Copyright
Page: 7
Sam Smith and Normani have prevailed in a copyright lawsuit against their 2019 hit “Dancing With a Stranger” a California judge agreed to dismiss the case Wednesday (Sept. 6). Released in 2019 off Smith’s third studio album Love Goes, “Dancing with a Stranger” is one of their top-charting hits, peaking at No. 7 on the […]
The U.S. Copyright Office issued a ruling on Tuesday (Sept. 5), confirming that songwriters and publishers are owed late fees when streaming services do not pay royalties to the Mechanical Licensing Collective (The MLC) on time. This, however, does not apply to the major adjustments in royalty payments currently underway following the re-setting of Phonorecords III rates (2018-2022), according to the office.
Late fees have been an ongoing debate between the music publishing industry and streaming services dating back to the passage of the Music Modernization Act (the MMA) in 2018. That landmark law switched how streaming services licensed music, from a song-by-song piecemeal system — which many considered ineffective and cumbersome — to a blanket licensing regime instead.
The law took effect starting Jan. 1, 2021, requiring digital music providers like Spotify and Apple Music to go to the newly created MLC to obtain a blanket mechanical license to reproduce music on these platforms. As part of the new system, streamers had to pay out royalties owed to the MLC, which then pays the writers and publishers, each month. More specifically, the law stipulates mechanicals are due “45 calendar days after the end of the monthly reporting period.”
After that, any lagging payment is considered late and subject to additional penalties, according to the MMA. For the current period of Phonorecords IV (2023-2027), the Copyright Royalty Board judges say that a streaming service must pay a late fee of 1.5% per month, or the highest lawful rate, whichever of those two is lower, for any payment owed to the music’s copyright owners that hadn’t been paid on time. The late fees accrue from the due date until the copyright owner receives payment.
The main source of debate around late fees is whether they should apply in the case of a monthly payment that needs adjustment after it is paid out. Streaming services have argued that “‘[i]f a service is following the regulations by making a reasonable estimate of an input it does not know the value of, it should not be penalized with a late fee even if it so happens that the estimate is too low.”
On the other side, the MLC has argued that allowing such exceptions would incentivize the streaming services to intentionally draw up payment estimates that undervalue what is owed to songwriters and publishers.
The Tuesday ruling by the Copyright Office settles the debate: “The Office concludes that the statute’s due date provisions are unambiguous. The statute’s reference to ‘due date for payment’ clearly refers to the date on which monthly royalty payments are required to be delivered to the MLC, i.e., no later than forty-five days after the end of the monthly reporting period.”
“This is a major victory for music creators who have waited far too long to be made whole from the appeal which significantly delayed their compensation,” says NMPA President and CEO David Israelite. “The USCO’s decision reiterates our assertion that the due dates are unambiguous and any past-due payments to the MLC must come with appropriate statutory penalties.”
Cardi B and Megan Thee Stallion have won a court ruling tossing out a lawsuit that accused them of stealing the lyrics to their smash hits “WAP” and “Thot Shit” from an earlier track called “Grab Em by the P—-.”
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
In a decision issued Tuesday (Aug. 29), a Manhattan federal judge ruled that the lyrics Cardi and Megan were accused of copying in their songs — “p—- so wet” and “n—-s wild’n” — were simply too unoriginal to be covered by copyright law.
“The lyrics over which plaintiff asserts copyright protection are no more than common phrases, employed frequently in popular culture and other Hip-Hop songs,” U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter wrote.
“The concept of using ‘p—- so wet’ as a rhetorical device in a song is neither original nor unique to plaintiff,” the judge wrote. “Likewise, defendants have provided examples of at least three songs pre-dating [‘Grab Em’] which use some variation of the phrase ‘n—–s wild’n.’”
The ruling dismissed a lawsuit filed last year by Denise Jones, a rapper who performs under the name Necey X, against Cardi (Belcalis Marlenis Almanzar), Megan (Megan Pete) and Atlantic Records. Jones, who sued without the aid of a lawyer, claimed that the stars chose to “copy and paste” her lyrics into their songs.
But in Tuesday’s decision, Judge Carter said Jones not only lacked valid copyrights in those lyrics but that Cardi and Megan’s own words were not “substantially similar” to those in “Grab Em” — the key requirement for proving copyright infringement.
“Defendants’ lyric, ‘why you in the club with n—-s wild’n,’ poses a question to the rapper (or to the audience), while plaintiff’s lyric refers to the rapper’s effect on a single individual,” the judge wrote. “Thus, the phrase is used in different ways and has different meanings such that an ordinary listener would not identify defendants’ lyric as being appropriated from plaintiff’s song.”
The lawsuit also included additional claims beyond copyright law, including that Cardi and Megan had stalked and harassed Jones. But Judge Carter quickly dispatched those allegations as well.
“Plaintiff makes generalized allegations about fearing for her safety from alleged stalking and harassment by the ‘cartel’ that she equates to the music industry at large, but plaintiff neither identifies any negligent conduct on the part of defendants or any special duty to avoid causing emotional distress,” the judge wrote.
Jones did not return a request for comment on the ruling Friday.
Released in August 2020 by Cardi with guest vocals by Megan, “WAP” was a smash hit, spending four weeks atop the Hot 100. “Thot Shit,” released a year later by Megan, was partly inspired by the backlash that “WAP” had received from conservative critics; it reached No. 16 on the Hot 100.
Whether by coincidence, osmosis, common ancestry or, you know, theft, there are plenty of hit songs that sound strangely similar to pre-existing material… or do they? Enter the lawsuit. While some artists and songwriters shrug off similarities, others take it to court, demanding what they perceive is their due when it comes to alleged copyright infringement.
Of course, music history – especially when it comes to pre-recorded music – is rife with songs that were inspired by (or wholesale stolen from) previous material. Early rock n’ roll songs frequently lifted riffs, lyrics and chords from classic blues and country songs, which themselves were often based on folk tunes, African-American spirituals and work songs, nursery rhymes and even melodies from classical compositions. If you could time travel and track the authorship of songs as simple as “I’ve Been Working on the Railroad” or “Yankee Doodle,” the list of co-writers for each would probably run north of two dozen by modern standards of crediting songwriters for their contributions.
As recorded music became big business over the 20th century (and new technology made it easier to track song authorship and a writer’s exposure to previous material), copyright lawsuits became a regular occurrence in the music industry. But the litigation really took off in the 2010s, after a landmark lawsuit between the estate of Marvin Gaye and Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams over “Blurred Lines” made things a bit more muddled (or blurred, if you will).
In the aftermath of the “Blurred Lines” case, many songwriters opted to credit scribes whose copyrighted material bore even a passing resemblance to theirs, assuming it was easier to give credit than deal with a protracted, expensive lawsuit. But more recently, many artists have started to fight back, fearing that settling with accusers was leading to more unjustified lawsuits. Led Zeppelin, Katy Perry and Ed Sheeran have all won high-profile victories in recent years, defeating copyright cases by arguing that basic musical building blocks must be free for everyone to use.
It’s worth mentioning that technically, plagiarism (taking someone else’s efforts and presenting it as your own original work) is not illegal in the United States. If a dispute over a song reaches the courts, it’s over copyright infringement, not plagiarism, so the arguments over these songs are about whether someone ran afoul of copyright law. (Although most people tsk-tsk plagiarists, too.)
The songs on this list share two things in common: They topped the Billboard Hot 100, and some people believe they lifted elements from a previously existing song. Inclusion on this list doesn’t imply wrongdoing. Several of these disagreements settled out of court; one was settled without any lawsuit being filed; and one artist handily won their case against the accuser.
Read on to see how the rest of the songs fared.
“Come Together”
Karol G and Tiësto are facing a copyright infringement lawsuit over their song “Don’t Be Shy,” filed by a Cuban-American songwriter who says their track features elements that are “practically identical” to his earlier tune.
In a complaint filed Tuesday in Puerto Rico federal court, lawyers for songwriter Rene Lorente claim that Karol G and Tiësto’s 2021 dance-pop hit infringed his 2000 song “Algo Diferente” by using a melody that “sounds identical.”
“It doesn’t take an expert or musician, to carefully listen to the melody/sounds of each, to recognize that one was copied from the other,” Lorente’s lawyers wrote in their complaint. “In this case, defendants’ ‘Don’t be Shy’ is a blatant violation of plaintiff’s copyrighted ‘Algo Diferente’.”
Karol G, who is currently sitting atop Billboard’s Hot Latin Songs chart with her “Qlona,” teamed up with Tiësto to release “Don’t Be Shy” in August 2021. The song, which hit No. 4 on the Hot Dance/Electronic Songs chart, was the Columbian star’s first released in English.
But in his lawsuit, Lorente claims Karol G and Tiësto’s song “misappropriated his beloved copyrighted work” – a tune released in May 2000 that currently has 3,647 total streams on Spotify. A version of “Algo Diferente” on YouTube, uploaded just nine days ago by CD Baby, has been streamed 6,423 times.
According to Lorente’s lawyers, a comparison of the two songs shows that they are “substantially similar” – the requirement to prove copyright infringement.
“Expert analysis of musical arrangement fragment of the copyrighted and infringing works, show exact rhythm, note arrangement, same intervals, harmony, with the only change being limited perhaps to the pitch, within 8 musical bars, repeated throughout infringing work,” Lorente’s lawyers wrote in his lawsuit. “However, for a lay listener and a jury, this combination of musical notes sounds identical.”
The lawsuit is seeking a whopping $52 million dollars, but attorneys who file lawsuits can claim any damages total they want. Even if Lorente’s lawsuit was successful – and that is not a given – such demands are typically not good indicators for what a judge or jury might ultimately award.
Reps for Karol G and Tiësto did not return requests for comment on Thursday.
Listen to the two songs below and compare for yourself:
[embedded content]
[embedded content]
A U.K. Parliament committee is calling on the British government to ensure that artificial intelligence (AI) developers are prevented from the free use of copyright-protected musical works for training purposes — and to commit to abandoning much-criticized plans that opponents say would significantly weaken copyright protections for artists and rights holders.
A report from the Culture, Media and Sport (CMS) Committee published Wednesday (Aug. 30) says that any future legislation governing the use of AI technology in the United Kingdom, the world’s third-biggest music market, must not risk “reducing arts and cultural production to mere ‘inputs’ in AI development.”
Committee members also state that urgent action must be taken to improve protections for artists and creators against the misuse of their likenesses, image rights and performances by emerging technologies such as generative AI.
The report comes more than a year after U.K. government body The Intellectual Property Office (IPO) first proposed the introduction of a new text and data mining (TDM) exception allowing AI developers to freely use copyright-protected works for commercial purposes.
Those plans, announced by the IPO last June, gave rights holders no option to opt out of the TDM exception, although they did state that tech developers would still require “lawful access” to any copyright-protected data, enabling rights holders to agree to license fees and charge for access.
The proposals drew strong criticism from across the creative industries, with Jamie Njoku-Goodwin, CEO of umbrella trade body UK Music, describing them as a “green light to music laundering.” In response, the government announced in February that it had listened to the objections and would no longer be proceeding with the original plans.
The CMS Committee welcomed the change of course but warned that the government’s handling “shows a clear lack of understanding of the needs of the U.K.’s creative industries.”
“The chorus of warnings from musicians, authors and artists about the real and lasting harm a failure to protect intellectual property in a world where the influence of AI is growing should be enough for ministers to sit up and take notice,” said CMS Committee chair Dame Caroline Dinenage in a statement.
Dinenage said the government must follow through on its pledge to abandon plans for a text and data mining exception to copyright-protected works and regain the trust of the creative industries by developing “a copyright and regulatory regime that properly protects them” from the potential risks of AI.
The U.K.’s current legal framework, which contains TDM allowances for non-commercial research purposes while also allowing rights holders to commercially license their work, “provides an appropriate balance between innovation and creator rights,” said the committee report.
The U.K.’s moves to police the rapidly evolving AI sector comes as other countries and jurisdictions, including the United States, China and the European Union, explore their own paths toward regulating the nascent technology.
The EU’s Artificial Intelligence Act, which was first proposed in April 2021 and is now being negotiated among politicians in different branches of government, is leading the way as the world’s first comprehensive legislation around AI. It states that generative AI systems will be forced to disclose any content that they produce that is AI-generated — helping differentiate computer-created works from those authored by humans — and provide detailed, publicly available summaries of any copyright-protected music or data they have used for training purposes.
Other provisions in European law, most notably those contained in 2019’s EU Copyright Directive, also deal with AI and text and data mining exceptions of copyrighted content, such as music, although these are more robust than those initially proposed — and since abandoned — by the U.K. government. These EU provisions include allowing rights holders to stop AI systems from using their content for training purposes, or to limit which ones can in order to license that right.
Responding to the CMS Committee’s recommendations, BPI chief executive Jo Twist said it was “essential that artists and rightsholders can work in partnership with technology and that policies do not allow AI to get a free ride, but to always respect human creativity by seeking permission and remunerating the use of creative content.”
Why is the music business picking on Brewster Kahle? All the technology activist wants to do with the Internet Archive, which he founded in 1996 and still chairs the board of, is create a digital library that offers “universal access to knowledge.” Isn’t that the promise of the digital age — that anyone with an internet connection can access anything ever created?
Turns out it’s more complicated than that. On Aug. 11, Universal Music, Sony Music and Concord Music filed a lawsuit, managed by the RIAA, against the Internet Archive, Kahle’s foundation, Kahle himself and an audio archivist who worked on the project, for infringing the copyrights to old recordings that the Internet Archive makes available through its “Great 78s” project to digitize old recordings originally issued as 78rpm records.
Already, in June 2020, four big book publishers had sued the Internet Archive for making available for a limited time copy-protected digital versions of books — first as many as it had in its collection or those of its partners, then during the pandemic, with its National Emergency Library, as many as users wanted. The publishers won on summary judgement, although the Internet Archive has said it will appeal.
The Internet Archive does lot of worthwhile work: its Wayback Machine tracks old web pages, offers access to considerable information in the public domain, and boasts an expansive collection of live Grateful Dead recordings. The Great 78s project makes available some old recordings that might otherwise be lost, but according to the RIAA lawsuit it also offers streaming access to plenty of recordings that are big business, including Bing Crosby’s iconic version of “White Christmas” — by some measures the most popular recordings of the 20th century — plus Buddy Holly’s “Peggy Sue,” Chuck Berry’s “Roll Over Beethoven” and Frank Sinatra’s “I’ve Got the World on a String.” The 78, may be an obscure format, but some of the music originally released that way is still relatively popular.
The Internet Archive responded in a blog post that it’s a “lawsuit targeting obsolete media.” “When people want to listen to music they go to Spotify,” Kahle said in a statement on the blog. (The Internet Archive did not comment other than pointing to this post.) “When people want to study 78rpm sound recordings as they were originally created, they go to libraries like the Internet Archive. Both are needed. There shouldn’t be conflict here.”
Except that many of those “78rpm sound recordings” aren’t obsolete at all — they’re the exact same recordings that are on Spotify, plus Apple Music and other streaming services. The versions available on the Internet Archive sound scratchy, but the recordings themselves weren’t originally created that way, and the wear on the particular 78s that were digitized by the archive is less about the history of recorded music than about how careful a particular person was with his or her records.
Kahle presents himself as a “digital librarian” who’s making books — and music and other media — available the way libraries always have. But it’s worth remembering that the legal arguments for the Internet Archive’s book-lending program aren’t based on the provision of copyright law that provides exceptions for libraries. Instead, the archive’s legal claim is that copying and distributing books temporarily is fair use. Which means that, if the Internet Archive had won, any library — or, importantly, perhaps any nonprofit entity that defined itself that way, or maybe any entity at all — could copy books it had purchased in order to distribute them. (The archive, in turn, says that its loss is a disaster for libraries, since they have to license books from publishers; but shouldn’t libraries — an essential public good — be funded by the public in a way that’s fair to creators and rightsholders?) Kahle, who has campaigned for years against what he sees as the excesses of copyright, seems to want to change the law.
“The fact that you own a particular copy doesn’t mean that you can make and distribute copies of that copy — this is basic copyright law,” said Maria Pallante, chief executive of the Association of American Publishers (AAP), which helped to guide the publishers’ lawsuit. “They were trying to bloat fair use, while also asserting a first sale defense that applies only to tangible goods, not bootleg digital files.”
The RIAA is suing at least partly to establish case law behind the part of the 2018 Music Modernization Act, which extended federal copyright protection to recordings made before 1972, which were previously only covered under state law. The labels may also want to collect damages: Since statutory damages for willful infringement can be set by judges or juries at up to $150,000, this case could potentially cost the Internet Archive as much as $412 million. “This is the kind of egregious behavior that the Music Modernization Act was intended to address,” says RIAA CEO Mitch Glazier.
Recordings were only covered under state law until the Copyright Act of 1976, but it wasn’t retroactive. And although some opponents of copyright characterized the Music Modernization Act as a land grab by media companies, that doesn’t hold up: Some state laws made it unclear whether copyright protection ever lapsed at all. Indeed, one reason that sound recordings copyrights were federalized in the first place was to help libraries and archives take advantage of the exceptions and limitations that exist in federal copyright legislation, including fair use and specific exceptions for libraries and archives.
As it happens, the subject of federal copyright protection for pre-1972 recordings was studied in a 2011 report by the Register of Copyrights, and substantial attention was devoted to “challenges of preservation and access.” “Substantively,” the report recommended, “the use of section 108 and the fair use exception should encourage more preservation and public access because they provide time—tested rules with which libraries and archives have experience.”
The law under which the Internet Archive is being sued was actually set up partly to help it and other archives, especially in its “orphan works” provision, the result of a compromise between Music Modernization Act proponents and opponents, that allows organizations to use pre-1972 recordings for non-commercial purposes after checking to make sure they’re not in commercial use. (There’s a procedure for this.) If the Great 78s project really intends to make available music that is in danger of disappearing, the law allows for that. Why aren’t Kahle and the Archive following it? It’s hard to imagine that Kahle doesn’t understand the law.
And that’s why the music business is picking on Brewster Kahle — because it sometimes seems as though the Internet Archive is as much about pushing the boundaries of copyright law as it is about preserving creative works in the first place. Libraries play a crucial role in any democratic society, and Kahle and the archive do a lot of important work. But so do the performers and songwriters — and, yes, the labels and publishers — who made all of these recordings possible in the first place.
A company that owns the rights to the “Space Jam” theme is suing a minor-league baseball club for using it – the latest in an increasingly active legal campaign to demand payment for a song that has been heavily used in internet memes and mashups for the past twenty years.
Watson Music Group, which bought the rights to “Space Jam” in 2019 from its original songwriters, has filed three federal lawsuits in the last three months, accusing companies of infringing its copyrights by using the song on the internet without permission. It’s also sent legal threats to an unknown number of others, arguing that unauthorized users must pay a “retroactive license” to avoid legal liability.
The latest target? The Wisconsin Timber Rattlers – a minor league affiliate of the Milwaukee Brewers that Watson sued on Monday, accusing the team of briefly using the “Space Jam” song in a 2017 Facebook video. The 35-second clip, still live as of Tuesday, features the track playing in the background as the team’s mascot dunks a basketball.
“Despite plaintiff’s efforts and willingness to address defendant’s infringing activity, defendant failed to respond and plaintiff was forced to seek judicial intervention for defendant’s infringing activity,” the lawsuit claims, before demanding as much as $150,000 in statutory copyright damages from the team.
Performed by Florida hip-hop trio Quad City DJ’s, “Space Jam” was released as a theme song for the 1996 movie of the same name – a classic live-action/animated flick featuring NBA superstar Michael Jordan and the characters from Looney Tunes squaring off in a basketball game against alien invaders. The song plays during the opening credits, blasting its mix of pumped-up raps and bass-heavy dance beats over archival footage of Jordan’s career.
The movie was a hit, but the music was a smash. A star-studded soundtrack album, also featuring R. Kelly’s chart-topping “I Believe I Can Fly,” reached No. 2 on the Billboard 200 in April 1997. And while Quad City’s theme song didn’t reach the heights the group’s earlier “C’mon N’ Ride It (The Train),” the track was also a hit in its own right, eventually hitting No. 37 on the Hot 100.
In legal filings, Watson (which also goes by Quadrasound Music) says it acquired the rights to “Space Jam” composition in 2019 from its original songwriters: Quad City’s Jay “Ski” McGown and Nathaniel “C.C. Lemonhead” Orange, as well as Van “Thrill Da Playa” Bryant of the closely-affiliated Miami hip hop group 69 Boyz.
Since then, the group has not been shy about enforcing those rights. On a website focused exclusively on Watson’s “100%” ownership of the “Space Jam” rights, a large-print banner reads: “Did you receive a notice from us?” Below that question, the site informs visitors that “U.S. copyright law provides large financial penalties for using someone’s copyrighted work without permission.”
The site then features a frequently-asked-questions section, warning readers that any use of the theme song on social media would require payment: “If your post contains any elements of the original composition ‘Space Jam’, you will need permission (a license) from Quadrasound Music.” Another question in the FAQ asks whether removing such a post, or offering credit, would suffice to avoid litigation. “None of these actions limit your liabilities as a copyright infringer,” the site answers, before explicitly stressing that copyright damages can reach $150,000 for a single infringed work.
But, the Watson website says, it doesn’t need to come to all that: “We would rather save you the expense and worry of litigation by having you work with us to resolve this matter outside of the courts by issuing you a retroactive license.”
Depending on how aggressive they want to get, Watson/Quadrasound could have plenty of targets to send those notices demanding payment.
That’s because, in the mid-2000s, Quad City’s “Space Jam” theme enjoyed a bizarre second act as a meme. Across early internet sites like Something Awful and 4chan, users published hundreds of absurdist “slam remix” videos, combining the track with other songs and video clips, often inexplicably featuring NBA star Charles Barkley.
By the early 2010s, the trend had largely faded away – most memes do. But dozens of slam remixes still exist on YouTube, and whole websites dedicated to the art of slamming are still live in 2023. During a late-night appearance in 2021, Tony-winning playwright Lin-Manuel Miranda heaped praise on Slamilton, a full-length LP splicing “Space Jam” with his musical Hamilton: “Kudos to the genius who made that. The internet remains undefeated.”
In a 2021 Billboard story recounting the long, strange history of slam remixes, Quad City member Jay Ski seemed to love the fact that his song had been meme-ized: “I feel so honored that the community embraced us and said, ‘Hey, let’s use this.’ Think about all the records they could’ve used,” he said at the time. “For ours to take on its own direction and own little world, that’s awesome.”
Do the creators of all those remixes have licenses to use “Space Jam”? Almost certainly not. So, is every one of them going to get letters from Watson, demanding they take “retroactive licenses” or risk costly litigation? Darren Heitner, a Miami lawyer who serves as the company’s outside general counsel, said he could not answer that question and that every case would be treated individually.
“I can’t speak broadly to whether our client is seeking payment from everyone who has used the content as part of a meme, given the facts vary on a case-by-case basis and there are instances where a meme may be commercialized or be used as part of a larger commercial enterprise,” Heitner told Billboard.
Heitner would not say how many legal notices Watson/Quadrasound had sent out, nor how much money the company typically demanded in licensing fees to avoid litigation.
“Our client’s policy is to send out a notice when it, with reasonable diligence, discovers the infringement,” Heitner said. “It has recently become much more active in policing such infringement with the intent to engage in thorough discourse with the infringer before escalating each matter.”
Over the past three months, the company has begun rapidly filing lawsuits against those who refuse to pay or ignore demands. In May, Watson sued SportsGrid, a New York-based sports betting media company, over allegations that it featured “Space Jam” repeatedly in videos and podcasts without licenses. Then in June, the company sued a Florida company called CPPM Leasing LLC, claiming it had used the song in a basketball-themed Facebook video in 2019. And now this week, Watson filed its suit against the Wisconsin Timber Rattlers over its slam-dunk video.
Those cases are a far cry from suing every creator of a meme, of course. They target sophisticated business entities who chose to use a copyrighted song in commercial contexts to help promote themselves, not random individuals who mashed-up two songs for fun. But if you believe Watson’s own language, the company does not make that kind of distinction between different types of alleged infringers.
“Is an unauthorized version of the composition ‘Space Jam’ considered copyright infringement?” the company asks in its FAQ. “Yes (there are a few exceptions). Without permission from Quadrasound Music, you most likely are an infringer.”
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 judge rules that works created by A.I. are not covered by copyrights; an appeals court revives abuse lawsuits against Michael Jackson’s companies; Smokey Robinson beats a lawsuit claiming he owed $1 million to a former manager; SoundExchange sues SiriusXM for “gaming the system” on royalties; and much more.
Want to get The Legal Beat newsletter in your email inbox every Tuesday? Subscribe here for free.
No Copyrights For A.I. Works – But Tougher Questions Loom
The rise of artificial intelligence will pose many difficult legal questions for the music business, likely requiring some combination of litigation, regulation and legislation before all the dust settles. But on at least one A.I. issue, a federal judge just gave us a clean, straightforward answer.
In a decision issued Friday, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell ruled that American copyright law does not cover works created entirely by artificial intelligence – full stop. That’s because, the judge said, the essential purpose of copyright law is to encourage human beings to create new works.
“Non-human actors need no incentivization with the promise of exclusive rights under United States law, and copyright was therefore not designed to reach them,” the judge wrote.
Though novel, the decision was not entirely surprising. Federal courts have long strictly limited copyrights to content created by humans, rejecting it for works created by animals, by forces of nature, and even those claimed to have been authored by divine spirits, like religious texts.
But the ruling was nonetheless important because it came amid growing interest in the future role that could be played in the creation of music and other content by so-called generative AI tools, similar to the much-discussed ChatGPT. The issue of copyright protection is crucial to the future role of AI, since works that are not protected would be difficult to monetize.
Trickier legal dilemmas lie ahead. What if an AI-powered tool is used in the studio to create parts of a song, but human artists then add other elements? How much human direction on the use of AI tools is needed for the output to count as “human authorship”? How can a court filter out, in practical terms, elements authored by computers?
On those questions, the current answers are much squishier – something that Judge Howell hinted at in her decision. “Undoubtedly, we are approaching new frontiers in copyright as artists put AI in their toolbox to be used in the generation of new visual and other artistic works. The increased attenuation of human creativity from the actual generation of the final work will prompt challenging questions.”
“This case, however, is not nearly so complex.”
Other top stories this week…
MJ ABUSE CASES REVIVED – A California appeals court revived lawsuits filed by two men who claim Michael Jackson sexually abused them as children, ruling that they can pursue negligence claims against his companies. A lower court dismissed the cases on the grounds that staffers had no power to control Jackson, who was the sole owner of the companies. But the appeals court called such a ruling “perverse” and overturned it: “A corporation that facilitates the sexual abuse of children by one of its employees is not excused from an affirmative duty to protect those children merely because it is solely owned by the perpetrator.”
SMOKEY ROBINSON TRIAL VICTORY – The legendary Motown singer won a jury trial against a former manager who claimed he was owed nearly $1 million in touring profits, capping off more than six years of litigation over the soured partnership. Robinson himself took the stand during the case, telling jurors that the deal was never intended to cover concert revenue.
“GAMING THE SYSTEM” – SoundExchange filed a lawsuit against SiriusXM claiming the satellite radio giant is using bookmaking trickery in order to withhold more than $150 million in royalties owed to artists. The case centers on allegations that SiriusXM is manipulating how it bundles satellite services with web streaming services to “grossly underpay the royalties it owes.”
TIKTOK JUDGE RESPONDS – A judge in New Jersey defended himself against misconduct allegations over TikTok videos in which he lip-synced to Rihanna’s “Jump” and other popular songs, admitting “poor judgment” and “vulgar” lyrics but saying he should receive only a light reprimand for what intended as “silly, harmless, and innocent fun.”
LAWSUIT OVER TAKEOFF SHOOTING – Joshua Washington, an assistant to the rapper Quavo, filed a lawsuit over last year’s shooting in Houston that killed fellow Migos rapper Takeoff. He claims injuries sustained during the attack are the fault of the bowling alley where the shooting took place, which he says failed to provide adequate security, screening or emergency assistance.
GUNPLAY FACING FELONY COUNTS – The rapper Gunplay was arrested in Miami and hit with three felony charges over an alleged domestic violence incident in which he is reportedly accused of drunkenly pointing an AK-47 assault rifle at his wife and child during an argument.
FRENCH DIDN’T CLEAR SAMPLE? – The rapper French Montana was hit with a copyright lawsuit claiming his 2022 song “Blue Chills” features an unlicensed sample from singer-songwriter Skylar Gudasz. She claims he tentatively agreed to pay her for the clip – both in an upfront payment and a 50 percent share of the publishing copyright — but then never actually signed the deal.
YOUTUBE FRAUDSTER SENTENCED – Webster “Yenddi” Batista Fernandez, one of the leaders of the largest-known YouTube music royalty scam in history, was sentenced to nearly four years in prison after pleading guilty to one count of wire fraud and one count of conspiracy. Under the name MediaMuv, Batista and an accomplice fraudulently collected roughly $23 million in royalties from over 50,000 songs by Latin musicians ranging from small artists to global stars like Daddy Yankee.
French Montana is facing a copyright lawsuit claiming his 2022 song “Blue Chills” features an unlicensed sample from a singer-songwriter – who says the rapper tentatively agreed to pay her for the clip but then never actually did so.
Skylar Gudasz’s ghostly 2020 song “Femme Fatal” can be heard playing throughout French’s track, and she claims that the rapper’s reps offered to pay her for the sample – both in upfront fees and an ongoing payments, including a fifty-percent share of the publishing copyright.
But in a lawsuit filed Thursday in North Carolina federal court, the singer says French (whose real name is Karim Kharbouch) then dropped “Blue Chills” without ever actually signing that deal.
“Despite repeated promises from defendants …. no signed agreement, fees, royalties, licensing agreements or monies have ever been sent to plaintiff,” Gudasz’s lawyers wrote in the lawsuit.
A rep for French Montana did not immediately return a request for comment.
Gudasz says she was first contacted in May 2022 by Deborah Mannis-Gardner, a well-known industry exec who has been called the “queen” of sample clearance, about French using “Femme Fatal” in an upcoming song. Gudasz says she and her lawyer then negotiated a deal in which she would receive more than $7000 in upfront fees, an .08 percent cut on master royalties, and a fifty-percent share of the copyright for French’s new composition.
But a month later, she claims that French, without notice, released the song “prior to finalizing and signing a licensing agreement.” Gudasz says that her lawyer quickly alerted Mannis-Gardner about the problem.
“Oh jeez,” Mannis-Gardner allegedly wrote in a response email, saying she would reach out to French’s attorney about the issue. But Gudasz says the situation was never resolved: “DMG continued to maintain there would be a final agreement, sent emails finalizing the licensing agreement and requested invoices from plaintiff, which plaintiff timely sent … and even sent plaintiff a congratulatory email.”
Gudasz says the aborted negotiations show that French “knowingly infringed” the earlier song, because they show that he was aware that he needed a license but chose to proceed without one. She claims that French even posted comments to Instagram congratulating her, and acknowledged her role in “Blue Chills” on an episode of Apple Music’s Rap Life Radio.
“The unauthorized and infringing use by defendants of the song ‘Femme Fatale’ has caused irreparable harm, damage and injury,” Gudasz’s lawyers wrote. “Plaintiff has been deprived of the rightful experience of benefitting and enjoying the fruits of her labor.”
In addition to French Montana, the lawsuit also names producer Harry Fraud (real name Rory William Quigley) as a defendant, as well Sony Music Entertainment and several other companies involved in French’s song. Mannis-Gardner is not named as a defendant in the lawsuit and is not accused of any wrongdoing.