Copyright
Page: 7
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.
Offering a preview of arguments the company might make in its upcoming legal battle with Universal Music Group (UMG), artificial intelligence (AI) company Anthropic PBC told the U.S. Copyright Office this week that the massive scraping of copyrighted materials to train AI models is a “quintessentially lawful.”
Music companies, songwriters and artists have argued that such training represents an infringement of their works at a vast scale, but Anthropic told the federal agency Monday (Oct. 30) that it was clearly allowed under copyright’s fair use doctrine.
“The copying is merely an intermediate step, extracting unprotectable elements about the entire corpus of works, in order to create new outputs,” the company wrote. “This sort of transformative use has been recognized as lawful in the past and should continue to be considered lawful in this case.”
The filing came as part of an agency study aimed at answering thorny questions about how existing intellectual property laws should be applied to the disruptive new tech. Other AI giants, including OpenAI, Meta, Microsoft, Google and Stability AI all lodged similar filings, explaining their views.
But Anthropic’s comments will be of particular interest in the music industry because that company was sued last month by UMG over the very issues in question in the Copyright Office filing. The case, the first filed over music, claims that Anthropic unlawfully copied “vast amounts” of copyrighted songs when it trained its Claude AI tool to spit out new lyrics.
In the filing at the Copyright Office, Anthropic argued that such training was a fair use because it copied material only for the purpose of “performing a statistical analysis of the data” and was not “re-using the copyrighted expression to communicate it to users.”
“To the extent copyrighted works are used in training data, it is for analysis (of statistical relationships between words and concepts) that is unrelated to any expressive purpose of the work,” the company argued.
UMG is sure to argue otherwise, but Anthropic said legal precedent was clearly on its side. Notably, the company cited a 2015 ruling by a federal appeals court that Google was allowed to scan and upload millions of copyrighted books to create its searchable Google Books database. That ruling and others established the principle that “large-scale copying” was a fair use when done to “create tools for searching across those works and to perform statistical analysis.”
“The training process for Claude fits neatly within these same paradigms and is fair use,” Anthropic’s lawyers wrote. “Claude is intended to help users produce new, distinct works and thus serves a different purpose from the pre-existing work.”
Anthropic acknowledged that the training of AI models could lead to “short-term economic disruption.” But the company said such problems were “unlikely to be a copyright issue.”
“It is still a matter that policymakers should take seriously (outside of the context of copyright) and balance appropriately against the long-term benefits of LLMs on the well-being of workers and the economy as a whole by providing an entirely new category of tools to enhance human creativity and productivity,” the company wrote.
A songwriter named Vince Vance is once again suing Mariah Carey over accusations that she stole her perennially-chart-topping “All I Want for Christmas is You” from his earlier song, a year after he dropped a previous lawsuit making the same allegations.
In a complaint filed Wednesday (Nov. 1) in Los Angeles federal court, Vance (real name Andy Stone) made the same basic accusations as he did in his last lawsuit: that Carey’s 1994 holiday blockbuster infringed the copyrights to his 1989 song of the exact same name. That’s no small claim: Carey’s “All I Want” has reached No. 1 on the Billboard Hot 100 during each of the past four holiday seasons.
But the new case includes far more detailed — and far more personal — allegations against Carey, 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.”
Notably, Vance is now represented by Gerard P. Fox, the same attorney who represented two songwriters who accused Taylor Swift of stealing the lyrics to “Shake It Off.” That case went on for more than five years of litigation before it ended in December 2022 with a confidential settlement.
Just like his first lawsuit, Vance’s new complaint claims his own “All I Want for Christmas is You” was recorded by his Vince Vance and the Valiants in 1989 and had received “extensive airplay” during the 1993 holiday season — a year before Carey released her better-known song under the same name.
But his new lawsuit includes new details about the success of his earlier song, calling it a “a country music hit” that peaked at No. 31 on Billboard’s Hot Country Songs chart and later reached No. 23 on the Hot 100 Airplay chart (re-named the Radio Songs chart in 2014.) He’s also now joined as a plaintiff by Troy Powers, who claims to have co-written the earlier song.
The new version of the lawsuit also makes more detailed allegations about the similarities between the two songs, delving into the “unique linguistic structure” and musical elements that Carey allegedly copied in her song.
“The phrase ‘all I want for Christmas is you’ may seem like a common parlance today, in 1988 it was, in context, distinctive,” Vance’s new lawyers write. “Moreover, the combination of the specific chord progression in the melody paired with the verbatim hook was a greater than 50% clone of Vance’s original work, in both lyric choice and chord expressions.”
Notably, the new complaint lawsuit also mentions Love Actually, the 2003 Christmas movie that skyrocketed Carey’s song even further into the holiday canon. The lawsuit notes that Carey’s song appears in “a featured performance scene in the penultimate act in the mega hit film.”
A rep for Carey did not immediately return a request for comment on Wednesday evening.
A federal appeals court issued a first-of-its-kind ruling Wednesday (Nov. 1) on copyright protections for dance routines, reviving a case that accuses Fortnite creator Epic Games of stealing copyrighted moves from a celebrity choreographer who’s worked with BTS, Jennifer Lopez, Justin Bieber and Britney Spears.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
In a “novel” ruling on “one of the oldest forms of human expression,” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overturned a decision last year that dismissed choreographer Kyle Hanagami’s lawsuit, which claimed that Epic stole his dance moves and used them as “emotes” in Fortnite.
A lower court had tossed the case by ruling that Epic had copied only several unprotected “poses” from Hanagami’s routine. But in Wednesday’s decision, the appeals court said dance copyrights should be analyzed more holistically, more similarly to how courts dissect copyrighted music.
“We see no reason to treat choreography differently,” the court wrote. “Reducing choreography to ‘poses’ would be akin to reducing music to just ‘notes.’ Choreography is, by definition, a related series of dance movements and patterns organized into a coherent whole. The relationship between those movements and patterns, and the choreographer’s creative approach of composing and arranging them together, is what defines the work. The element of ‘poses,’ on its own, is simply not dynamic enough to capture the full range of creative expression of a choreographic work.”
The ruling does not mean Hanagami has won the lawsuit; instead, the appeals court merely said that the lower court should not have automatically dismissed the case. The two sides will now return to the lower court for more proceedings, potentially including an eventual trial.
A spokeswoman for Epic Games declined to comment on the decision.
In a statement to Billboard, Hanagami’s attorney David Hecht celebrated a ruling that he said would be “extremely impactful for the rights of choreographers, and other creatives, in the age of short form digital media.”
“Our client looks forward to litigating his claims against Epic and he is happy to have opened the door for other choreographers and creatives to protect their livelihood,” Hecht said.
Hanagami sued last year, claiming that Epic had copied a dance routine he created to a Charlie Puth song and used it without permission as the basis for a Fortnite “emote” — a pre-programmed dance move that players can purchase from Epic and employ using their digital avatars. He called it “intentional misappropriation” of his “fame and hard work.”
Attorneys for Hanagami compared the two dances as part of their legal filings:
[embedded content]
The case was one of many filed in recent years over the use of dance moves in games. Alfonso Ribeiro, the actor who played Carlton on The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, sued Epic over the use of his heavily-memed “Carlton dance” as an emote, as did the mother of the so-called Backpack Kid who popularized the viral “Floss” dance. But those cases have faced skeptical judges in court: In 2020, a federal judge sided with Epic and tossed out a case filed by two former college basketball players over their “running man” dance.
In August 2022, Hanagami’s case faced the same fate. Siding with Epic, Judge Stephen Wilson ruled that the individual steps of his dance routine were too basic for copyright protection, and that even when combined together, they were just a “short” routine that couldn’t be covered by copyright law.
But on Wednesday, the Ninth Circuit overturned that decision, ruling that the lower court had unfairly focused on those simple “poses” and had ignored other elements of the “selection and arrangement” that Hanagami claimed Epic had copied. When those elements are all considered together, the appeals court said, his case becomes “plausible” enough to proceed toward trial.
“He has plausibly alleged that the creative choices he made in selecting and arranging elements of the choreography — the movement of the limbs, movement of the hands and fingers, head and shoulder movement, and tempo — are substantially similar to the choices Epic made in creating the emote,” the court wrote.
The ruling sends the case back to Judge Wilson’s court, where the two sides will engage in more litigation. Eventually, Epic will again seek to dismiss the case; if that fails, the lawsuit will head to a jury trial.
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: Lizzo fights back against sexual harassment allegations with the help of a famous lawyer and a creative legal argument; a federal court issues an early ruling in an important copyright lawsuit over artificial intelligence; Kobalt is hit with a lawsuit alleging misconduct by one of the company’s former executives; and much more.
Want to get The Legal Beat newsletter in your email inbox every Tuesday? Subscribe here for free.
THE BIG STORY: Lizzo Hits Back With … Free Speech?
Three months after Lizzo and her touring company were accused of subjecting three of her backup dancers to sexual harassment, religious and racial discrimination and weight-shaming, her lawyers filed their first substantive response – and they didn’t hold back.
“Salacious and specious lawsuit.” “They have an axe to grind.” “A pattern of gross misconduct and failure to perform their job up to par.” “Fabricated sob story.” “Plaintiffs are not victims.” “They are opportunists.”
“Plaintiffs had it all and they blew it,” Lizzo’s lawyers wrote. “Instead of taking any accountability for their own actions, plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against defendants out of spite and in pursuit of media attention, public sympathy and a quick payday with minimal effort.”
That’s not exactly dry legalese, but it’s par-for-the-course in a lawsuit that has already featured its fair share of blunt language from the other side. And it’s hardly surprising given that it came from Martin Singer – an infamously tough celebrity lawyer once described by the Los Angeles Times as “Hollywood’s favorite legal hit man.”
While Singer’s quotes made the headlines, it was his legal argument that caught my attention.
Rather than a normal motion to dismiss the case, Lizzo’s motion cited California’s so-called anti-SLAPP statute — a special type of law enacted in states around the country that makes it easier to end meritless lawsuits that threaten free speech (known as “strategic lawsuits against public participation”). Anti-SLAPP laws allow for such cases to be tossed out more quickly, and they sometimes require a plaintiff to repay the legal bills incurred by a defendant.
Anti-SLAPP motions are filed every day, but it’s pretty unusual to see one aimed at dismissing a sexual harassment and discrimination lawsuit filed by former employees against their employer. They’re more common in precisely the opposite scenario: filed by an individual who claims that they’re being unfairly sued by a powerful person to silence accusations of abuse or other wrongdoing.
But in Friday’s motion, Singer and Lizzo’s other lawyers argued that California’s anti-SLAPP law could also apply to the current case because of the creative nature of the work in question. They called the case “a brazen attempt to silence defendants’ creative voices and weaponize their creative expression against them.”
Will that argument hold up in court? Stay tuned…
Go read the full story about Lizzo’s defense, including access to the actual legal documents filed in court.
Other top stories this week…
RULING IN AI COPYRIGHT CASE – A federal judge issued an early-stage ruling in a copyright class action filed by artists against artificial intelligence (AI) firm Stability AI — one of several important lawsuits filed against AI companies over how they use copyrighted content. Though he criticized the case and dismissed many of its claims, the judge allowed it to move toward trial on its central, all-important question: Whether it’s illegal to train AI models by using copyrighted content.
HALLOWEEN SPECIAL – To celebrate today’s spooky holiday, Billboard turned back the clock all the way to 1988, when the studio behind “A Nightmare on Elm Street” sued Will Smith over a Fresh Prince song and music video that made repeated references to Freddy Kreuger. To get the complete bizarre history of the case, go read our story here.
KOBALT FACES CASE OVER EX-EXEC – A female songwriter filed a lawsuit against Kobalt Music Group and former company executive Sam Taylor over allegations that he leveraged his position of power to demand sex from her – and that the company “ignored” and “gaslit” women who complained about him. The case came a year after Billboard’s Elias Leight first reported those allegations. Taylor did not return a request for comment; Kobalt has called the allegations against the company baseless, saying its employees never “condoned or aided any alleged wrongdoing.”
MF DOOM ESTATE BATTLE – The widow of late hip-hop legend MF Doom filed a lawsuit claiming the rapper’s former collaborator Egon stole dozens of the rapper’s notebooks that were used to write down many of his beloved songs. The case claims that Egon took possession of the files as Doom spent a decade in his native England due to visa issues, where he remained until his death in 2020. Egon’s lawyers called the allegations “frivolous and untrue.”
DJ ENVY FRAUD SCANDAL UPDATE – Cesar Pina, a celebrity house-flipper who was charged earlier this month with running a “Ponzi-like investment fraud scheme,” said publicly last week that New York City radio host DJ Envy had “nothing to do” with the real estate deals in question. Critics have argued that Envy, who hosts the popular hip-hop radio show The Breakfast Club, played a key role in Pina’s alleged fraud by promoting him on the air.
UTOPIA SUED AGAIN OVER FAILED DEAL – Utopia Music was hit with another lawsuit over an aborted $26.5 million deal to buy a U.S. music technology company called SourceAudio, this time over allegations that the company violated a $400,000 settlement that aimed to end the dispute. The allegations came after a year of repeated layoffs and restructuring at the Swiss-based music tech company.
Back in April 1988, when DJ Jazzy Jeff & The Fresh Prince released “A Nightmare on My Street,” the song was an immediate hit. A Nightmare on Elm Street 4 was set for release a few months later, and the song – which made obvious allusions to Freddy Krueger from beginning to end – eventually climbed to No. 15 on the Hot 100.
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
“Now I have a story that I’d like to tell/ About this guy you all know him, he had me scared as hell!” rapped the Fresh Prince, who later became better known by his real name, Will Smith. “He comes to me at night after I crawl into bed/ He’s burnt up like a weenie and his name is Fred!”
Just one problem: New Line Cinema, the owners of the A Nightmare on Elm Street franchise, had already commissioned their own officially licensed Freddy Krueger rap track (“Are You Ready for Freddy”) by the Fat Boys – and, more importantly, they had specifically rejected DJ Jazzy Jeff & The Fresh Prince’s version.
Like a formulaic horror movie, you know what happens next. In July 1988, New Line took Smith, Jazzy Jeff (Jeff Townes) and Jive Records to federal court, arguing that “My Street” infringed their copyrights and trademarks to the Nightmare On Elm Street franchise. New Line also demanded an immediate injunction to stop MTV from airing the song’s soon-to-be released music video, which featured a look-alike Krueger and many other references to the movies.
What’s the origin story of this legal monster? According to legal filings from the case, New Line started thinking about commissioning a licensed hip hop theme song for “Elm Street 4″ nearly a year before the movie was released. Eventually, they settled on The Fat Boys, a pioneering rap trio who had released their breakout Crushin’ earlier that year. In March 1988, the group released “Are You Ready for Freddy” on their third studio album, Coming Back Hard Again.
But behind the scenes, an executive at Jive had been doing his best to convince New Line to use a theme song by DJ Jazzy Jeff & The Fresh Prince instead of the Fat Boys. According to legal filings, Smith and Townes recorded “My Street” in late 1987, and then Jive sent a copy of the track to the movie studio for consideration. Negotiations dragged on for months, but never culminated in a licensing deal.
In April, Jive released the song anyway, including it on DJ Jazzy Jeff & The Fresh Prince’s album “He’s the DJ, I’m the Rapper.” The song told the story of the duo encountering the same haunting scenario as the movies, where Krueger kills people in real life by murdering his vicitms in their dreams
“It wasn’t a dream, man, this guy was for real,” Smith rapped. “I said, ‘Freddy, uh, pal, there’s been an awful mistake here’”
According to legal filings, as the August premiere of the movie got closer, Jive continued to get New Line to try to “change its mind” about licensing the song for the movie, including suggesting that MTV was interested in doing a music video for “My Street.” But the studio ultimately reached an official agreement with the Hot Boys to make their own licensed video for their song.
In July, New Line sent a cease-and-desist to Jive and owner Zomba Music, warning that the Fresh Prince song amounted to copyright infringement and demanding that the record be pulled from store shelves. Weeks later, New Line headed to court, accusing the Jive, Zomba, and the duo of a wide range of legal wrongdoing. Then in August, they went into overdrive after learning that Zomba had produced a music video for “My Street” and were planning to release it on MTV, demanding a preliminary injunction to block the video’s premiere.
In late August, a federal judge sided decisively with New Line. He ruled that the planned music video likely infringed the studio’s copyrights, citing the overwhelming similarities between them. And he rejected their argument that the video amounted to a legal “fair use,” saying it was instead simply an unauthorized competitor that was unfairly free-riding on New Line’s “massive promotional campaign.”
“The video exists solely as an vehicle to promote Zomba’s song,” the judge wrote, issuing the injunction banning the release of the video. “Thus, Zomba stands to profit financially by using Freddy without making the usual licensing arrangements, which in fact were made by the Fat Boys before they produced their video.”
Unlike the best horror franchises, there was no sequel to this legal fight. The case could have continued on to more litigation over the ultimate merits of the case, but after New Line won the injunction, the lawsuit quickly ended on a confidential settlement. The video was never released, and albums featured a sticker disclosing that the song was not affiliated with the movie.
But don’t forget, the killer is never quite dead: A version of “A Nightmare On My Street” is currently available on YouTube, where it now has 2.8 million views.