Lawsuit
HipHopWired Featured Video
Source: Daniel LEAL / AFP / Daniel LEAL / AFP
The lawsuit filed by Drake against Universal Music Group was amended Wednesday (April 16) to include a new complaint, specifically that the music label used Kendrick Lamar’s Grammy wins and his Super Bowl halftime show performance of “Not Like Us” to promote the single and damage his reputation further. The new addition makes the suit 107 pages in total to account for new allegations.The new complaint states that the halftime performance by Kendrick Lamar, which was seen by 133 million people “including millions of children,” who had “never before heard the song or any of the songs that preceded it. It was the first, and will hopefully be the last, Super Bowl halftime show orchestrated to assassinate the character of another artist.” It goes on to allege that Kendrick Lamar purposefully excluded the word “pedophile” from the song, stating that “on information and belief” that he wouldn’t have been able to perform without that exclusion. The suit also claims that UMG caused intentional harm by negotiating the performance and promoting it afterward, as well as citing that the use of a photo of his Toronto home led to a shooting incident days after the release.The legal team for Drake also claimed that UMG CEO Lucian Grainge hugged and gave a high-five to Dr. Dre as “Not Like Us” played at the Grammy Awards (a YouTube clip of the interaction that was posted doesn’t have the song in the background, however) and that the crowd was singing along to “Not Like Us,” which would win Song and Record of the Year. Another allegation that remains is that bots were used by UMG to push the song on streaming platforms like Spotify. The claim was initially floated by an undisclosed person who appeared on DJ Akademiks’ show to claim he was paid to push the songs by Interscope.UMG issued a lengthy and bruising response to the amended complaint shortly after, writing in part: “Two weeks ago, his representatives celebrated a ‘win’: the granting of a routine discovery motion. That ‘win’ will become a loss if this frivolous and reckless lawsuit is not dropped in its entirety because Drake will personally be subject to discovery as well. As the old saying goes, ‘be careful what you wish for.’”
HipHopWired Featured Video
Source: Getty / General
The twists and turns continue with Diddy’s trial. He has plead not guilty to new charges and his defense may ask to postpone the start date of the trial.
As spotted on Deadline, the mogul was charged with one count of sex trafficking by force, fraud or coercion, and one count of transportation to engage in prostitution as part of a superseding indictment. On Monday, April 15, he appeared in a New York City courtroom and formally submitted a not guilty plea. In addition his defense argued that the prosecutor has been less than forthright with the disclosure of evidence. Hence they are considering requesting that the trial be postponed.
Diddy’s lawyers Marc Agnifilo and Teny Geragos say that the U.S. Attorney’s Office has not been sharing all the communications they have in their possession; specifically those from Diddy’s former employees. Furthermore they casted doubt on whether the prosecutors actually have the messages in question saying “it’s troubling to us.” As a result, Diddy’s defense team revealed that they might file for an adjournment of the case in hopes of delaying the trial another two weeks in order to sort out any issues with the evidence. After the court hearing Agnifilo told the press that they will not seek the adjournment if the prosecutors “get their act together.” Judge Arun Subramanian has given Diddy’s legal team 48 hours to file the adjournment if they are still interested in pursuing that request.
Diddy’s trial is set to commence May 5. The next hearing is scheduled for later this week.
Quavo is facing a copyright lawsuit centered on a recent music video — not over an uncleared sample or a stolen melody, but a quartz sculpture of a 1961 Ferrari that he used as a prop.
In a complaint filed late last month, attorneys for sculptor Daniel Arsham claim the rapper (Quavious Marshall) “unlawfully exploited” the Ferrari sculpture by rapping in front of it in a video he posted to TikTok and other social platforms in December.
“Without his consent, and without his knowledge, defendants created a video which prominently featured the artwork to promote the music of Quavo,” Arsham’s lawyers write in the March 31 lawsuit. “Mr. Arsham never consented to the artwork being used in the infringing content.”
Trending on Billboard
Arsham created the sculpture — fully entitled “Quartz Eroded 1961 Ferrari GT” — in 2018 as part of a series portraying famous cars that have been “eroded” like an ancient archeological find. He says it’s been publicly displayed twice, most recently at Los Angeles’ Petersen Automotive Museum in 2023.
In December, Quavo posted a video to Instagram and other platforms under the caption “Back To The Basics 2025!!”, featuring him rapping in front of what appears to be Arsham’s work. The video, which remains on TikTok, focuses heavily on the sculpture, including close-ups on its eroded features.
Just like music, books and paintings, sculptures are protected by federal copyright law, and reproducing one without permission can theoretically amount to infringement. Back in 2018, the artist behind Chicago’s “Bean” sculpture sued the National Rifle Association for using the famed statue in a promotional video.
Copyrighted works captured in the background of video footage raise tricky legal questions. A federal judge ruled in 2018 that a Detroit graffiti artist could move ahead with suing General Motors after his mural appeared in a Cadillac commercial. But last year, another federal judge dismissed a case filed by a photographer whose image briefly appeared in the background of a documentary about Billie Eilish.
In his lawsuit, Arsham says the use of his sculpture was hardly coincidental or brief: “The infringing video features Quavo performing in front of the Artwork. The Infringing Video is 45 seconds long and features the Artwork prominently throughout.”
According to the artist’s attorneys, when Quavo posted still images of the video to Instagram, he actually tagged Arsham’s Instagram handle in the caption. They say that not only confirms that he knew he was using a copyrighted work, but also violated Arsham’s likeness rights.
“Mr. Arsham never consented to his name being used in connection with the Infringing Post or any promotion of Quavo,” his attorneys wrote. “Defendants are using Mr. Arsham’s name for commercial advantage.”
A rep for Quavo did not immediately return a request for comment on Friday (April 11). The lawsuit also names Quavo’s label, Quality Control Music, and its parent company, HYBE America, as co-defendants.
HipHopWired Featured Video
Source: MEGA / Getty
Soulja Boy will have to pay his former assistant $4 million in compensatory damages and an additional $250,000 in punitive damages in connection with a civil lawsuit. Jane Doe accused Soulja Boy of assault, sexual battery, and harassment and launched a lawsuit in 2021.
Both Rolling Stone and Pitchfork have extensively covered the case involving Soulja Boy and Jane Doe, with details coming forth that the pair did enter into a consensual physical relationship that later took a turn for the worse, according to Doe.
Speaking with Rolling Stone, Jane Doe said that while she feels vindicated, her hope is that the “Crank That” rapper won’t do this again to anyone else.
“I feel like I got justice. Obviously, it’s not going to return everything I lost. I lost way more than I gained. My hope is he doesn’t do this to any more women,” Doe told the outlet.
In a statement to the outlet, Soulja Boy is vowing to appeal the matter.
“The district attorney never filed charges. I was never charged or convicted of this, criminally. So, to be accused of this civilly is beyond me. I’ve never done any of the things they’re accusing me of. I just feel like this is very unfair,” the rapper born DeAndre Cortez Way said to Rolling Stone.He then added, “I want to make it clear that I’m innocent. This case was never about justice. It was about money and personal gain, and I will not let that stand. I am committed to filing an appeal and fighting for the truth to be revealed.”For victims of sexual assault, domestic partner violence, and abuse, please see the following to find out how to get assistance:
RAINN National Sexual Assault Hotlinehttps://www.rainn.org1 800 656 HOPE (4673)
Crisis Text LineSMS: Text “HELLO” or “HOLA” to 741-741
The National Domestic Violence Hotlinehttps://thehotline.org1-800-799-SAFE (7233)
—
Photo:
Nelly’s former St. Lunatics bandmate Ali wants to drop a lawsuit that had accused the rapper of failing to pay him for his alleged work on Nelly’s 2000 debut album Country Grammar. But Nelly’s lawyers say Ali and his lawyers must pay for bringing a “ridiculous” case.
The action, filed last year, alleged that Nelly (Cornell Haynes) had cut four of his former St. Lunatics crew out of the credits and royalty payments for the hit album. It claimed the star had repeatedly “manipulated” them into falsely thinking they’d be paid for their work.
But three of the St. Lunatics quickly dropped out, saying they had never actually wanted to sue Nelly and had never given legal authorization to the lawyers who filed the case. And in recent months, Nelly’s lawyers had sought punishing sanctions against those attorneys.
Trending on Billboard
In a motion filed Thursday (April 10), Ali and his lawyers moved to voluntarily dismiss the case. They offered no rationale for why they were doing so, and there was no indication that a settlement of any kind had been reached. They did not immediately return a request for comment.
Nelly’s attorneys aren’t going to let him off the hook that easily. In a quick response, they urged the judge to refuse to dismiss the case until he decides whether Ali and his attorneys should face punishment for filing a “vexatious” lawsuit that “should never have been brought.”
“Plaintiff’s counsel succeeded in its frivolous campaign aimed at forcing Haynes to spend money defending Plaintiff’s ridiculous time-barred claims,” the star’s lawyers write. “The Court is respectfully requested to retain jurisdiction and set a briefing and hearing schedule for [potential sanctions].”
Nelly rose to fame in the 1990s as a member of St. Lunatics, a hip-hop group also composed of St. Louis high school friends Ali (Ali Jones), Murphy Lee (Tohri Harper), Kyjuan (Robert Kyjuan) and City Spud (Lavell Webb). With the June 2000 release of Country Grammar — which spent five weeks atop the Billboard 200 — Nelly broke away from the group and started a solo career that later reached superstar heights with his 2002 chart-topping singles “Hot in Herre” and “Dilemma.”
In September, all four St. Lunatics accused Nelly of cheating them out of compensation for contributions they’d made to Country Grammar. They claimed they had waited so long to sue because they believed their “friend and former band member would never steal credit” from them.
But a month later, the lawsuit took a strange turn: Nelly’s lawyers filed a letter warning that Lee, Kyjuan and Spud had never actually wanted to sue Nelly and that they had not given legal authorization to the lawyers who filed the lawsuit to include them as plaintiffs.
“They are hereby demanding you remove their names forthwith,” Nelly’s lawyers wrote in a letter to Walton. “Failure to do so will cause them to explore any and all legal remedies available to them.”
In November, Ali’s attorneys filed an updated version of the lawsuit listing only Ali as a client and vowed to fight on. But Nelly’s attorneys have since argued that the case is “frivolous,” claiming it was clearly filed years after the statute of limitations had expired. In January, they said it was so obviously flawed that the lawyers who filed it should be punished for going to court.
“Plaintiff and his counsel should be sanctioned in the full amount … that Haynes has been forced to incur in defending this action,” the rapper’s lawyers wrote at the time. “That is because plaintiff’s claims should never have been brought in the first place.”
Last month, the judge overseeing the case said he would not rule on that motion until he decided whether to dismiss the case. Such a motion to dismiss from Nelly’s attorneys was pending when the case was voluntarily dropped.
A federal judge says President Donald Trump must face a copyright lawsuit filed by the estate of Isaac Hayes over the president’s alleged use of the 1966 song “Hold On, I’m Coming” on the campaign trail. In a ruling issued Wednesday (April 2), court records show that Judge Thomas Thrash Jr. denied a motion by […]
A federal judge says Drake can move forward with discovery in his defamation lawsuit against Universal Music Group (UMG) over Kendrick Lamar’s diss track “Not Like Us,” allowing his attorneys to begin demanding documents like Lamar’s record deal.
UMG had asked Judge Jeannette A. Vargas to halt the discovery process last month, arguing that Drake’s case was so flawed that it would likely be quickly dismissed — and that the star was unfairly demanding “highly commercially sensitive documents” in the meantime.
But at a hearing Wednesday (April 2) in Manhattan federal court, the judge denied that motion in a ruling from the bench. The judge had hinted in earlier rulings that she does not typically delay discovery before deciding if a case will be dismissed, barring extraordinary circumstances.
Trending on Billboard
In response to the ruling, Drake’s lead attorney Michael Gottlieb said: “Now it’s time to see what UMG was so desperately trying to hide.” An attorney for UMG declined to comment, and a spokesman for the company did not immediately return a request for comment.
Lamar released “Not Like Us” last May amid a high-profile beef with Drake that saw the two stars release a series of bruising diss tracks. The song, a knockout punch that blasted Drake as a “certified pedophile” over an infectious beat, eventually became a chart-topping hit in its own right and was the centerpiece of Lamar’s Super Bowl halftime show.
In January, Drake took the unusual step of suing UMG over the song, claiming his label had defamed him by boosting the track’s popularity. The lawsuit, which doesn’t name Lamar himself as a defendant, alleges that UMG “waged a campaign” against its own artist to spread a “malicious narrative” about pedophilia that it knew to be false.
UMG filed a scathing motion seeking to dismiss the case last month, arguing not only that it was “meritless” but also ridiculing Drake for suing in the first place. Days later, the company asked Judge Vargas to pause discovery until she ruled on that motion, warning that exchanging evidence would be a waste of time if the case was then immediately tossed out of court.
But in a quick response, Drake’s lawyers argued discovery must go on because the lawsuit was not going anywhere: “UMG completely ignores the complaint’s allegations that millions of people, all over the world, did understand the defamatory material as a factual assertion that plaintiff is a pedophile.”
Following Wednesday’s decision, Drake’s attorneys will now continue to push ahead with seeking key documents and demanding to depose witnesses. That process will continue unless the judge grants UMG’s motion in the months ahead and dismisses the lawsuit.
In the earlier filings in the case, UMG attached the actual discovery requests filed by Drake’s team, detailing the materials his attorneys are seeking.
Among many others, they want documents relating to decisions on “whether to omit or censor any lyrics” from “Not Like Us” during the Super Bowl halftime show; anything related to the promotion of the song on Spotify and Apple Music; and any communications with the Recording Academy ahead of Lamar’s string of award wins at the Grammy Awards in February; and “all contracts and agreements between you and Kendrick Lamar Duckworth, his agents, or anyone working on his behalf.”
HipHopWired Featured Video
Source: unclegene / Getty
Sean “Diddy” Combs is once more being accused of heinous sex crimes after a man filed a lawsuit alleging human trafficking, sexual assault, and other crimes. Manzaro Joseph is claiming that Diddy forced him to wear a penis mask at a birthday party of King Combs in 2015, adding that he allegedly saw LeBron James, Beyoncé, and other celebrities. TMZ broke the report that Manzaro Joseph filed a lawsuit against Diddy, alleging that he was drugged and sent to the Bad Boy Records honcho’s Star Island commune and made to perform sex acts and be at the beck and call of guests. Named in Joseph’s lawsuit were Emilio and Gloria Estefan, who also reside on Star Island, along with Rick Ross owning a residence there as well. Joseph says that the Estefans tried to help him after witnessing what they thought was a medical episode. The filing goes on to say that a bath towel-wearing LeBron James, then a member of the Cleveland Cavaliers, urged the couple to handle the situation. Joseph, who apparently is white, said he then allegedly encountered Beyoncé, who was offended by his mask and wondered why he was at the party. Joseph then adds to claims that one of Diddy’s security people was allegedly ordered by his boss to parade Joseph around in sexually suggestive clothing and made to perform humiliating sex acts.This complaint demonstrates the depraved lengths plaintiffs will travel to garner headlines in pursuit of a payday. No sane person reading this complaint could credit this story. Mr. Combs looks forward to having his day in court where these lies – and the perverse motives of those who told them – will be revealed,” Diddy’s legal team told TMZ.
Also named in the filing were former porn star Adria English, Jacob “The Jeweler” Arabo, and alleged drug mule, Brendan Paul. The outlet was clear to note that Joseph is only suing Diddy, the Estefans, English, and Paul. The outlet also updated their story to share statements from the named individuals, all of whom are shooting down the wild claims.
—Photo: Getty
HipHopWired Featured Video
Source: Getty / General
A recently filed lawsuit alleges new bombshell claims against Hip-Hop mogul Sean “Diddy” Combs. According to TMZ, the Bad Boy founder is being sued by a male photographer who alleges that the embattled star forced him to perform oral sex by threatening his career.
In the lawsuit obtained by TMZ, the accuser is a photographer who claims Diddy invited him to join him in a trailer for an opportunity to advance his career. However, the unnamed accuser said that the Hip-Hop mogul began making sexual advances and unzipping his pants.
The allegations are disturbing, with the accuser alleging that Diddy told him “If you suck right I’ll make your career take off.”
The accuser, who identifies as a straight man, says that he complied.
He later said that Diddy allegedly told him to hold semen in his mouth “like a squirrel.”
The photographer said that the incident occurred in 2022 or 2023 and that it took place in Diddy’s trailer on the set of a commercial. He says that he did not have further contact with the mogul afterward.
He is suing for sexual battery and financial damages due to emotional and mental pain and trauma.
Diddy’s legal team sent a statement to TMZ writing, “No matter how many lawsuits are filed—especially by individuals who refuse to put their own names behind their claims—it won’t change the fact that Mr. Combs has never sexually assaulted or sex trafficked anyone—man or woman, adult or minor.”
They added, “We live in a world where anyone can file a lawsuit for any reason. Fortunately, a fair and impartial judicial process exists to find the truth, and Mr. Combs is confident he will prevail in court.”
Diddy has been held at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, New York, since he was arrested on Sept. 16, 2024. He is being held without bond.
A new podcast, Bad Rap, from ABC Audio was recently released detailing the mogul’s ongoing sexual abuse and sex trafficking charges.
https://twitter.com/abcaudio/status/1904530774453555277
Dua Lipa won a ruling Thursday (March 27) dismissing a copyright lawsuit claiming she copied her smash hit song “Levitating” from two different decades-old songs.
The case, filed in 2022 by songwriters L. Russell Brown and Sandy Linzer, accused Lipa of ripping off their 1979 song “Wiggle and Giggle All Night” and their 1980 song “Don Diablo.” The lawsuit was one of two high-profile copyright cases filed over “Levitating,” a massive hit that spent 77 weeks on the Billboard Hot 100.
In her decision, Judge Katherine Polk Failla ruled that Lipa’s song shared only generic elements with Brown and Linzer’s songs — the kind of basic musical building blocks that are not covered by federal copyright law and cannot be owned by any one songwriter.
Trending on Billboard
“The court finds that a musical style, defined by plaintiffs as ‘pop with a disco feel,’ and a musical function, defined by plaintiffs to include ‘entertainment and dancing,’ cannot possibly be protectable,” the judge wrote. “To hold otherwise would be to completely foreclose the further development of music in that genre or for that purpose.”
The judge said that some of the material Brown and Linzer claimed Lipa stole — like a “patter style” featuring rapid singing of one syllable per note — had been “used for centuries” and existed in operas by Mozart and operettas by Gilbert and Sullivan. The judge said another allegedly infringing element, a rapid tempo, was also “common” and had appeared identically in “Stayin’ Alive” by the Bee Gees.
“It is possible that a ‘layperson’ could listen to portions of plaintiffs’ and defendants’ songs and hear similarities,” the judge said. “But … the similarity between the works concerns only non-copyrightable elements of the plaintiffs’ work.”
In a statement to Billboard, an attorney for Brown and Linzer said they “respectfully disagree” with the decision and would file an appeal.
“This case has always been about standing up for the enduring value of original songwriting, and we continue to believe in the strength of Mr. Brown and Mr. Linzer’s creative legacy,” attorney Jason T. Brown said. “There’s a growing disconnect between how these cases are decided — by academically analyzing briefs, bar lines, and musical notation — versus how audiences actually experience music.”
An attorney for Lipa did not immediately return a request for comment.
Released on Dua Lipa’s 2020 album Future Nostalgia, “Levitating” spent a whopping 41 weeks in the top ten of the Hot 100 — the longest ever such run for a female artist — and was later named the No. 1 Hot 100 song of 2021.
In early 2022, the star was sued over the track twice, both over accusations that she had lifted key elements from earlier songs. The first lawsuit came from a Florida reggae band named Artikal Sound System, which claimed Lipa lifted the core hook for her song from their 2015 “Live Your Life.” That case was dropped in 2023 after Lipa’s attorneys won a key early-stage ruling.
The second case came from Brown and Linzer, who alleged that Lipa had stolen the melody that starts just a few seconds into her song, when Lipa begins singing, “If you wanna run away with me…” They called it a “duplicate” of their own songs.
But in Thursday’s ruling, Judge Failla said that claim was merely over “a descending chord and the one additional note” — a “combination of two unprotectable elements” that she said are “not sufficiently numerous or original to constitute an original work entitled to copyright protection.”
In reaching that conclusion, the judge heavily cited from recent litigation against Ed Sheeran over accusations that his “Thinking Out Loud” infringed Marvin Gaye‘s “Let’s Get It On.” That case also ended with a ruling that Sheeran had used only common, unprotectible elements.