Lawsuit
Page: 8
HipHopWired Featured Video
Source: Ricky Vigil M / Justin E Palmer / Getty
Sean Combs, also largely known as Diddy, was hit with another lawsuit from a former adult film actress who threw out some explosive claims. The woman claims that at the infamous all-white parties hosted by Sean Combs, she was forced to perform sex work for the mogul’s guests.
As reported by PEOPLE, the outlet obtained documents connected to the lawsuit brought by Adria English who says that she was forced into prostitution by Diddy while adding she was trafficked for sex for years under his rule.
English filed the lawsuit on July 3 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York which brings claims that Combs hired English to work at the well-attended parties in his Long Island, N.Y., and Miami homes. English added in her lawsuit other names and companies connected to Combs such as Bad Boy Entertainment Holdings, Inc., VIBE, and Penske Corporation.
Combs’ attorney Jonathan Davis offered a statement to PEOPLE regarding the lawsuit reading, “No matter how many lawsuits are filed it won’t change the fact that Mr. Combs has never sexually assaulted or sex trafficked anyone.”
The statement continued, “We live in a world where anyone can file a lawsuit for any reason and without any proof. Fortunately, a fair and impartial judicial process exists to find the truth and Mr. Combs is confident he will prevail against these and other baseless claims in court.”
English said she was under the employ of Combs between the years of 2006 and 2009, adding in her lawsuit that she was made to have sex with the likes of Jacob “The Jeweler” Jacob Arabo and that Combs allegedly spiked the drinks of guests with drugs along with being forced to also be under the influence.
Adria English is the ninth person to launch a lawsuit against Sean Combs. She is seeking a trial and is asking for damages and legal fees paid.
—
Photo: Getty
A California judge is refusing — for now — to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the Village People against Disney that claims the Hollywood giant blackballed the legendary disco band from performing at Walt Disney World.
In a ruling issued Friday (June 21), San Diego County Superior Judge Katherine Bacal ruled that the Village People could move forward with the case, which accuses Disney of violating state laws and committing fraud by placing a “do not book edict” on the group.
Disney had argued that it has a First Amendment right to hire — or to not hire — any band it chooses, citing a special California law designed to protect free speech. But in her ruling last week, the judge said the company had failed to prove that the statute applied to the case.
Trending on Billboard
Importantly, the decision does not mean the Village People will win the lawsuit. Instead, Bacal merely rejected Disney’s request to dismiss the case at the earliest stage. The two sides will now proceed to discovery and an eventual trial, where the band will need to fully prove its claims.
A spokesperson for Disney did not immediately return a request for comment.
Karen Willis, the wife of Village People lead singer Victor Willis, filed the case in September, claiming that Disney had broken the law by “outright refusing to seriously consider the group” for bookings at the Orlando, Fla., theme park: “This unfair business practice by Disney denied Village People an opportunity to fairly compete for a slot to perform at Disney,” the complaint read.
Though the case targets Disney, the lawsuit appears to be rooted in a dispute between members of the original Village People lineup over who gets to perform under the iconic name.
According to court filings, Willis returned to the group in 2017 and formed a “re-vamped version” of the Village People — in the process, replacing an existing lineup that had been touring under the name for years. The case claims that the earlier iteration, featuring two other original members, “did not go away quietly,” and that they “took offense” when Willis’ Village People took over their existing slot at Disney World for a series of 2018 performances.
After the spurned members allegedly contacted Disney to complain and “started a campaign” against the new band, the lawsuit claims that Disney “engaged in a series of outrageous and egregious conduct,” including failing to provide security and refusing to properly pay the act.
After Willis complained about being “treated very badly” during the new band’s 2018 run at the park, the lawsuit claims, Disney has since refused to rebook the group — imposing an effective ban on performing at the theme park. The lawsuit includes claims of breach of contract, unfair competition, fraud and conspiracy.
Ahead of last week’s ruling, Disney had argued that the case must be tossed out under California’s so-called anti-SLAPP provision — a law designed to quickly dismiss meritless lawsuits that threaten free speech. The studio argued that deciding which concerts to book was a form of constitutionally protected free speech rights and that it had the legal right to refuse to book the Village People.
Though Disney could very well still defeat the lawsuit, Bacal ruled on Friday that the company had failed to meet the specific legal requirements to use the anti-SLAPP law. In particular, the judge said Disney had failed to show that the dispute in the case was linked to the kind of “public conversation” that’s protected under the statute.
“There is no indication that defendants’ statements entered the public sphere,” Bacal wrote. “Defendants have not shown that the alleged statements contributed to or furthered the public conversation on an issue of public interest.”
LONDON — Scottish indie rock band The Jesus and Mary Chain and Robert Fripp, a founder member of British prog rock act King Crimson, are among a group of musicians and songwriters who have filed a joint lawsuit against U.K. collecting society PRS for Music over how it licenses and administers their live performance rights, accusing the organization of a “lack of transparency” and “unreasonable” terms for its members.
According to legal papers filed at London’s High Court, which have been viewed by Billboard, the 10 claimants are suing PRS for Music for damages resulting from what they describe as “unnecessary contractual requirements and practices.”
Trending on Billboard
These include PRS placing a number of “unreasonable” obstructions on members who wish to withdraw their live public performance rights and instead strike their own direct licensing deals with promoters, venues or festivals, say attorneys.
The claimants also accuse PRS for Music — which represents the rights of more than 160,000 songwriters, composers and music publishers — of charging higher administration fees to smaller acts than some of its most popular and highest-grossing songwriter members, thus creating a two-tier system where the most successful musicians are effectively being subsidized by the rest of PRS’s membership.
Such preferential treatment goes against the society’s mandate as a collective management organization, say the claimants. As part of their legal action, they cite internal PRS figures that, according to a spokesperson, indicate that rights holders participating in the organization’s Major Live Concert Service — which handles royalty administration for acts playing venues with a capacity of above 5,000 people — can pay an average administration fee effective to 0.2% while the wider PRS membership pays 23%, proportionately around 115 times more.
The lawsuit additionally accuses PRS of deliberately withholding information from its members about deductions from their royalty income when their rights are licensed internationally. This lack of transparency means writers are unable to make fully informed decisions about licensing their rights, say the claimants’ attorneys, who accuse the London-based collecting society of “not acting in their [members’] best interests.”
The lawsuit is being led by Pace Rights Management, a direct competitor to PRS for Music, which licenses and administers live performance rights for composers, lyricists, songwriters, publishers and other rights-holders.
Also listed among the 10 claimants are five members of the band Haken; The Jesus and Mary Chain’s founders and core duo, Jim and William Reid; and Fripps’ King Crimson bandmate Michael Jaksyk.
In a joint statement, the ten claimants say that PRS has repeatedly refused to discuss or “constructively engage” with their complaints over a period of several years and accuse the society of straying “significantly from the principles on which it was founded 110 years ago, to the point that the organisation’s policies no longer appear to be operating in the best interests of its members.”
“Regretfully,” the claimants’ statement continues, “we have been left with no option but to seek redress through the courts. The ball is now firmly in PRS’s court. Either they constructively engage with much needed reforms to empower and benefit writers and publishers, or they continue to resist these necessary changes, and attempt to defend the indefensible.”
“I am yet to be persuaded that the PRS operates on behalf of the membership’s best interests,” added Fripp in a statement.
In response, PRS for Music said that it “fundamentally” rejects the allegations and “will be vigorously defending the society against these claims.”
“PRS for Music has consistently sought constructive dialogue with PACE for many years, proposing and implementing solutions to the issues raised,” said the organization in a statement, which accused PACE of itself failing to engage with PRS to find a solution.
“This has resulted in royalties being unnecessarily withheld from PRS members for the live performance of their works at concerts and also created complexity and uncertainty for live music venues and promoters,” the society hit back.
Referring to the terms of its Major Live Concert Service (MLCS), PRS said the initiative was “just one part of a wide range of services” which it provides to members at different stages of their career, including songwriting camps, mentoring schemes and touring and hardship grants for new acts. Last year, the organization paid out £943 million in royalties to its members.
“Given PRS for Music’s sincere efforts to engage constructively, it is disappointing that PACE has taken the step to issue proceedings against us,” said PRS for Music.
HipHopWired Featured Video
Source: Lyvans Boolaky / Getty
Earlier this year Kanye West and Ty Dolla $ign were hit with a copyright infringement lawsuit by Donna Summer’s estate for their unauthorized sample of her 1977 hit, “I Feel Love.” But luckily for Ye and Dolla, the issue has been settled and everyone can avoid going to court over the issue.
According to Digital Music News, the issue over Ye and Dolla $ign’s sample of the song on their cut, “Good (Don’t Die),” has officially been put to rest. Interestingly enough, the court documents, which were filed June 20, don’t outline any specifics as to what agreement was reached other than stating that the case itself was “being dismissed with prejudice.” In other words, this case cannot be brought back to court under any circumstances. You have to wonder what led to this final resolution.
Digital Music News reports:
In his lawsuit, Sudano claimed that although the artists sought a clearance request for the use of Summer’s song, they were denied by both the estate and her label, Universal Music Enterprises. Instead, according to Sudano, Ty and Ye “used the song’s iconic melody as the hook for their infringing song and essentially re-recorded almost verbatim key, instantly recognizable portions of “I Feel Love” using a singer soundalike to Summer, with slight changes to the lyrics (also done without permission.”
Ye and his team really got creative trying to get around the copyright infringement didn’t they? Donna Summer’s estate wasn’t the only one to deny Kanye permission to use Summer’s work on his and Ty Dolla $ign’s duo album, Vultures 1, as he found he didn’t quite hold the same weight he did just a few years ago.
Both Nicki Minaj and Ozzy Osbourne confirmed on social media that they refused to authorize samples of their music on the album in the wake of Kanye’s very public descent into antisemitism and hate groups. “West is known as a controversial public figure whose conduct has led numerous brands and business partners to disassociate from him,” Sudano’s lawsuit reads.
Don’t be surprised if more artists (both alive and deceased) deny Kanye permission to sample their work as his MAGA ways have turned off many of his music peers. He might end up with options like Kid Rock and Ted Nugent for his music creations going forward. Just sayin’.
A filmmaker is suing Warner Music over the 2021 Tom Petty documentary Somewhere You Feel Free, calling the movie a “brazen exploitation” that used nearly an hour of his copyrighted film footage without permission.
In a lawsuit filed last week in Los Angeles federal court, Martyn Atkins says he never gave the Somewhere producers consent to use hours of footage he filmed of the music legend during the 1990s but that the movie nonetheless contained “a shocking 45 minutes” of his materials.
“Atkins did not provide consent, did not otherwise license any of the footage, and was not compensated in any manner for the Film’s unauthorized, brazen exploitation of the works Atkins created and owns,” his attorneys wrote in a June 18 complaint.
Trending on Billboard
Released in March 2021, Somewhere You Feel Free promised viewers “never-before-seen footage” of Petty as he worked on his 1994 album Wildflowers. Much of the footage was filmed by Atkins, who served as art director for the album and says he often documented the proceedings with a 16mm camera. Later, Atkins says he and the music legend watched the footage and discussed eventually using it to create such a documentary.
But after Petty’s tragic death in 2017, the project didn’t come together until 2020, when Atkins says he was invited to a meeting with Petty’s daughter and other reps from his estate. After they promised him the job of directing the upcoming documentary, Atkins says, he provided them with a detailed breakdown of where he had stored the original footage at Warner Music’s storage facility.
But after that first encounter, he says he was “never asked to another meeting.”
“Atkins had been conned into believing he would produce and direct the film so that Atkins would reveal the location of his footage to defendants,” his lawyers write. “He was then cut out completely — in every imaginable respect. He was not even told as a courtesy that his works would be misappropriated and featured, let alone asked his consent.”
When he saw the movie, Atkins says he says he was shocked at what he saw: Roughly half of the movie’s 90-minute runtime was composed of his footage, including some of the “most compelling and iconic shots of Petty” in the movie. “Atkins simply could not believe it.”
A likely defense argument from Warner Music is that Atkins produced the footage as a so-called work-for-hire — a legal term meaning he created it at the request of someone else. If true, that would mean that even though Atkins filmed the footage, the rights to it were retained by Petty or the label. After all, he was the art director on Petty’s album and stored the film in Warner’s facilities.
But in his lawsuit, Atkins specifically aimed to preempt that argument: “The footage Atkins shot … was not subject to a work-for-hire or other such agreement. Atkins did not license the footage to Petty, Warner Records, any Warner Records affiliate, or anybody else. He was not acting as an employee of Petty or Warner Records, or any other party [and] here is no agreement in existence relating to any of the film footage.”
Beyond simply using the footage, the lawsuit claims that Somewhere‘s producers have “repeatedly misrepresented” that the footage was “magically and unexpectedly discovered” before the documentary was shot. “The film’s producers have systematically implemented this false narrative to manipulate the viewing public and bolster the marketing of the film,” the complaint reads.
In technical terms, the lawsuit names Warner Music unit WMG Productions LLC, as well as the film’s production company, Girl On LSD LLC. The lawsuit includes counts of direct and secondary copyright infringement and a claim that the defendants effectively stole his property.
Read the entire lawsuit here:
A federal judge says Megan Thee Stallion didn’t copy her chart-topping “Savage” from an earlier song, ruling there’s no evidence the superstar has ever even heard the little-known instrumental track.
In a decision issued Tuesday (June 18), Judge Katherine Polk Failla dismissed a lawsuit filed last year by producer James A. Greene, who claimed that Megan’s mega-hit infringed the copyrights to his own song “It’s About To Be On.”
Green claimed he had “no doubt” that “Savage” infringed his rights, but Judge Failla ruled that the two songs were clearly different.
Trending on Billboard
“Plaintiff’s work is an instrumental piece, with little variety in sounds and instruments used throughout,” the judge wrote. “By contrast, ‘Savage’ is a pop song, featuring lyrics as well as a more upbeat tempo. Plaintiff’s work is qualitatively different from ‘Savage,’ and any similarities implicate common, non-copyrightable elements of any song.”
The judge also ruled that the case was flawed for a simpler reason: That it was unlikely Megan and her co-writers had “access” to his song to copy it — a key element in any copyright lawsuit. Green had argued that he passed along CDs in the early 2000s to someone who might have later given them to “Savage” producer J. White Did It.
But Judge Failla said that wasn’t enough: “Plaintiff is unable to allege any chain of events that creates anything more than the ‘bare possibility’ that defendants gained access to plaintiff’s work.”
The judge also ruled that Green’s song was not popular enough that Megan might have heard it on her own: “At best, plaintiff alleges that he undertook his own efforts to distribute the work throughout the music industry to A&R’s, management teams, etc.,” Judge Failla wrote. “Yet such efforts alone fall short of widespread distribution.”
Greene sued Megan (Megan Pete), J. White (Anthony White) and Warner Music Group last year, claiming “Savage” had borrowed material from his “It’s About To Be On,” a three-minute instrumental track he says he released in 1999. He claimed that the two songs shared the same drum pattern and piano note pattern as well as similar siren sounds.
But in Thursday’s ruling, Judge Failla said each of those elements was different in Megan’s song, including the siren sounds.
“In [Green’s song], the siren sound is an atonal chord that appears to be created using a synthesizer,” the judge said. “By contrast, in ‘Savage,’ the alleged siren sound is not a siren at all, but rather is a distorted vocal sample. Put simply, no reasonable listener would discern any similarity.”
Neither side immediately returned a request for comment on Thursday (June 20).
HipHopWired Featured Video
Source: Prince Williams / Getty
Drake has yet another legal matter on his hands. An apparel company has a filed a lawsuit against him over his tour merch.
Rolling Stone is reporting that Champagne Papi has been served with a lawsuit by JR Apparel World LLC; the company who owns the Members Only brand. According to the paperwork submitted the New York based limited liability operation claims that the “First Person Shooter” rapper has infringed on the label’s iconic trademark. They point out that Drizzy’s Away From Home Touring Inc. is producing tour merch with the slogan “Members Only”.
While the capsule collection does not feature any outwear pieces JR Apparel claims it slogan is causing confusion in the marketplace. “Away From Home’s use of ‘Members Only’…is likely to cause confusion, mistake, and deception among consumers as to the origin of Away From Home’s infringing T-shirts,” the filing reads. “Away From Home sold…goods bearing the mark ‘Members Only’ that are identical, overlapping, and/or highly similar to the goods that JR Apparel sells bearing its MEMBERS ONLY Marks.”
The phrase is a direct reference to Drake’s song of the same name from For All The Dogs which JR Apparel references to in the complaint. “The fact that ‘Members Only’ is a song on Drake’s album For All the Dogs does not obviate the likelihood of confusion or give [him] a license to use our client’s ‘Members Only’ marks in such a confusing manner, particularly on or in connection with apparel items.”
Drake has yet to comment on the matter.
Just days after a company established to release solo music by band members of K-pop group EXO declared “war” against the stars’ longtime label and management agency SM Entertainment over a contract dispute, the K-pop giant has filed a lawsuit against the trio. As reported by the Korea JoongAng Daily, SM filed a civil suit […]
Lil Uzi Vert is facing a lawsuit that claims they owe a music touring company more than $500,000 in unpaid bills, including for procuring more than two dozen adult dancers that the rapper demanded appear on stage at last year’s Rolling Loud festival in Miami.
In a complaint filed Thursday (June 13) in Georgia federal court, attorneys for M99 Studios say the company successfully worked with Lil Uzi Vert (Symere Bysil Woods) for years, often serving as a “fixer for all things” and keeping tours running despite “unrealistic” requests.
But M99 claims that the rapper and their company (Uzivert LLC) have failed to pay their bills for four concerts last year, including Rolling Loud in Miami and Roots Picnic in Lil Uzi’s native Philadelphia. “Despite its numerous requests for payment of the outstanding invoices, at no point have Uzivert and/or Artist compensated M99 for the services it provided,” the complaint reads.
Trending on Billboard
The costs incurred by M99 covered “unrealistic production requests just hours before the scheduled performances,” the company’s lawyers claim. That included finding “a bounce house, wooded crosses, and mannequins” for one show, and hiring 30 adult dancers to appear at Rolling Loud.
“M99 managed to fulfill this request, along with countless other last-minute demands all at significant time, effort and expense,” the company says.
For years, the lawsuit claims that Lil Uzi Vert “relied heavily on M99” for all “creative ideas, production, and staffing for all tours, shows and performances.” The lawsuit says the rapper would often fall behind on billing, and that M99 would often have to cover up for their financial shortcomings.
“While Artist’s account would work from time-to-time, his credit card would frequently be declined while on tour, making it impossible for M99 to ensure the safety and well-being of the crew without covering the expenses itself,” the company wrote.
M99 says it finally cut ties after an Australian tour, saying the company “decided not to bill for the Australian services in hopes of parting ways amicably.” But the earlier debts over the four American concerts were never paid, the lawsuit claims, despite repeated promises from the rapper’s longtime manager, Amina Diop.
“M99 respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in its favor and against Uzivert and/or Artist in an amount to be determined at trial, but no less than $533,499,” the company’s lawyers wrote.
A rep for Lil Uzi Vert did not immediately return a request for comment from Billboard.
A California judge presiding over a sex trafficking case that was brought against Madison Square Garden Entertainment (MSGE) CEO/executive chairman James Dolan, the Azoff Companies and Harvey Weinstein in January is weighing several motions to throw out the lawsuit, with a decision expected to be announced as soon as early next week.
Attorney Douglas Windor, a high-profile litigator who represented Casandra Ventura (a.k.a. singer Cassie) in her since-settled sex trafficking lawsuit against Sean “Diddy” Combs, filed an explosive lawsuit in January on behalf of Tennessee massage therapist Kellye Croft, who alleged that Dolan and an employee of Azoff Music Management conspired to traffic her to California to have sex with Dolan — who in turn allegedly trafficked her to Weinstein.
Representing Azoff Companies is powerful New York litigator Daniel Petrocelli, partner at O’Melveny & Myers LLP, who has represented Donald Trump and Travis Scott. Dolan is represented by Danya Perry, a former assistant U.S. attorney and ex-chief of litigation at MacAndrews & Forbes.
Trending on Billboard
Petrocelli and Perry have each filed separate motions to dismiss the case, which is being handled by Judge Percy Anderson, while Perry has issued a blanket denial of Croft’s claims against Dolan.
Croft alleges that she was hired to work with the late Glenn Frey in October 2013 while the vocalist and Eagles frontman was touring with the band and opening act JD and the Straight Shot, which is led by Dolan. Croft alleges that Dolan befriended her during the tour, gained her trust and then sexually assaulted her before coercing her into a sexual relationship while on the road.
Two months after returning home to Nashville in the wake of the tour, Croft alleges she was contacted by an executive at Azoff Music Management and hired to work as Frey’s masseuse for the Eagles’ six-night run of concerts at Kia Forum in Los Angeles. When Croft arrived in Los Angeles, she learned that he was staying at a different hotel than the band — leading her to suspect that she was really hired by Azoff Management as a favor to Dolan.
“Ms. Croft did not perform a single massage on any member of the Eagles while working at The Forum,” Wingdor writes, alleging that “in reality, Ms. Croft was flown out to Los Angeles for the purposes of engaging in unwanted sexual acts with Dolan.”
Croft also claims that she was set up by Dolan, allegedly with the help of two Azoff employees, for an encounter with Weinstein, the disgraced film producer and convicted rapist, during her stay at the Peninsula Hotel in Beverly Hills. Croft says she was confronted by Weinstein in an elevator and allegedly offered a job on the set of an upcoming film — only to later be sexually propositioned by the film producer, who then followed her to her room and sexually assaulted her, according to the complaint.
Dolan’s relationship with Weinstein dates back to 2003 when Dolan and Weinstein were part of an investment group — which also included financier and convicted sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein — that was hoping to purchase New York magazine. Dolan also briefly served on the board of The Weinstein Company starting in 2016.
Croft allegedly decided to file the lawsuit after Dolan sent her the lyrics to “I Should’ve Known,” a song he wrote lamenting his failure to stop Weinstein from victimizing women.
In April, Perry filed a motion to dismiss Croft’s lawsuit, arguing that even if the woman’s claims were true, she still can’t sue Dolan under the Trafficking Victims Protect Act because “the bill targets and criminalizes sex trafficking, not sexual relations (which is all that is alleged in (Croft’s complaint),” according to the motion. Wigdor responded in a separate filing that Perry’s reading of the law was “wrong.”
As to the Weinstein allegation, Perry is arguing that Dolan and other former Weinstein Company board members were already released from any claims “to alleged sexual misconduct by Weinstein” during 2018 bankruptcy proceedings. Wigdor countered that Croft “did not consent to waive her claims” and wasn’t aware of the bankruptcy.
Petrocelli’s motion to dismiss argues that Croft’s complaint “contains no facts suggesting the Azoff Entities participated in, benefitted from, or even knew about any sex trafficking scheme” when hiring her. Petrocelli also wants Croft and her attorney sanctioned for filing the lawsuit and is asking that Croft be required to pay Azoff’s legal costs.
The motions have been taken under advisement by the judge, who late last week canceled a Monday (June 3) hearing for oral arguments on the motions, noting the “Court finds this matter appropriate for decision without oral argument.“ His ruling is expected any day.