Lawsuit
Page: 26
On Tuesday (Sept. 26), singer-songwriter Rick Astley settled the vocal impersonation lawsuit he filed in January against meme rapper Yung Gravy and his collaborators for an undisclosed sum.
Filed in Los Angeles court, the lawsuit had claimed that while Yung Gravy and his collaborators secured rights to re-record the melody and lyrics of his 1987 hit “Never Gonna Give You Up” for their track “Betty (Get Money),” they “flagrantly impersonated” Astley’s distinctive vocals from the original track, thereby infringing his so-called right of publicity. “Betty (Get Money)” peaked at No. 39 on the Billboard Hot 100 and No. 9 on Billboard‘s Hot Rap Songs chart.
Rights of publicity laws, which vary state by state, protect public figures from the commercial exploitation of their names, voices and likenesses without their authorization. Astley argued that by mimicking Astley’s voice in a “nearly indistinguishable” way, Gravy’s team “obliterated” Astley’s chance to “collaborate with another artist and/or producer to create something new with his voice from ‘Never Gonna Give You Up’” and take advantage of other commercial opportunities.
The lawsuit arrived just as emerging artificial intelligence (AI) tools had sparked new conversations around right of publicity protections for artists. The debate hit a fever pitch in April when an anonymous TikTok creator named Ghostwriter made headlines with his song “Heart On My Sleeve,” which employed an AI voice filter to deepfake the voices of Drake and The Weeknd without their knowledge or consent. Since then, some leaders, including Universal Music Group’s general counsel/executive vp of business and legal affairs, Jeffery Harleston, have called for a federalized right of publicity to protect artists against the seemingly growing issue.
Notably, Gravy’s song did not employ AI to mimic Astley’s trademark tone. Instead, “Betty (Get Money)” producer Nick “PopNick” Seeley recreated Astley’s voice the old-fashioned way: through trial and error in the studio. In a previous interview with Billboard, Seeley said he has “a knack for vintage stuff” and has also helped recreate older recordings for other songs, including “I Like It” by Cardi B and “Dirty Iyanna” by YoungBoy Never Broke Again.
In a previous interview with Billboard, producer Marc “Fresh2Def” Soto — half of the duo ClickNPress –said it’s common for producers to be asked to recreate older songs as closely as possible. “A record label will be like, ‘Hey we can’t get the clearance for the sample, but we can get an interpolation, would you be able to replay XYZ thing?’ I’ve been through that on several records with different labels,” Soto says. However, most of these so-called “replays” of old songs don’t end up being quite as exact as the one in Astley’s case.
Astley was represented by attorney Richard S. Busch, the same lawyer who represented Marvin Gaye’s family in the controversial “Blurred Lines” trial. Gravy and the other defendants were represented by attorney Michael J. Niborski.
Busch and Niborski did not immediately respond to Billboard’s requests for comment.
In its first legal response to a SoundExchange lawsuit alleging underpayment of $150 million in artist royalties, SiriusXM claimed in a court filing Friday (Sept. 22) that SoundExchange’s numbers rely on a “so-called audit” that was a “flawed and biased examination” and insists the satellite-radio giant “properly calculated its royalty payments to SoundExchange in all material respects.”
The filing, which demands a change of U.S. court venue from Virginia to New York or Washington, D.C., also bashes the royalty collection and distribution service for trying to “justify its existence, lofty executive salaries and luxurious operating style through repeated litigation against its biggest contributor.”
In a phone interview before the filing, George White, SiriusXM’s senior vp of music licensing and royalties, says the SoundExchange lawsuit, filed in August, caught his company by surprise. “We were discussing settlement with them,” adds White, a former longtime major-label executive. “We really took some time to review it.”
White says the lawsuit comes down to a difference of opinion over SoundExchange’s “method of calculating their deduction.” He argues that SiriusXM has paid SoundExchange $5 billion in performance royalties for sound recordings over the last 10 years, and contributed “the vast majority” of the $805 million the service collected last year. “The rhetoric in the suit itself and the press release around the suit seems really unfair and wholly inappropriate,” White says. “In fact, we want to make every effort to ensure everyone is compensated fairly.”
SoundExchange, which collects royalties from webcasters and non-terrestrial radio services on behalf of artists and labels, argued in its Aug. 16 lawsuit that Sirius XM was bundling its satellite radio and streaming service, mixing the revenue in order to improperly reduce its royalty bill. The U.S. government mandates different royalty rates for satellite-transmitted services (like SiriusXM’s traditional satellite radio) and webcasting under so-called statutory licenses, but SoundExchange’s lawsuit declared that “Sirius XM has unjustly enriched itself to the detriment of recording artists and copyright owners upon whose music Sirius XM has built its business.”
In its response, SiriusXM accused SoundExchange of “misguided allegations” and argued a “proper audit” would conclude the company “properly calculated its royalty payments to SoundExchange.” The company also criticized SoundExchange for taking advantage of what it called the Virginia court’s “rocket docket,” which, regional lawyers have said, results in fast-moving cases, little time for discovery and quick resolution.
“We’re very hopeful that we can proceed down the lines of having a productive settlement discussion,” White says. “I would far rather that we had a close relationship with SoundExchange that was about working to grow SiriusXM’s contributions to SoundExchange.”
SoundExchange didn’t immediately respond to Billboard‘s request for comment.
Lizzo is facing another explosive lawsuit filed by a former employee.
On Thursday (Sept. 21), Asha Daniels — a clothing designer who worked on Lizzo’s Special Tour earlier this year — filed a complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court alleging sexual and racial harassment, disability discrimination, assault, illegal retaliatory termination and more. In addition to Lizzo, the lawsuit names wardrobe manager Amanda Nomura, tour manager Carlina Gugliotta and Lizzo’s Big Grrrl Big Touring company as defendants.
In the lawsuit, Daniels claims that after being hired to join the superstar’s world tour in February 2023 to alter and repair the wardrobe she’d previously designed for Lizzo’s dancers, she was “almost immediately…introduced to [a] culture of racism and bullying” and that she “suffered constant anxiety and panic attacks” as a result. In one allegation, she claims that Lizzo’s dancers were forced to change in “small, tight changing areas…with little to no privacy” and that the stage crew, “primarily white males, would lewdly gawk, sneer, and giggle” while watching them dress. She alleges that after expressing concern to Nomura about the lack of privacy, the wardrobe manager “laughed” and “advised” her not to tell anyone else about the issue or try to fix it.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
The complaint contextualizes these incidents as part of “a set up to humiliate, degrade, alienate, and, in some cases, fire, the Black female performers.” Notably, three of these dancers — Arianna Davis, Crystal Williams and Noelle Rodriguez — made similar allegations after filing suit against Lizzo and Big Grrrl Big Touring in August. Their attorney, Ron Zambrano of West Coast Employment Lawyers, is also representing Daniels in her case.
While Lizzo isn’t directly implicated in any of the incidents outlined in Daniels’ complaint, the “About Damn Time” singer is effectively accused of turning a blind eye to the toxic behavior of her employees, including Daniels’ direct boss Nomura, who bears the brunt of the allegations.
“Throughout the entirety of her employment,” the lawsuit alleges, Daniels — a Black woman — witnessed Nomura making “racist and fatphobic comments,” including by mocking Lizzo and her background dancers, “doing an offensive stereotypical impression of a Black woman” and referring to Black women on the tour as “‘dumb,’ ‘useless’ and ‘fat.’” After allegedly confronting Nomura over her behavior, Daniels claims Nomura “ignored” her and proceeded to directly target her with harassment.
In one particularly inflammatory allegation, Daniels claims that Nomura rolled “a heavy rack of clothing” over Daniels’ foot. When Daniels allegedly told Nomura she needed to sit down “as her foot was in serious pain,” she says Nomura “shoved” her into the clothing rack “while asserting Plaintiff should not make excuses about her foot.” Claiming that the shove from Nomura caused her to “roll her ankle,” Daniels says that when she showed up for work the following day wearing Crocs to “minimize the pain,” Nomura demanded that she change into tennis shoes even after Daniels told her they were painful to walk in.
The suit accuses Nomura of a litany of other offenses, including making threatening statements against Daniels and the rest of the crew “on several occasions,” shoving a crew member after the crew member threatened to quit and saying that she would “kill a bitch if it came down to it” if anyone threatened her job. She also claims that Nomura discouraged her from interacting directly with Lizzo or Lizzo’s boyfriend — and that if she ever did, she should avoid dressing “attractively” to avoid the singer becoming “jealous.”
More broadly, Daniels claims she experienced frequent sexual harassment by the Big Grrrl Big Touring team. Among other offenses, she alleges that a backstage manager “sent a photo graphically depicting male genitalia” on a group chat that included her and more than 30 other tour employees. In another accusation that distinctly echoes the lawsuit filed by Lizzo’s former dancers, Daniels says she witnessed Nomura, crew members and Lizzo’s management “openly discussing hiring sex workers for lewd sex acts, attending sex shows, and buying hard drugs” and that she felt pressured to join those activities.
Daniels further claims that after informing Gugliotta of the behavior she’d witnessed — and after being “informed” that her complaints were relayed to Lizzo — she was fired by Lizzo’s team roughly a month after she began work on the tour. On the day she was fired but before she was informed of her termination, she also alleges she was “denied medical care” after suffering “an allergic reaction” and “pressured” to continue working after informing Nomura and Lizzo’s management about it.
In the aftermath of her experiences, Daniels claims she “continues to suffer ongoing anxiety and PTSD,” “migraines,” “brain fog, and “fatigue” from the experience.
Gugliotta and a representative for Lizzo did not immediately respond to Billboard‘s request for comment. A contact for Nomura could not immediately be located.
Daniels is asking for damages including unpaid wages, loss of earnings and deferred compensation; general damages “including but not limited to” emotional distress; other special damages including for medical expenses; punitive damages; and more.
Two days after the August lawsuit was filed, Lizzo refuted the allegations on social media, stating the dancers’ claims were as “unbelievable as they sound and too outrageous to not be addressed.”
“These sensationalized stories are coming from former employees who have already publicly admitted that they were told their behavior on tour was inappropriate and unprofessional,” she added. Later that day, the dancers appeared on CNN This Morning to rehash their allegations and called Lizzo’s statement “disheartening” and “incredibly frustrating.”
Two weeks later, Lizzo’s Big Grrrls dance team released a statement in support of the singer, saying they “had the time of our lives” on the tour and continuing, “The commitment to character and culture taking precedence over every movement and moment has been one of the Greatest lessons and Blessings that we could possibly could ask for.”
Following the initial lawsuit, lawyers for the dancers stated that six more people had approached them with similar stories about Lizzo, though Daniels’ lawsuit is the first to emerge in the nearly two months since.
Lizzo is due to be honored with the Black Music Action Coalition’s Quincy Jones Humanitarian Award at the organization’s 2023 gala on Thursday.
In the latest of many lawsuits against Kanye West, a singer who moonlights in security and construction has sued the rapper over back payments and dangerous conditions stemming from a late-2021 attempt to turn the hip-hop star’s Malibu home into an “open-concept, industrial-brutalist, art-style dwelling that’s also a bomb shelter-bunker,” according to the complaint.
In a Los Angeles Superior Court lawsuit filed Wednesday (Sept. 13), Tony Saxon alleges he injured his back while working on the project and had to spend days at the property with no food or bedding. Accusing West, who legally changed his name to Ye, of disability discrimination, labor-code violations and unlawful wage withholding, Saxon claims the rapper promised him $20,000 a week, but after a month on the job, he received just $20,000 total, plus $120,000 for reimbursement of construction costs.
According to the lawsuit, which is requesting unspecified “monetary relief,” Saxon complained to Ye that he was “ill due to his severe injury on his back and that he needs to rest.” However, “Defendant disregarded Plaintiff’s concerns and instead responded by asking to discuss the next phase of the project.”
In an interview from his attorney’s Los Angeles office, Saxon says he requested a meeting with Ye and the project leader, then wound up in a room with them as well as “50 random people.” Ye mentioned his desire to install generators inside the building, which Saxon suggested would be unsafe, and the rapper became angry. “He told me I was a Clinton, a Kardashian, an enemy, and I was not going to be his friend anymore,” Saxon says. “So that’s how that ended.”
Saxon, 32, who describes himself as a recording artist, DJ and soul singer, says his music-business connections led him to a fashion photographer who put him in touch with the head of Ye’s construction project. In September 2021, Ye had reportedly purchased a Malibu house built by renowned Japanese architect Tadao Ando for more than $57 million. Soon after that, Saxon worked on the house for three straight days without knowing the owner’s identity. Ye then showed up and requested to “rip out the finest marble and all these crazy fixtures that wired the house.”
Says Saxon: “It was just absurd.”
Ron Zambrano, Saxon’s attorney, also represents a gym teacher at Ye’s Donda Academy who filed suit in July over unsafe conditions. Among other things, the school did not contain windows, because, according to the teacher’s lawsuit, Ye “did not like glass.”
“What we’re seeing are the symptoms of Kanye’s inability to respect people’s time and pay for them,” Zambrano says. “He goes into people’s lives: ‘I have an idea, I have lots of money, you have to drop everything in the world and I promise to pay you.’ Then he gets bored and goes somewhere else and normal people get left in the lurch.” Zambrano adds that if you “do the math,” potential damages could add up to “seven figures.”
Attorneys for Ye did not respond to Billboard‘s requests for comment.
The Harlem Festival of Culture was supposed to be a celebration of music and coming together, inspired by the Academy Award-winning documentary Summer of Soul directed by Ahmir “Questlove” Thompson — but a recent lawsuit filed in New York paints a picture of an event plagued by in-fighting and mistrust between the event’s three founding members.
On Thursday (Sept. 8), two of the members of the Harlem Festival of Culture LLC — editor and activist Musa Jackson (who appeared in Summer of Soul) and culture and lifestyle entrepreneur Nikoa Evans filed suit against partner and co-founder Yvonne McNair, accusing her of mounting “a hostile takeover” of the festival, scheduled to take place July 28, 29 and 30 on Randall’s Island in New York.
McNair plans to fight the lawsuit, telling Billboard, “I have worked tirelessly over the past several years to bring the Harlem Festival of Culture to life. I am relying upon my legal team to guide this process and I will be in touch with factual updates in the future.”
The festival was to be hosted by MC Lyte and feature performances by Adam Blackstone, Eric Bellinger, Jozzy, MAJOR., Ma$e, Remy Ma, Ro James, Tink and Wyclef Jean — with a special concert series leading up to the festival to be held at Harlem’s famed Apollo Theater. The event was canceled hours before it was set to open on July 28 due to President Joe Biden’s heat advisory for the weekend, which was the first-ever national hazard alert for heat issued by the White House.
The lawsuit paints a picture of a festival in constant turmoil beginning in February of this year as McNair began courting sponsors for the event, booking talent and contracting production companies to produce it. Jackson and Evans accuse McNair of diverting festival funds to accounts McNair controlled while McNair accuses Jackson and Evans of misappropriating funds and claims that a charitable donation of $125,000 had gone unaccounted for.
Jackson and Evans eventually informed McNair that their combined votes gave them majority control, demanding McNair get their approval for any sponsorship or booking agreements she negotiated. On April 19, Jackson and Evans ordered McNair to postpone the launch of ticket sales for the Harlem Festival of Culture. With the event suspended, McNair allegedly attempted to rename the event “Uptown Fest” and move forward with the festival. Eventually, the NYC Parks Department, AMC and Ticketmaster staged an intervention and demanded the three partners resolve their disagreement, leading to a settlement on May 22.
The truce didn’t last long, and within a few days, disagreements over vendors, sponsors and how much artists were being paid to perform at the festival reignited the feud and led to new complaints from Jackson and Evans over how McNair was advising vendors to prepare for the event. The pair even criticized McNair for waiting too long to cancel the festival after learning of the heat advisory.
Jackson and Evans, through their lawyer Kenneth Sternberg of Sternberg Law, are suing McNair on 15 civil counts including breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. They are also seeking “a judgment declaring that McNair is solely responsible for any liability” linked to any transactions or contracts that Jackson or Evans didn’t personally approve of, “regardless of the name in which the contract was signed.” Sternberg is also asking that McNair be forced to pay $2 million for punitive and compensatory damage, plus interest.
Sean “Diddy” Combs just scored a significant win in his case against alcohol giant Diageo after a judge denied two crucial motions filed by the liquor maker, according to court documents filed Thursday.
Combs himself was present in court for the ruling, during which New York state judge Joel M. Cohen rejected Diageo’s motions for the case to be dismissed or, alternatively, sent to private arbitration. The case will now move forward in state court, with the trial open to the public.
The lawsuit, brought by Combs in May, claims Diageo breached its partnership deal with the artist and entrepreneur for its DeLeón Tequila by failing to properly support the brand, thereby harming its sales. Combs’ lawsuit also leveled accusations of racism against the alcohol company, accusing it of treating his product line “worse than others because he is Black.”
In June, Diageo fired back by calling Combs’ racism accusations “false and reckless” and part of an effort to “extract additional billions” from the company while concurrently filing motions for dismissal or arbitration. At the same time, a spokeswoman for Diageo noted the company had permanently severed its business relationship with Combs, claiming the rapper had “repeatedly undermined our partnerships and threatened to publicly defame Diageo if we did not meet his unreasonable financial demands.” The company additionally painted Combs as “an unreliable and untrustworthy business partner” who failed in his obligations to support DeLeón.
In asking Cohen to keep the case out of court, the company argued that the “garden variety” business dispute should have been decided under a binding arbitration agreement previously signed by both parties. But the judge clearly disagreed, striking down Diageo’s motions after hearing oral arguments from attorneys on both sides of the case for more than 90 minutes on Thursday.
“This case has always been about getting fair and equal treatment,” said Combs’ lawyer John Hueston in a statement. “Today’s decision is an important step in the right direction. Diageo tried to end this action. Today the judge soundly rejected that effort.”
Combs added, “I’m fighting for fair and equal treatment for everyone. This isn’t just about me. I look forward to continuing this fight in court. We all deserve the same 24 hours.”
A spokesperson for Diageo sent the following statement: “While we are disappointed with yesterday’s procedural decision, it is important to underscore that this is not a ruling on the merits of the claims, which we maintain are false and baseless. We are currently considering all legal options.”
Kanye West filed a lawsuit in California on Wednesday (Sept. 6) against the individual or entities responsible for taking and distributing copies of his music that have ended up on social media.
In the complaint, the artist, who now goes by Ye, alleges trade secret misappropriation and breach of contract due to the unauthorized leaks of copyrighted works on both Instagram and X (formerly Twitter), arguing they have caused “substantial harm” to his reputation.
Ye’s lawyers claim that starting on Mar. 3, 2023, the owner of the @daunreleasedgod_ handle on Instagram went on a leaking spree of unreleased tracks, including “We Did it Kid,” “Shy Can’t Look,” “NASDAQ” and “Mr. Miyagi,” as well as collaborations with artists including DJ Khaled and unauthorized video footage of a Donda listening party.
The rapper’s complaint goes on to cite the @daunreleasedgod_ account on X for similarly posting unauthorized leaks on dates ranging from mid-June to late August. “Ye has suffered significant financial losses and damages as a direct result of the Defendants’ actions,” the suit alleges.
The lawsuit does not name @daunreleasedgod_ or any of its other variations as a defendant in the case, only that it was the main distribution vehicle for the leaks.
Ye’s lawsuit indicates that he “does not know the true names or capacities” of the defendants who leaked the tracks to the Instagram or X user(s), but believes that those individuals were required to sign confidentiality agreements with him before they were given access to the compositions. By leaking and distributing the tracks, the defendants breached their contract with the artist and owe him damages and any profits generated, the complaint adds.
The filing continues that the “distinctive arrangement and unique elements” found in Ye’s music amount to a trade secret “due to its economic value, secrecy, and the efforts taken to safeguard it” and that the defendants violated their contract with Ye when they “knowingly and unlawfully acquired, disclosed, and distributed” those unique works.
The case, filed by Gregory K. Nelson of Weeks Nelson, seeks to restrain the defendants and “those acting in concert with them or at their direction” from further exploitation of Ye’s compositions and demands damages, fees and other costs. While the identities of the defendants are not yet public, “Ye will amend its Complaint to set forth the true names and capacities of these defendants when they have been ascertained.”
Coldplay’s former manager, Dave Holmes, is suing the band for more than £10 million ($12 million) in damages and outstanding payments, according to documents filed in the London High Court.
Holmes managed Coldplay for more than two decades, helping the British group become one of the world’s biggest rock acts prior to being dismissed by them in late 2022.
In legal papers filed in the U.K. courts, which have been viewed by Billboard, attorneys for Holmes say he is suing the four members of Coldplay — Guy Berryman, Jonny Buckland, Will Champion and Chris Martin — for more than £10 million ($12 million) over the defendants’ “failure and refusal to comply” with the terms of their management contract. News of the lawsuit was first reported by Variety last month.
The dispute centers around a proposed contract agreement that Holmes says the band entered into with his California-based management company, DHMC, relating to Coldplay’s yet-to-be-released tenth and eleventh studio albums and related tours, which the former manager claims he is due unpaid commission on.
According to the lawsuit, filed Aug. 11 in the U.K. Business and Property Courts, Coldplay received an advance of £35 million ($44 million) for its tenth album from Warner Music Group-owned Parlophone Records. Holmes says he also negotiated advances of £15 million ($19 million) each for the group’s subsequent two studio albums as part of the extension of Coldplay’s recording contract with Parlophone, signed in June 2021.
One month later, Holmes was paid £1.5 million ($1.9 million) by the band, representing his 10% commission fee from the initial £15 million advance payment Coldplay received from the label for its tenth album. Holmes was paid a further £1.5 million ($1.9 million) in October 2021 but says the band still owes him outstanding commission from the record company advances.
In addition, Holmes claims he is due payment for “extensive services” his company carried out relating to the prospective albums and touring schedules prior to his termination as manager.
These services allegedly include scheduling, marketing, budgeting, sponsorship and ticket pricing for the U.S., Asia and Australia legs of the 2022/23 “Music of the Spheres” world tour, as well as work on the band’s next two releases, such as arranging writing and recording sessions in Jamaica and London and preparing promotional campaigns.
Listed among the services Holmes says he and his team carried out for Coldplay’s as-yet-unscheduled tenth album are budgeting and marketing activities, clearing an instrumental sample from musician Hal Walker, arranging a recording session on a film set in Boston, and liaising with producer Max Martin’s manager to arrange recording and production sessions.
Holmes also claims that preparatory work was carried out around possible touring scenarios in 2024/25, including meeting with promoters.
According to legal papers filed by Holmes’ attorneys, Coldplay argues that a contract agreement for the band’s tenth and eleventh albums was never concluded and that commission deals between Holmes and the group for any of its previous nine albums, including the group’s first two releases, expired at the end of last year.
Although the cause of the fallout between Holmes and Coldplay is not detailed in the lawsuit, court documents do reveal that Coldplay asked Holmes to step down from managing the band in June last year and instead become head of touring, whereby he would receive commission on touring and live performance revenue but forgo payment on recording or publishing revenue.
According to the lawsuit, in September, Coldplay’s solicitors wrote to Holmes to inform him that the head of touring proposal was no longer on offer and his involvement with the band was to officially end Dec. 31, 2022. Since then, the band has been managed by long-term associates Phil Harvey, Mandi Frost and Arlene Moon.
Holmes is now asking the U.K. courts to determine if the so-called “Albums 10/11 Agreement” stands and for Coldplay to pay him any outstanding commission, as per its terms. Alternatively, his attorneys are asking that Holmes receive “reasonable remuneration in respect” of the services he carried out for the multi-million-selling British band.
“Dave Holmes successfully managed Coldplay for more than 22 years, steering them to be one of the most successful bands in music history. Now, as the legal case shows, Coldplay is refusing to honor Dave’s management contract and pay him what he is owed,” says Holmes’ lawyer, Phil Sherrell, in a statement provided to Billboard.
Representatives for Coldplay confirmed with Billboard that Holmes’ management contract with the four-piece expired at the end of 2022 “at which point they decided not to start a new one. The matter is now in the hands of Coldplay’s lawyers and the claims are being vigorously disputed.”
A tribute band that was sued by Earth, Wind & Fire for trademark infringement is firing back with a bold counterargument: That the famed R&B act has actually abandoned any intellectual property rights to its name.
In a court filing on Wednesday (Aug. 30), the smaller band — which calls itself Earth Wind & Fire Legacy Reunion — argued that the original group had allowed so many tribute bands to use its name without repercussion that it can no longer claim exclusive rights to it.
“Due to the unchecked third-party use of the phrase, [EW&F] has abandoned ‘Earth, Wind & Fire,’ and [the name] has lost its trademark significance,” wrote attorneys for Substantial Music Group, which operates Legacy Reunion.
The new filing listed out a dozen other tribute acts that allegedly feature “Earth, Wind & Fire” as part of their name, including “September: A Tribute to Earth, Wind & Fire” and “Let’s Groove Tonight: The Ultimate Earth, Wind & Fire Tribute Band,” as well as even simpler names like simply “Earth Wind & Fire Tribute.”
“[The band] has taken no action to enforce its purported trademark rights against any of the third-party vocal and instrument groups that have been using the phrase,” Legacy Reunion wrote in Wednesday’s filing. “The present civil action represents the first occasion on which Counter-Defendant has sought to enforce its registered trademarks against another party.”
Earth, Wind & Fire has continued to tour since founder Maurice White died in 2016, led by longtime members Philip Bailey, Ralph Johnson and White’s brother, Verdine White. The band operates under a license from Earth Wind & Fire IP, a holding company owned by Maurice White’s sons that formally owns the name.
In a March lawsuit, that company accused Legacy Reunion of trying to trick consumers into thinking it was the real Earth Wind & Fire. Though it called itself a “Reunion,” the lawsuit said the tribute band contained only a few “side musicians” who briefly played with Earth, Wind & Fire many years ago.
“Defendants did this to benefit from the commercial magnetism and immense goodwill the public has for plaintiff’s ‘Earth, Wind & Fire’ marks and logos, thereby misleading consumers and selling more tickets at higher prices,” the group’s lawyers wrote.
Tribute acts — groups that exclusively cover the music of a particular band — are legally allowed to operate, and they often adopt names that allude to the original. But they must be clear that they are a tribute band, and they can get into legal hot water if they make it appear that they are affiliated with or endorsed by the original. In 2021, ABBA filed a similar trademark lawsuit against a band that had been touring under the name ABBA Mania, calling it “parasitic”; that suit was quickly settled after ABBA Mania agreed to stop using the name.
According to Earth, Wind & Fire’s lawyers, the use of “Legacy Reunion” was not a clear enough distinction. The lawsuit cited alleged examples of angry consumers who mistakenly bought tickets for the wrong band, including one that read, “This was not Earth Wind and Fire. NO Philip Bailey or Verdine White. It was just a band playing Earth Wind and Fire music. I purchased 3 tickets and I was very disappointed. It was truly false advertisement. I want my money back!!!!!”
Wednesday’s filing came as a so-called “answer and counterclaims” — a standard response to any lawsuit, in which a defendant like Legacy Reunion can formally deny the accusations and level their own at their opponent.
In its counterclaims, Legacy Reunion argued that the band’s lack of enforcement against other tribute bands means that its trademark to “Earth, Wind & Fire” should be formally “cancelled.”
HipHopWired Featured Video
Source: @PhotosByBeanz / @PhotosByBeanz
Future has one less thing to worry about thanks to a judge that is tune with the culture. Judge Martha Pacold referenced some classic works when dismissing a copyright lawsuit.
As spotted on TMZ the trapper turned rapper was sued about two years ago by DaQuan Robinson. The man claimed he created a song titled “When I Think About It” and sent the work to Future’s team. In 2017 Pluto released on the Beastmode 2 mixtape which featured his song “When U Think About It”. Robinson claims that Future lifted elements from his version and even spoke on a lot of the same content he did. Fast forward to 2023, Judge Pacold threw out his case citing that those themes are generally found in many Rap songs and are not protected by copyright.
The magistrate went on to further detail her ruling by referring to earlier works from The Notorious B.I.G., Kanye West and even the Wu-Tang Clan. She also cited Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young’s hit song “Our House” regarding Robinson’s “core lyric” copyright claim. “The core lyric, ‘our house is a very, very, very fine house,’ is used to support the entire rest of the song, which uses the house and its constituent elements as the setting for the narrator’s relationship,” said Pacold. “This songwriting technique is not unique to Robinson, nor mid-century Canadian-American bands that feature intricate vocal harmonies. The mere use of a ‘core lyric’ to support a song’s storyline is not protectable element because it is a frequently utilized technique in popular songwriting.”
Future has yet to comment on the favorable ruling.
Photo: PhotosByBeanz
HipHopWired Radio
Our staff has picked their favorite stations, take a listen…