genre hiphop

A new lawsuit claims Drake’s ”What Did I Miss?” music video ripped off the work of an Italian photographer — and, in a strange twist, that the rapper was intentionally trying to connect his feud with Kendrick Lamar to a controversial Balenciaga campaign.

The copyright infringement complaint, filed against Drake (Aubrey Graham) on Wednesday (Nov. 12) in federal court, alleges a key sequence in the “What Did I Miss?” video lifts from a photograph in Gabriele Galimberti’s 2020 book The Ameriguns. Both Galimberti’s photo and the scene in question show men standing outside houses, surrounded by firearms laid out in parallel around swimming pools.

Galimberti is a photographer with National Geographic, though he is perhaps best known for shooting a notorious 2022 Balenciaga campaign that portrayed children with sexually explicit objects. The campaign drew a huge backlash, with consumers accusing the fashion house and Galimberti of glorifying pedophilia.

Wednesday’s lawsuit draws a direct line between the Balenciaga controversy and “What Did I Miss?,” in which Drake addressed the aftermath of his rap battle with Lamar. That feud ended with Lamar calling Drake a “certified pedophile” on the chart-topping diss track “Not Like Us,” leading Drake to sue Universal Music Group (UMG) for defamation.

“Plaintiff was ultimately publicly vindicated in a defamation lawsuit abroad related to the false accusations arising from the Balenciaga advertisement,” writes Galimberti’s attorney. “Given Kendrick Lamar’s lyrics…calling defendant Graham a pedophile and defendant Graham’s now dismissed defamation lawsuit, on information and belief, defendant Graham sought to imply that he, like plaintiff, would be publicly exonerated.”

Drake’s defamation lawsuit was dismissed last month, with a federal judge ruling that lyrics in rap battles are hyperbole and not meant to imply facts. Drake is now appealing to revive the case against UMG, which owns both Lamar’s label Interscope Records and his label, Republic Records.

Republic and UMG are both defendants in Galimberti’s lawsuit as well, along with Drake and his company OVO Sounds. Galimberti is seeking financial damages for what he describes as “both an egregious violation of federal law and an affront to plaintiff, his livelihood, his legacy and to photographers everywhere.”

“Plaintiff is a serious professional, addressing serious themes,” reads the complaint. “His work hangs in galleries, museums, graces serious print literature, and his career depends upon the respect and admiration of dealers, collectors and critics of contemporary and documentary art. By the forced and unauthorized association of his work with the infringing video, the integrity of his work and his reputation as a photographer has been damaged.”

Reps for Drake and UMG did not immediately return requests for comment on the lawsuit.

“What Did I Miss?” debuted at No. 2 on the Billboard Hot 100 in July, and hit No. 1 on both Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs and Rhythmic Airplay, extending multiple Billboard chart records for the rapper.

There’s a new front in the nasty legal war between hip-hop producer Madlib and his longtime manager Eothen “Egon” Alapatt: The many songs recorded during their decade-long partnership.

In a lawsuit filed Tuesday (Nov. 11) against Madlib (Otis Lee Jackson Jr.), Egon asked a federal judge to decide who owns the rights to the masters created over the years at their Madicine Show label — tracks that feature Madlib’s beats under vocals by Mac Miller, Freddie Gibbs, Four Tet and others.

“Jackson now claims those works as his personal property and seeks to withdraw them entirely from Madicine Show’s catalog,” writes Egon’s attorney Kenneth Freundlich. “That is not how the law works.”

In a statement to Billboard, Madlib responded to Egon’s new claims: “I trusted someone who didn’t value the art the way I do. This is a reminder that not everyone who stands beside you is standing for you. When you move with truth, you don’t have to defend yourself. Time and integrity do the talking.”

Madlib, a critically-acclaimed producer known for his work with Kanye West (now Ye) and the late MF Doom, went to court first in 2024 — accusing Egon of “rank self-dealing” and “pervasive mismanagement.” The case, filed in California state court, claimed the manager had abused his power over Madicine Show to profit at Madlib’s expense.

Egon hit back in May, filing a countersuit blasting Madlib for “having the audacity to bring this mean-spirited personal action.” In one notable claim, Egon said Madlib’s new label was interfering with music projects that legally belong to Madicine Show, including the release of a years-old recording of the late Miller that has long been rumored to be in the works.

In the new case on Tuesday, Egon said he needed “immediate federal intervention” in that legal battle because of a key new development in the earlier lawsuit.

Last month, a Los Angeles judge sided with Madlib and ruled that a court-appointed receiver should oversee the corporate dissolution of Madicine Show. The ruling came over objections from Egon, who said he himself should oversee the company’s wind-down. “Defendant is not the appropriate person to oversee the dissolution process,” the judge said at the time. “The court will appoint a receiver.”

But now, weeks later, Egon says in his new lawsuit that the breakup process cannot move ahead until it’s clear who owns the company’s “most valuable assets”: its catalog of recorded music. And since copyright law is handled exclusively by federal courts, he says that decision must be made by a U.S. district judge.

“The recordings at issue were created and exploited pursuant to a licensing relationship between Jackson and Madicine Show,” Egon writes. “They remain company assets, and their ownership must be determined under the Copyright Act.”

According to the lawsuit, the tracks recorded by Miller and others over Madlib’s beats were “facilitated, supervised, and produced” by Egon under a longstanding arrangement in which the company controlled them. The producer’s recent claim that “he alone owns all copyrights” is “mystifying” and legally incorrect, the suit says.

“This position ignores the parties’ mutual understanding and Alapatt’s creative, financial, and managerial contributions,” Egon’s lawyers write. “After benefiting from that arrangement, Jackson cannot revoke or withdraw those rights or claim exclusive ownership of works that were created, produced, and marketed under Madicine Show’s direction.”

Attorneys for both sides did not immediately return requests for comment on the new case.