State Champ Radio Legal News
Page: 113
A Los Angeles judge on Tuesday (May 9) dismissed much of Marilyn Manson’s defamation lawsuit against his ex-fiance, Evan Rachel Wood, ruling that many of his claims were barred under a California law aimed at protecting free speech.
Manson (real name Brian Warner) sued Wood last year, claiming her 2021 accusations of sexual abuse against him had been false and that she had “secretly recruited, coordinated, and pressured” other women to make similar allegations against him to destroy his career.
But Judge Teresa A. Beaudet ruled Tuesday that Manson had not sufficiently shown that he would ultimately be able to prove many of those accusations against Wood, including that she had been “pressuring multiple women to make false accusations,” as well as the allegation that she had forged a letter from the FBI.
The ruling came under California’s so-called anti-SLAPP statute — a law that aims to make it easier for judges to quickly dismiss cases that threaten free speech. Wood’s lawyers claimed Manson’s case was exactly that: a prominent musician using a lawsuit to try to silence someone who was speaking out publicly about years of alleged abuse.
Anti-SLAPP laws work by putting more burden than usual on defamation plaintiffs like Manson, forcing them to clearly show at the outset that their case is legitimate. In Tuesday’s decision, Judge Beaudet said Manson had failed to do so.
“The court does not find that plaintiff has demonstrated a probability of prevailing on his [intentional infliction of emotional distress] claim based on the FBI Letter,” the judge wrote, referring to one of Manson’s specific legal claims.
Importantly, the decision did not dismiss Manson’s case entirely, and several claims remain pending against Wood. Those claims will continue into discovery and toward an eventual trial. But the ruling was still a major victory for Wood.
In a statement to Billboard following the decision, Wood’s attorney, Michael Kump, said: “We are very pleased with the court’s ruling, which affirms and protects Evan’s exercise of her fundamental First Amendment rights. As the court correctly found, plaintiff failed to show that his claims against her have even minimal merit.”
Wood is one of several women to accuse Manson of serious sexual wrongdoing over the past two years. Manson has denied all of the allegations, and many of the lawsuits filed against him have since been dropped, dismissed or settled.
Manson filed the current lawsuit against Wood in March 2022, accusing her and a woman named Illma Gore of launching an “organized attack” that had derailed his career. His lawyer said the women had carried out “a campaign of malicious and unjustified attacks.”
But Wood quickly fought back, moving to strike Manson’s case under the anti-SLAPP law: “For years, plaintiff Brian Warner raped and tortured defendant Evan Rachel Wood and threatened retaliation if she told anyone about it,” her attorneys wrote. “Warner has now made good on those threats by filing the present lawsuit.”
Tuesday’s ruling came despite a bombshell recantation by Ashley Morgan Smithline, another woman who has accused Manson of wrongdoing. In a February filing submitted by Manson’s lawyers, Smithline said she had “succumbed to pressure” from Wood to make “untrue” accusations against Manson.
But Wood strongly denied those allegations, and Judge Beaudet ultimately refused to consider Smithline’s statements entirely, saying they had been filed far past a key deadline for submitting evidence. That means the statements about Wood’s “pressure” played no role in Tuesday’s decision.
In a statement to Billboard, Manson’s lawyer, Howard King, said the ruling was “disappointing but not unexpected.”
“The court telegraphed this outcome when it refused to consider the bombshell sworn declaration of former plaintiff Ashley Smithline, which detailed how women were systematically pressured by Evan Rachel Wood and Illma Gore to make false claims about Brian Warner,” King said.
“The failure to admit this critical evidence, along with the court’s decision to not consider Ms. Gore’s iPad, the contents of which demonstrated how she and Ms. Wood crafted a forged FBI letter, will be the subject of an immediate appeal to the California Court of Appeal,” King added.
This is The Legal Beat, a weekly newsletter about music law from Billboard Pro, offering you a one-stop cheat sheet of big new cases, important rulings and all the fun stuff in between.
This week: Ed Sheeran wins his trial over whether “Thinking Out Loud” infringed Marvin Gaye’s iconic “Let’s Get It On”; Tory Lanez is denied a new trial over the shooting of Megan Thee Stallion; Adidas faces a class action over its Kanye West partnership; and much more.
Want to get The Legal Beat newsletter in your email inbox every Tuesday? Subscribe here for free.
THE BIG STORY: Ed Sheeran & The Copyright Road Ahead
That sound you hear? It’s not Ed Sheeran strumming his guitar from the witness stand, or the tinny audio from a supposedly “smoking gun” YouTube video. It’s the music business letting out a giant sigh of relief.
After one of the biggest music trials in years, Sheeran won a jury verdict last week that his “Thinking Out Loud” didn’t infringe the copyright of Marvin Gaye’s famed “Let’s Get It On,” clearing the singer of wrongdoing and avoiding the potential for millions in damages.
A verdict against the singer would have reverberated throughout the industry, much like the infamous 2015 verdict against Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams over their megahit “Blurred Lines.” Like in that earlier case, many music pros and copyright lawyers believed that Sheeran and Gaye’s songs shared only common musical “building blocks” that everyone is entitled to use. They worried that a verdict against Sheeran could have blurred the line between legal similarities and illegal copying.
For years, the verdict on “Blurred Lines” led the industry to be hyper-cautious about songs that sounded remotely similar. Musicology reports and insurance policies became far more common, and songwriting credits were liberally doled out at the first sign of trouble — by Mark Ronson and Bruno Mars for their smash hit “Uptown Funk,” by Sam Smith for his Grammy-winning “Stay With Me” and by Olivia Rodrigo for her chart-topping “Good 4 U,” among many others. When cases were filed in court, many defendants chose to quickly settle, rather than face an unpredictable jury.
The legal reality, though, is that courts have slowly been back-tracking from “Blurred Lines” for a while now — first with an appellate court decision in 2020 on Led Zeppelin’s “Stairway To Heaven,” then with a similar ruling last year on Katy Perry’s “Dark Horse.” Both of those rulings provided clear case law that simple elements of music creation, standing alone, cannot be monopolized by any one songwriter. Over just the first few months of 2023, song-theft cases against Donald Glover (over his Childish Gambino chart-topper “This Is America”) and Nickelback (over the band’s 2005 hit “Rockstar”) have both been dismissed at the earliest stage of litigation.
Far from throwing the industry back into confusion, Sheeran’s victory last week seems to be the latest incremental step in a march toward a post-“Blurred Lines” world. Jury verdicts don’t change case law, but they can serve as a powerful disincentive to the next round of potential copyright accusers, who might be less willing to head to court if they see that artists are willing to successfully fight back rather than quickly settle when faced with an allegation.
For Sheeran, that seems to be precisely the effect he’s aiming for.
“By stopping this practice, we can also properly support genuine music copyright claims so that legitimate claims are rightly heard and resolved,” Sheeran said on the courthouse steps, minutes after the verdict was read aloud in court. “We need songwriters and the wider musical community to come together to bring back common sense. These claims need to be stopped so that the creative process can carry on, and we can all just go back to making music.”
Other top stories…
NO NEW TRIAL FOR TORY – A Los Angeles judge refused to grant Tory Lanez a new trial after he was convicted last year of shooting Megan Thee Stallion in the foot, setting the stage for the rapper to be sentenced to as much as two decades in prison. His lawyers called the trial a “miscarriage of justice,” but such requests are very rarely granted.
CLASS-ACTION KANYE – Adidas was hit with a class action lawsuit claiming the sportswear giant knew about Kanye West‘s problematic “personal behavior” years prior to ending its partnership with the disgraced rapper but failed to warn investors about it. West himself was not named in the case.
SPINRILLA SHUTTERED – Hip-hop mixtape site Spinrilla and founder Jeffery Copeland agreed to shut down the site and pay $50 million to Universal Music, Warner Music, Sony Music and others to end a years-long copyright infringement lawsuit over the unauthorized use of thousands of songs by Bob Marley, Beyonce, Kendrick Lamar and more.
A Los Angeles judge is refusing to grant Tory Lanez a new trial after he was convicted last year of shooting Megan Thee Stallion in the foot, setting the stage for the rapper to be sentenced to as much as two decades in prison.
Attorneys for Lanez (real name Daystar Peterson) had called the case a “miscarriage of justice,” arguing that Judge David Herriford made numerous errors during a star-studded, two-week December trial that resulted in a guilty verdict. But prosecutors later called those claims “vague and unsupported” and urged the judge to uphold the jury’s decision.
At a hearing on Tuesday (May 9) in Los Angeles Superior Court, Judge Herriford sided with prosecutors and denied Lanez’s motion, according to a person with knowledge of the proceedings. Neither prosecutors nor Lanez’s legal team immediately returned requests for comment.
The ruling is not particularly surprising. Such requests for a judge to overturn a jury verdict are rarely granted, reserved for major revelations about procedural errors or withheld evidence. Similar arguments could still be successfully raised in a future appeal.
Tuesday’s decision clears the way for Lanez’s sentencing, in which he potentially faces up to 22 years in prison. It had originally been scheduled for January but was repeatedly delayed due to his request for a new trial. Sentencing is now expected within the next month but could be delayed again.
Lanez was convicted on Dec. 23 on three felony charges over the mid-2020 incident, during which the rapper allegedly shot Stallion (born Megan Pete) in the foot during an argument after a pool party in the Hollywood Hills.
The shooting happened in the early-morning hours of July 12, 2020, when a driver was shuttling Lanez, Stallion and her assistant and friend Kelsey Harris from a party at Kylie Jenner’s house. According to prosecutors, Megan got out of the vehicle during an argument and began walking away when Lanez shouted “Dance, bitch!” and proceeded to shoot at her feet.
Following the incident, Stallion initially told police officers that she had cut her foot stepping on broken glass, but days later alleged that she had been shot. Lanez was eventually charged with the shooting in October 2022.
During the blockbuster trial, Lanez’s lawyers made their best effort to sow doubt over who had pulled the trigger, painting a scenario in which Harris could have been the shooter. But a key defense witness offered only confusing eyewitness testimony, and prosecutors pointed to an earlier interview in which Harris pinned the blame squarely on Lanez. Stallion herself offered powerful testimony that Lanez had been the one to shoot her; neither Lanez nor the driver took the witness stand.
In a motion for a new trial filed in March, Lanez attorneys Jose Baez and Matthew Barhoma argued that Judge Herriford made numerous errors during the course of the trial. Among others, they said he should not have allowed jurors to see an Instagram post that appeared to undermine the rapper’s central defense that Harris actually pulled the trigger. In it, Lanez appeared to personally post a comment that such a suggestion was “not true.”
“The court erred on numerous questions of law in allowing the People to introduce this post, depriving defendant of a fair trial,” Lanez’s lawyers wrote. “The only acceptable remedy for this miscarriage of justice is a new trial.”
Lanez’s lawyers made numerous other arguments, too. They said that key DNA evidence had been mischaracterized and improperly admitted; that Lanez had been denied his right to counsel because his longtime attorney withdrew at the eleventh hour; and that prosecutors had run afoul of a new California law that bans the use of creative expression in criminal trials.
But prosecutors argued back last month that the request for a new trial was groundless. The Instagram comment was a “relatively insignificant piece of evidence,” they argued, among an “overwhelming” amount of testimony and other evidence showing that Lanez had been the one to shoot Stallion.
“The defendant’s brief is replete with colorful rhetoric and conclusory statements, but it lacks substance,” prosecutors wrote. “Despite being nearly 80 pages long, the defendant has failed to cite a single instance of error in the trial court.”
Following Tuesday’s decision, Lanez can still file an appeal of the verdict at a state appellate court. But such a challenge will face an uphill climb: In 2022, California appeals courts overturned a defendant’s guilty verdict in just 19% of cases.
RuPaul’s Drag Race and We’re Here star Shangela has denied allegations in a civil suit filed by a former production assistant on the latter series claiming that the drag star (born Darius Jeremy “DJ” Pierce) drugged and raped him after a 2020 wrap party.
“I can’t begin to explain how hurt and disgusted I am by these totally untrue allegations. They are personally offensive and perpetuate damaging stereotypes that are harmful not only to me, but also to my entire community,” Pierce said in a statement to Billboard on Friday (May 5).
The statement came in reaction to a civil suit filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on Wednesday in which Daniel McGarrigle, a We’re Here production assistant, claimed that Pierce sexually assaulted him in February 2020 after a wrap party for the fifth episode of the HBO reality series featuring several Drag Race contestants, according to The Hollywood Reporter.
“An external investigation into this embittered individual’s claims previously concluded that they were completely without merit,” Pierce continued in the statement. The performer added of the new filing, “No one should be fooled: It has no basis in fact or in law, and it will not succeed.”
Pierce added, “As a hardworking and outspoken drag entertainer for more than a decade, I know that I am far from alone in battling ignorance, bigotry and prejudice, all of which played a role in the filing of this complaint. That is why I will fight this entirely meritless lawsuit and not allow it to destroy me and those I love, or harm the causes we all stand for.”
According to THR, McGarrigle alleges in the suit that during party at a Ruston, La., restaurant/bar, Pierce was “heavily flirtatious” with him and bought him several drinks before allegedly suggesting that McGarrigle accompany him to his hotel to help get ready for an early flight. The suit then claims that McGarrigle vomited in the toilet after arriving in Pierce’s room, at which point the performer reportedly offered to get him water and let him lie down until he felt better.
The production assistant claims in the lawsuit he woke up later that evening to a cold liquid that “burned his eyes and nose” being poured on him that was described as a kind of “poppers” (aka amyl nitrite) before Pierce allegedly pulled down his pants and “overpowered” him.
In a separate statement shared with Billboard from producers Buckingham Television and HBO, the representatives for the series said, “Buckingham Television, the production company for We’re Here, received a complaint late summer 2021 regarding an incident that was alleged to have occurred in early 2020. Buckingham and HBO take the safety and well-being of personnel on our shows very seriously, and Buckingham immediately launched an investigation. The investigation concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support these allegations.”
The suit claims that the alleged rape was an act of gender violence, and that McGarrigle suffered damages as a result, including “past and future medical expenses, past and future lost earnings and earning capacity, pain, suffering, emotional distress, mental anguish and embarrassment.” The legal action is seeking unspecified damages from Pierce and Buckingham.
A Manhattan federal jury on Thursday (May 4) cleared Ed Sheeran of allegations that his “Thinking Out Loud” infringed the copyright of Marvin Gaye’s famed “Let’s Get It On,” allowing the star to avoid millions in potential damages.
After a closely-watched trial before a packed courtroom, the seven-person jury issued a verdict that determined Sheeran had proved he didn’t infringe upon the copyright of the soul classic. Following the verdict, he briefly put his hands over his face in relief and hugged his lawyer, according to the Associated Press. As jurors left the courtroom, Sheeran quietly mouthed the words “thank you” in their direction. He then spoke for about 10 minutes with the plaintiffs, including the daughter of Ed Townsend, who co-created the 1973 soul classic with Gaye. They hugged and smiled with each other.
If he’d been found liable, Sheeran would have been facing millions in potential damages and could have been forced to change the credits on his song. After a jury verdict in 2015 that found Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams‘ megahit “Blurred Lines” had infringed Gaye’s “Got To Give It Up,” the two stars were ultimately ordered to pay a $5 million judgment, plus ongoing royalties from their song.
The verdict came nearly seven years after Sheeran was first sued by the heirs of Ed Townsend, Gaye’s longtime producer who co-wrote “Let’s Get It On,” over “Thinking Out Loud” — a commercial and critical success that hit No. 2 on the Hot 100 before winning the Grammy Award for song of the year. (Gaye’s actual heirs, who won the verdict over “Blurred Lines” are not involved in the case.)
In their suit, Kathryn Townsend Griffin and other heirs of Ed Townsend said Sheeran had “knowingly and intentionally infringed” the earlier tune, stealing the “heart” from one of the most “instantly recognizable songs in R&B history.”
The trial, taking place at the U.S. federal courthouse in Lower Manhattan, kicked off Tuesday with opening statements from both sides. Benjamin Crump, representing Griffin, told the jury to use their “common sense” to see that the pop star had stolen the “magic” from the earlier song. But Sheeran’s attorney, Ilene Farkas, said Griffin had not right to monopolize the “exceedingly common musical building blocks” featured in both songs. “Plaintiffs do not own them, because nobody does,” Farkas said. “All songwriters draw from this same basic toolkit.”
Later that same day, jurors then heard testimony from Sheeran himself, who strongly denied the allegations and insisted that he be allowed — over complaints from opposing attorneys — to offer additional context to defend his actions: “I feel like you don’t want me to answer because what I’m going to say is going to make quite a lot of sense,” Sheeran said.
One key piece of evidence during the trial was a video clip from a 2014 concert, in which Sheeran seamlessly switches from “Thinking” to “Lets” and back again, drawing huge cheers from the crowd. Crump called it a “smoking gun” against the star: “That concert video is a confession.”
But Sheeran and his lawyers said the video simply underscored the fact that he had done nothing wrong by using a basic set of chords that appear in many songs: “Quite frankly, if I’d done what you’re accusing me of, I’d be an idiot to stand up in front of 20,000 people and do that,” the singer said from the witness stand.
Later in the week, jurors heard testimony from Amy Wadge, who co-wrote “Thinking” with Sheeran (but isn’t named as a defendant), and Jake Gosling, who produced the song (also not named as a defendant). And both sides called their own musicologists — Lawrence Ferrara for Sheeran and Alexander Stewart for the Townsends — who offered dueling expert testimony about whether the similarities between the two tracks met the legal requirements for copyright infringement.
The Associated Press contributed reporting.
A federal judge in Georgia ordered the hip-hop mixtape site Spinrilla and its founder Jeffery Copeland to pay Universal Music, Warner Music, Sony Music and others $50 million for copyright infringement related to the streaming and downloading of thousands of songs by Bob Marley, Beyonce, Kendrick Lamar and more, according to a settlement agreement filed Wednesday.
As part of the agreement, Copeland is also permanently forbidden from operating Spinrilla or any other website, platform or similar projects anywhere in the world.
The settlement this week stems from a six-year-old lawsuit filed by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) on behalf of UMG, Sony Music Entertainment, Warner Bros. Records, Atlantic Recording Corporation and LaFace Records, alleging that Spinrilla and Copeland allowed users to stream and download unlicensed content.
Copeland founded Spinrilla in early 2013 as an app for approved users to listen to and discover “independent and emerging hip-hop artists.” When the music industry filed its lawsuit, Spinrilla had 19 million users, including 14,000 who could upload content to the platform, and around 1.4 million songs available on the platform.
Over the course of the case, the RIAA said it identified more than 4,000 songs by Rihanna, Michael Jackson, Kanye West and others that were infringed, and in late 2020, U.S. District Judge Amy Totenberg found Spinrilla liable for copyright infringement.
UMG, WMG, Sony Music Entertainment and Spinrilla did not respond to requests for comment.
As part of the agreement, Spinrilla will transfer the domain name for its service to the music industry companies, which they have agreed not to use.
A group of investors has filed a class action lawsuit against Adidas, alleging the sportswear giant knew about Kanye West‘s problematic “personal behavior” years prior to ending its partnership with the rapper but failed to warn them about it.
The complaint — representing people who acquired Adidas securities between May 3, 2018, and February 21, 2023 — also names Adidas’ former CEO, Kasper Rorsted, and CFO, Harm Ohlmeyer, as defendants, alleging the executives “employed devices, schemes and artifices to defraud” investors and that the company “failed to take meaningful precautionary measures to limit negative financial exposure” in the event the partnership was terminated as a result of West’s behavior.
West is not named as a defendant in the suit.
Filed Friday (April 28) in U.S. District Court in Oregon, the lawsuit’s “substantive allegations” cite comments made by West (now known as Ye) dating back to 2018, including a notorious TMZ interview in which the rapper called slavery “a choice.” The complaint goes on to point out that Adidas “stuck by” West following his comments and includes excerpts from Rorsted’s 2018 interview with Bloomberg in which he said, “We neither comment nor speculate on every single comment that our external creators are making.” It also includes various offensive comments West directed at the Jewish community as well as his quote, “I can say anti-Semitic things and Adidas can’t drop me,” made during the rapper’s October 2022 appearance on the podcast Drink Champs.
On October 25, 2022, just days after the Drink Champs episode aired, Adidas ended the partnership.
The suit also alleges that Adidas failed to make investors aware that the rapper made “offensive remarks at Company premises” and that the company’s publicly released reports between 2018 and 2021 did not acknowledge “serious issues affecting the partnership” in their “Business Partner Risk” sections. The sections did, however, acknowledge that “improper behavior” from entertainers and athletes representing the brand could have a “negative spill-over effect on the company’s reputation.”
Pushing back on the allegations, Adidas said in a statement to The Associated Press on Monday: “We outright reject these unfounded claims and will take all necessary measures to vigorously defend ourselves against them.”
The suit makes mention of the initial “positive impact” of West’s partnership with Adidas, and the $1 billion worth of sales Yeezy shoes hit by 2019. The Yeezy brand — owned by West and licensed to Adidas — became a streetwear pillar and ushered in a new era of popular style. However, West’s insensitive comments and actions eventually overshadowed his artistic talent.
After the partnership ended, Adidas reported a $540 million loss in the fourth quarter of 2022, partially due to unsold Yeezy clothing and shoes. The company has also projected a total loss of $1.3 billion in “full-year revenue” for 2023 resulting from the unsold products.
Nearly nine years after Johnny Winter‘s death, a battle for control of the legendary blues guitarist’s music is being fought in court with allegations of theft and greed flying back and forth.
The legal fight pits Winter’s former personal manager and bandmate, Paul Nelson, against the family of the bluesman’s late wife, Susan, who died in 2019.
Winter’s in-laws say Nelson and his wife improperly took more than $1.5 million from Winter’s music business, including auctioning off some of the late musician’s guitars.
Nelson and his wife have countersued, saying Susan Winter’s siblings swooped in when she was medicated and dying of cancer and tricked her into giving them control of Winter’s music, stripping away Nelson’s rights as the beneficiary of Susan Winter’s estate.
The case was scheduled to go to trial in a Connecticut court in April, but was rescheduled for September.
At stake is ownership of Winter’s music catalogue, proceeds from record and merchandise sales and authority to approve any commercial use of his songs, the value of which is uncertain.
“The case is about preserving Johnny Winter’s legacy and vindicating and making sure the Nelsons haven’t improperly taken the moneys rightfully owed to the plaintiffs,” said Timothy Diemand, a lawyer for the Susan Winter’s siblings, Bonnie and Christopher Warford.
Nelson wants to be reinstalled as the beneficiary of Susan Winter’s estate.
“The Plaintiffs orchestrated the wrongful termination of Paul Nelson during a difficult time in Susan Winter’s last year of life,” the Nelsons said in a statement released by their lawyer, Matthew Mason. They said it was clear that both Johnny and Susan Winter wanted Nelson to be responsible for Johnny Winter’s music and legacy.
John Dawson Winter III was born and raised in Beaumont, Texas. He burst onto the world blues scene in the 1960s, dazzling crowds with his fast licks while his trademark long, white hair flew about from under his cowboy hat. He and his brother Edgar — both born with albinism — were both reknowned musicians.
Winter played at Woodstock in 1969 and went on to produce albums for Blues icon Muddy Waters in addition to his own music. In 1988 he was inducted into the Blues Foundation Hall of Fame.
Rolling Stone magazine listed him as the No. 63 best guitar player of all time in 2015. He released more than two dozen albums and was nominated for several Grammy awards, winning his first one posthumously in 2015 for Best Blues Album for “Step Back.” Nelson produced the album and also took home a Grammy for it.
Winter, who spent two decades living in Easton, Connecticut, before his death, battled heroin addiction for years and credited Nelson, whom he met in 1999, with helping him get off methadone, according to the 2014 documentary “Johnny Winter: Down & Dirty.”
Before he got clean, bandmates and friends said they were concerned because of his frail appearance and trouble talking. Nelson also credits himself with reviving Winter’s music career.
The Winters and Nelsons became good friends. Paul Nelson played guitar in Johnny Winter’s band and started running his music company beginning in 2005. Nelson’s wife, Marion Nelson, did bookkeeping for the Winters and the music business, according to legal filings in the lawsuit.
Winter died at the age of 70 on July 16, 2014, in a hotel room just outside Zurich, Switzerland, while on tour. Susan Winter and Paul Nelson have said the cause of death was likely emphysema.
Susan Winter was the sole beneficiary of her husband’s estate, which she put in a trust in late 2016. She named herself as the trust’s sole trustee and Nelson as the successor trustee, meaning he would inherit the rights to Johnny Winter’s music after she died.
But in June 2019, four months before her death from lung cancer, Susan Winter removed Nelson as the successor and replaced him with her sister and brother.
The Nelsons allege in their lawsuit that Bonnie and Christopher Warford got control by lying to their sister, wrongly telling her the Nelsons were mismanaging the music business and her affairs.
The Warfords’ lawsuit accuses the Nelsons of improperly taking more than $1.5 million out of Winter’s business “under the guise of royalty income, commissions, reimbursements, fees, social media expenses and other mechanisms, while obfuscating and misrepresenting these dealings to Susan Winter.”
They have also accused the Nelsons of taking three of Winter’s guitars, worth about $300,000 total, and selling them at auction without permission. The Nelsons deny the allegation.
“In short, this is the classic case of a manager taking advantage of an artist-client, and worse here, an artist’s surviving family,” Diemand wrote in a legal filing.
It’s not clear why Edgar Winter, a noted musician in his own right, was not involved in his brother’s estate after his death. Edgar Winter and his representatives did not return phone and email messages seeking comment.
The Warfords’ lawsuit is similar to one the Winters filed against Johnny Winter’s former manager Teddy Slatus for alleged financial wrongdoing around 2005. Slatus died in late 2005. It’s not clear what happened with the lawsuit.
“Johnny and Susan have been battling lawsuits all their lives, and still can’t rest in peace,” said Mary Lou Sullivan, who wrote a biography titled “Raisin’ Cane: The Wild and Raucous Story of Johnny Winter” published in 2010.
Both the Warfords, of Charlotte, North Carolina, and Nelsons, of Weston, Connecticut, declined interview requests by The Associated Press.
Representatives from the Black Music Coalition (BMAC), the Recording Academy and SAG-AFTRA came together with Congressmen Hank Johnson (D-GA) and Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) on Capitol Hill Thursday (April 27) to reintroduce the Restoring Artistic Protection (RAP) Act, a bill that would limit the use of song lyrics in court — a practice that disproportionately affects Black artists working in rap and hip-hop.
“Since the 1990s, there are hundreds literally hundreds of documented cases where prosecutors use lyrics as criminal evidence in court and this practice disproportionately affects rap artists,” said Recording Academy CEO Harvey Mason jr. during a press conference announcing the bill’s reintroduction. “But this act is absolutely not just about hip-hop artists. Silencing creative expression is a violation against all artists and all forms of creative expression. The Restoring Artistic Protection Act affirms that every single artist, no matter the discipline, should be able to express themselves without fear of prosecution.”
SAG-AFTRA president Fran Drescher, who was also in attendance, advocated for the First Amendment rights of musicians. “Rap music actually is folk music, because folk music is the voice of the people,” she said. “I urge Congress to pass the RAP act to ensure fair and equitable treatment in the justice system.”
First introduced in July 2022, if passed, the RAP Act would be the first federal law to limit the use of lyrics in criminal cases.
Also participating in the press conference was 300 Elektra Entertainment CEO Kevin Liles, who urged bipartisan support for the bill: “For the first time in a long time, I have hope…in groups on the right and the left both saying that this is against the values of Americans.”
The revived interest in the issue of rap lyrics being used in court came about due to the May 2022 indictment against rappers Young Thug and Gunna along with dozens of others on RICO charges, with prosecutors claiming their group YSL was not really a record label called “Young Stoner Life” but a violent Atlanta street gang called “Young Slime Life.” The 88-page indictment cited lyrics and music videos as evidence, including quotes from Young Thug songs including, “I never killed anybody but got something to do with that body” and “I killed his man in front of his momma.”
Though Young Thug remains in custody ahead of trial, Gunna was released in December after pleading guilty to a gang-related charge.
On the state level, a similar bill in California known as the Decriminalizing Artistic Expression Act was signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom in September. In New York, another bill known as “Rap Music on Trial” passed the state’s Senate in May but failed to secure a vote in the New York Assembly before the end of last year’s legislative session. Comparable bills are making their way through the sate legislatures in both Louisiana and Missouri.
“As a music creator myself, I know how important it is that we safeguard artists’ freedom to create at all costs, and to work to eradicate the biases that come with the unconstitutional practice of using lyrics as evidence, which disproportionately affects artists of color, and penalizes the creativity of Black and brown fields,” added songwriter-producer-artist Rico Love, who serves as chair of the Recording Academy’s Black Music Collective.
Love added, “Music makers are storytellers who have provided important insight into our country throughout history. We have the responsibility to protect them and their works of creative expression, which helped define American culture.”
The announcement of the RAP Act’s reintroduction followed the Recording Academy’s annual GRAMMYs on the Hill, a two-day event that honored Pharrell Williams, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Senator Bill Cassidy and connected music creators with members of Congress to advocate for the RAP Act, the HITS Act, the American Music Fairness Act and reform in the live event ticketing space.
Soulja Boy has been ordered to pay his ex-girlfriend $235,900 stemming from an assault and kidnapping lawsuit she filed against the rapper in 2020.
In court documents obtained by Billboard, the rapper, born DeAndre Way, must pay Kayla Myers $1,800 for “mental health expenses,” while the remaining $234,100 is for “physical and mental pain and suffering.”
According to Myers’ original complaint, the alleged assault and kidnapping occurred at the rapper’s Malibu home after a party in February 2019 and reportedly lasted six hours. Myers claimed she tried to leave but that one of Soulja Boy’s assistants prevented her from her doing so. She also alleged that Soulja held a gun to her head, issued numerous threats against her and at one point struck her with the firearm.
“Way held the gun to Ms. Myers’ head and told her she was going to die that night and she would not make it home,” the complaint read. “Way next instructed his assistant to take her in the garage and tie her up with duct tape.”
Billboard reached out to attorneys for Soulja Boy and Myers for comment but did not hear back by press time.
This isn’t the only legal hot water Soulja Boy has found himself in over the past few years. In March 2019, the rapper was arrested for violating his probation stemming from a 2014 weapons conviction. The following month, he received a sentence of 240 days behind bars and 265 hours of community service.
In March, the “Crank That” star was one of several celebrities charged by the Securities and Exchange Comission for promoting cryptocurrencies “without disclosing that they were compensated for doing so and the amount of their compensation,” according to an SEC announcement.
