] the electric bass line parts.”
But according to Joe Bennett, a forensic musicologist and a professor at Berklee College of Music, “Ghost Town” flatly does not include those elements from Fernandez’s songs. Full stop.
“It simply doesn’t,” Bennett says. “These elements are not the same when compared — all the notes and chords are very obviously different. It’s significant that the complaint doesn’t contain any music notation, because a simple side by side transcription would demonstrate the dissimilarity.”
So then why do the songs sound similar? Bennett says it’s because they share an overall vibe – based on mid-tempo rock grooves in the key of A minor – that’s been ubiquitous in rock and blues since the beginning. Without much digging, he pointed to at least four other songs that sound pretty similar, including B.B. King’s rendition of the “The Thrill Is Gone.” But those commonplace musical tropes cannot be monopolized by one band under copyright law.
“The similarities we hear aren’t protectable elements, and certainly not the intellectual property of Mr. Fernandez,” Bennett said. “The Stones didn’t copy from Fernandez, because they didn’t need to; they’ve been playing grooves like this for a very long time, as have many others.”
Beyond such musical problems, the case against the Stones also potentially suffers from a simpler legal flaw.
In any copyright lawsuit, an accuser needs to show that the alleged infringer had “access” to their work in order to copy it. In cases involving big songs – like in the looming trial against Sheeran over Marvin Gaye’s iconic “Let’s Get It On” – a plaintiff can easily argue that the song was so widely-available that the defendant obviously heard it. But the case against the Stones involve songs of far less renown; when the lawsuit was first filed, the allegedly-copied “So Sorry” listed less than 1000 streams on Spotify.
Faced with that situation, Fernandez instead aimed to directly show how the Stones might have heard the song. In his complaint, his lawyers wrote that he gave a demo CD to “an immediate family member” of Jagger, who then allegedly confirmed in writing that the songs had “a sound The Rolling Stones would be interested in using.”
But according to James Sammataro, a veteran copyright litigator and the co-chair of the music group at at the law firm Pryor Cashman, those arguments fall well short of what’s required under law.
He noted that the complaint “conspicuously” failed to name that family member, and also did not directly claim that they had actually handed the song off to Jagger or had been involved in creating “Ghost Town.”
“A charitable read of the complaint is that plaintiff purportedly gave his demo to a family member of Jagger who might have passed along the demo to Jagger, but that plaintiff have no idea whether it actually happened,” Sammataro wrote. “Such speculative allegations are far too attenuated to infer a reasonable possibility of access. If there was a strong claim of access, the plaintiff would have presumably pled it.”
A Manhattan federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit accusing Donald Glover of ripping off his chart-topping Childish Gambino hit “This Is America” from an earlier song, ruling that the two tracks are “entirely different.”
A rapper named Kidd Wes (real name Emelike Nwosuocha) sued in 2021, claiming Glover’s 2018 song was “practically identical” to his own 2016 called “Made In America.” But in a decision issued Friday (March 24), U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero said they were anything but.
“A cursory comparison with the challenged composition reveals that the content of the choruses is entirely different and not substantially similar,” the judge wrote.
In reaching that conclusion, Judge Marrero briefly explained how Nwosuocha’s lyrics were a “short, simple, self-aggrandizing proclamation,” while Glover’s song was about “what America means and how it is perceived.”
“More could be said on the ways these songs differ, but no more airtime is needed to resolve this case,” the judge wrote.
Released in 2018, “This Is America” spent two weeks atop the Hot 100 and eventually won record of the year and song of the year at the 61st Annual Grammy Awards. It was accompanied by a critically acclaimed music video, directed by Hiro Murai, that touched on issues of race, mass shootings and police violence.
Nwosuocha sued in May 2021, claiming there were “unmissable” similarities between the song and his own “Made In America,” including the “flow” — the cadence, rhyming schemes, rhythm and other characteristics of hip hop lyrics.
“The distinctive flow employed in defendant Glover’s recorded performance of the infringing work’s chorus … is unmistakably substantially similar, if not practically identical, to the distinct and unique flow that was employed by Nwosuocha,” his lawyers wrote at the time.
But in Friday’s decision, Judge Marrero said the “flow” and other similar characteristics “lack sufficient originality” to be protected by copyrights. And “no reasonable jury” could find that the lyrics themselves were similar enough to constitute copyright infringement, the judge said.
The judge also ruled that the case failed for an even simpler reason: That Nwosuocha had failed to secure a federal copyright registration for the underlying composition to his song. “Accordingly, dismissal of Nwosuocha’s complaint is warranted.”
In a statement to Billboard, Nwosuocha’s attorneys Imran H. Ansari and La’Shawn N. Thomas said their client was “understandably disappointed” and considering appealing the ruling. “He stands by his music, creativity, and the independence of grassroots artists to create their own music, and receive credit where credit is due, without the fear of it being apportioned by another.”
An attorney for Glover did not immediately return a request for comment on the decision.
Post Malone has reached an apparent settlement with a musician who claims he helped create the smash hit “Circles,” ending a contentious lawsuit minutes before a jury trial was set to begin.
Tyler Armes sued in 2020 over allegations that he and Malone co-wrote the song during an all-night jam session in 2018, but that the superstar refused to give him credit. Malone strongly denied the allegations, and a hotly-anticipated trial was set to kick off Tuesday (March 21) in Los Angeles federal court.
But in an abrupt turn of events, U.S. District Judge Otis D. Wright indicated Tuesday morning that a settlement had been reached to avert trial.
Just before a jury was to be selected, the judge jokingly waved goodbye to assembled media and cleared the courtroom. Staffers could later been seen removing musical equipment from the courtroom that had been prepared for the pending trial, and Armes himself was eventually seen leaving. A deputy court clerk later confirmed to Billboard a settlement had been reached.
The terms of the agreement have not been publicly disclosed, and neither side’s attorneys immediately returned a request for comment.
Armes, best known as a member of the Canadian rap-rock band Down With Webster, sued Malone in 2020, claiming he had played a key role (along with Malone and collaborator Frank Dukes) during an August 2018 all-nighter that led to the creation of “Circles.” That allegation was no small thing, because the song was eventually a smash hit, spending three weeks atop the Hot 100 and ultimately spending 61 weeks on the chart.
After the “Circles” was released and Armes reached out to complain, he claimed that Malone offered to give him a 5% share of the publishing royalties. But when he tried to negotiate for a better deal, he says the star’s people revoked the offer and refused to give him anything.
Malone (real name Austin Richard Post) strongly denied the allegations, arguing that Armes “did not write or author any portion of the ‘Circles’ composition” and that he was simply trying to get an undeserved cut from a lucrative song.
“It is an age-old story in the music business that when a song earns the type of runaway success that ‘Circles’ has garnered, an individual will come out of the woodwork to falsely claim to take credit for the song, and demand unwarranted and unearned windfall profits from the song,” Post’s lawyers wrote. “This lawsuit arises from such a story.”
Last year, Judge Wright refused to dismiss Armes’ allegations, ruling that he might ultimately be able to persuade a jury that he deserved to own a piece of “Circles.” If the jury believed Armes, the judge said, they could find that Malone, Dukes and Armes “shared equal control in the session, making nonhierarchical contributions to a unitary whole.”
That set the stage for a trial set to kick off on Tuesday, which had been expected to run through the end of the week.
When musician Tyler Armes first heard Post Malone’s “Circles” in 2019, he claims he immediately texted Dre London, Malone’s manager. In the texts, Armes claimed he had been in the studio on the August 2018 night the song had come together – and that he believed he had played a key role in creating it.
“I was not just someone hanging out in the room,” Armes texted, according to later legal documents. “I was part of the writing process. The entire song (minus the lyrics other than ‘circles’) was laid down that night with the 3 of us in the room together, working together.” A few days later, London allegedly responded: “Just showed Posty the message. He said he remembers. U played a tune on the bass then he played more of it after.”
“Circles” later became a smash hit. The song, “backed by sunny acoustic guitars, swirling percussion and infectious melodies,” reached the top spot on the Hot 100 for three consecutive weeks in November 2019 before ultimately spending 61 weeks on the chart.
But now, four years after those texts, Armes and Malone are headed to a Los Angeles federal courthouse this week for a closely-watched jury trial over that fateful night. Expected to feature testimony from the star himself, the trial will pose tricky questions to jurors – about who’s technically in charge during a studio jam session, and who exactly gets the resulting songwriting credits.
Lawyers for Armes say he clearly did enough to own part of the copyright to “Circles,” and that Malone’s “bad faith refusal” to grant him credit has severely harmed his music career. Malone’s lawyers, meanwhile, say the allegations are “utterly baseless” – and that Armes is just the latest plaintiff to “come out of the woodwork” seeking an “unearned windfall” from a hit song.
“Significant Contributions”
Armes, best known as a member of the Canadian rap rock band Down With Webster, filed his lawsuit in April 2020, seeking a ruling that he was the rightful co-creator of “Circles.” In addition to naming Malone (Austin Richard Post) as a defendant, the lawsuit also named “Circles” collaborator Frank Dukes and Universal Music Group.
In his complaint, Armes claimed he had gone to the studio that night at the urging of Malone’s people, and that Malone at one point had said explicitly: “Let’s write a tune!”
“From approximately 2:00 a.m. on August 8, 2018 until 9:00 a.m. that morning, Armes, Post and Dukes worked together in the studio,” his lawyers wrote in their complaint. “Armes and Dukes co-wrote the chords for the song on the keyboard, and Armes co-wrote and had significant input in the bassline for the song. Armes also had input on the guitar parts in the song, including co-writing the guitar melody which is played in the introduction to the song and which repeats throughout the song.”
After the song was released and Armes reached out, he says Malone offered to give him a 5 percent share of the publishing royalties. But when he tried to negotiate for a better deal, he says the star’s people revoked the offer and refused to give him anything.
“Defendants’ refusal to credit Armes … has resulted in significant harm to Armes’ reputation, career and cost him a host of opportunities,” his lawyer wrote. “Songwriters and composers work their entire lives to create a commercially successful and critically acclaimed song like [‘Circles’].”
Read Armes’ entire complaint here.
“Unearned Windfall”
On the same day that Armes filed his lawsuit, Malone sued him right back – asking a federal judge for a ruling that Armes “did not write or author any portion of the ‘Circles’ composition, and he is not entitled to any of the revenue from the ‘Circles’ composition.”
Malone’s lawyers admitted that Armes had been in the room that night, but said he had not made any serious contributions to the song. And they pointed out that the star and other writers then held subsequent sessions in which they continued to work on the song without Armes present.
“It is an age-old story in the music business that when a song earns the type of runaway success that ‘Circles’ has garnered, an individual will come out of the woodwork falsely claim to take credit for the song, and demand unwarranted and unearned windfall profits from the song,” Malone’s lawyers wrote. “This lawsuit arises from such a story.”
In later motions seeking to end the case without a trial, Malone’s attorneys argued more specifically about the “fatal flaws” in Armes’ allegations. They said his contributions to the song were merely commonplace musical building blocks like chord progressions, meaning they were not sufficiently “original” to be protected by copyright law. And they said that he had not exercised enough “control” over the studio session to count as a co-author.
“Armes admitted he had no control over whether any of his creative suggestions would be incorporated by Post and Dukes into the ‘Circles’ composition,” Malone’s lawyers wrote. “Armes’s contention that because he was present for one early session while Dukes and Post were creating the ‘Circles’ composition … and because he played some instruments there and offered some verbal musical suggestions, he is entitled to joint authorship, is simply incorrect under governing law.”
Read Malone’s entire argument here.
“Shared Equal Control”
Those arguments didn’t sway the judge. In April 2022, U.S. District Judge Otis D. Wright declined to end the case and instead sent it to trial, ruling that Armes might ultimately be able to persuade a jury that he deserved to own a piece of “Circles.”
As for the originality of Armes’s creative contributions, the judge said a jury might look beyond simple individual elements and instead analyze the song more broadly: “A reasonable juror could conclude that all three collaborators took part in these decisions and that the combination of these decisions created something that is not stock or commonplace, despite the fact that it may contain stock or otherwise uncopyrightable building blocks.”
And, just as importantly, the judge said it was unclear whether Malone and Dukes had sole control over what had been included in the song.
“While Dukes may have controlled the laptop, nothing suggests that he or Post possessed any special veto or decision-making power that Armes did not,” Judge Wright wrote in his ruling. “Armes’s evidence, if credited, supports the finding that the three musicians shared equal control in the session, making nonhierarchical contributions to a unitary whole.”
Read Judge Wright’s entire decision here.
“Make Swiss Cheese of Copyrights”
Ahead of the upcoming trial, Malone’s attorneys have sharply disputed one unusual aspect of Judge Wright’s ruling last year.
In the decision, the judge said the upcoming trial would technically only deal with the ownership of an unfinished “session” song created that August night, and not with the final “commercial” version of “Circles.” But he stressed that a verdict for Armes would still entitle him to substantial royalties from the hit song, since the final version was based on that earlier jam session tune.
A month later, Malone’s lawyers argued that Judge Wright’s approach was simply not how the creation of a copyrighted work is supposed to be analyzed. A final song is a final song, they said, and any earlier versions are merely part of the artistic process – not their own copyrighted creations.
“Splintering a single, final integrated work into many different ‘works’ at its various stages of creation would impermissibly make Swiss cheese of copyrights,” Malone’s lawyers wrote, quoting from a legal precedent that used that analogy. “Characterizing a single musical composition as derivative of its successive writing sessions preceding its final form raises the specter of an endless series of derivative works within one song.”
Lawyers for Armes argued back that the judge’s approach was just fine, and Judge Wright later brushed aside such critiques. But the “Swiss cheese” issue could very well arise again in the courthouse during this week’s trial – and, if Malone loses, will almost certainly serve as a key avenue for him to challenge the verdict at a federal appeals court.
The Courtroom Fight Ahead
The trial, taking place at the U.S. federal courthouse in downtown Los Angeles, will kick off with jury selection on Tuesday morning. It’s expected to run for four days, meaning we could expect a verdict on Friday or early next week.
Though a witness list hasn’t been published, it will likely include Armes, London, Dukes and various others involved in the events of the case, who will testify about what they recall about the session and the days surrounding it. Both sides will also call expert witnesses to testify about complicated technical questions about music and industry practices.
Malone himself will also be there. Back in August, during back-and-forth over potential trial dates, his lawyers confirmed that star will take the witness stand to help defeat Armes’ allegations: “He fully intends to appear to refute plaintiff’s claims.”
The star will be represented by David A. Steinberg, Gabriella N. Ismaj, Christine Lepera and Jeffrey M. Movit of the law firm Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp, an elite music litigation team whose members have defended Katy Perry, Dua Lipa, Jay-Z and other stars in similar cases.
Armes will be repped by Allison S. Hart and Kelsey J. Leeker from the law firm Lavely & Singer, a well-known Hollywood litigation boutique that has represented a slew of A-listers in defamation cases, contract disputes and other legal battles.
