State Champ Radio Legal News
Page: 123
Drake’s lawyers are firing back at efforts to force the superstar to sit for a deposition over the murder of XXXtentacion, claiming he has no connection at all to the crime and that defense attorneys are merely trying to “add more layers of celebrity and notoriety” to the case.
Just days after a Florida judge ordered Drake to appear for such a deposition by Feb. 24, the rapper’s lawyers argued in a new motion filed on Sunday that there is no evidence suggesting that he was in any way connected to XXXTentacion’s 2018 shooting death.
“It is both unreasonable and oppressive to subpoena an out of state party who has not been mentioned in any reports, any investigation, or referenced to have any involvement in this matter,” Drake’s attorney Bradford M. Cohen wrote in the response filing. “To mandate that he appear for deposition for something that he very clearly has no relevant knowledge of is unreasonable.”
Prosecutors have never claimed that Drake (real name Aubrey Graham) was involved in the death of XXXTentacion (real name Jahseh Onfroy). Instead, they charged four Florida men — Dedrick Williams, Trayvon Newsome, Michael Boatwright and Robert Allen – who they allege killed XXX during a robbery that escalated into deadly violence.
But defense attorney Mauricio Padilla, who represents Williams in the case, listed Drake on a star-studded witness list in December. And at opening arguments last week, Padilla suggested that the police had not sufficiently investigated a possible connection to Drake, who allegedly had an existing feud with XXX before his death. Such speculation has been fueled by a 2018 social media post – later deleted – in which XXX said: “If anyone tries to kill me it was @champagnepapi,” referring to Drake by his Instagram name.
Planning to make those arguments at trial, Padilla attempted to force Drake to sit for a Jan. 27 deposition, but he’s claimed in court filings that the star didn’t show up for the hearing. So last week, the judge overseeing the case ordered Drake to either appear for a deposition via Zoom on Feb. 24, or risk being held in contempt of court.
In Sunday’s filing, Drake’s lawyers pushed to set that order aside. They said the subpoena was not properly served on the superstar, meaning he had been under no procedural obligation to show up. And even if it had been, they argued that he has no connection to the case that requires a deposition in the first place: “No evidence has been provided to substantiate the assertion that the Non-Party in any way contributed to, had knowledge of, or participated in the alleged incident.”
Instead, Drake’s lawyers pointed to the fact that prosecutors plan to show jurors video evidence of the defendants committing the crime. And they cited that headline-grabbing December witness list — which also listed Quavo, Offset, Tekashi 6ix9ine, Joe Budden and even the late Migos rapper Takeoff after he had already been killed – as evidence that defense attorneys were merely trying to pull unrelated big names into the case.
“It would appear, based on the names mentioned on the witness list filed by defendant’s counsel, that the intent to subpoena [Drake] is less for the purpose of discovering relevant evidence and testimony, but instead add more layers of celebrity and notoriety to a tragic and unfortunate event,” the star’s lawyers wrote.
Padilla, the defense attorney who is seeking to depose Drake, did not immediately return a request for comment Monday on Drake’s response filing.
Less than two months after the defense team for Dedrick Williams — one of the three suspects on trial for the murder of XXXtentacion — listed a slew of artists as potential witnesses in December, one of those artists is now being ordered to appear in court.
Due to a feud between Drake and the late rapper born Jahseh Onfroy, who was shot and killed in 2018, defense attorney Mauricio Padilla believes the Certified Lover Boy superstar is connected to XXX’s death — and in an effort to solidify that claim, he tried to subpoena the Certified Lover Boy rapper last month. But according to a court document obtained by Billboard, Drake failed to appear on his scheduled deposition date of Jan. 27 and is now being ordered to appear for a deposition on Feb. 24 via Zoom video. If he fails to appear again, he may be held in contempt.
A representative for Drake did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Drake’s alleged involvement in the murder stems from unsubstantiated rumors that swirled following XXXtentacion’s death, connected with a 2017 beef over what XXX believed to be a rip-off by Drake of his flows from breakout track “Look at Me!” on Drake’s “KMT.” A year after the drama, a story was posted to XXX’s Instagram page that read, “If anyone tries to kill me it was @champagnepapi,” tagging Drake’s Instagram handle. Afterward, XXXtentacion claimed his account was hacked; he was killed four months later in Deerfield Beach, Fla.
According to a December court filing, “Onfroy relentlessly taunted Graham on social media making statements about his mother and even posting a picture of a Drake look alike with semen on his face,” following frustrations that Drake didn’t lend him a hand during his time behind bars in 2016-17. Tensions continued to escalate, with XXX allegedly involving DJ Akademiks by asking the media personality to repost the photo. The filing went on to accuse Drake of having ties to “gang related activities” while naming Somali Canadian rapper Hassan Ali, a “suspected member of the Jungle Bloods Street Gang,” as a possible associate (Drake has publicly been connected to Ali via his own Instagram posts). In an interview, Ali also told Akademiks that he’s “Drake’s shooter.”
In the December filing, Padilla also listed Quavo, Offset, late Migos rapper Takeoff, Tekashi 6ix9ine and Joe Budden as potential witnesses, but at a subsequent hearing reported on by the Miami Herald, prosecutors called the move a stunt. “It is apparent from the deliberate, late disclosure of the defendant’s witnesses and comments made between the parties that [the] defendant intended to ‘surprise’ the state and create a trial by ambush,” wrote prosecutor Pascale Achille, as reported by the Herald. Broward Country Circuit Judge Michael Usan then demanded answers from Padilla in writing as to why the superstars were relevant to the case.
“They are high-profile people. And it’s not easy for me to subpoena,” Padilla answered. “I don’t have numbers, but it doesn’t mean I won’t be able to. Trying to subpoena Drake is not easy — you need a drone.”
Vinyl producer Mobile Fidelity has reached a settlement that could be worth as much as $25 million to resolve allegations that the company’s pricey “all analog” records were secretly created using digital methods. But some customers strongly object to the deal, saying it’s “tainted by the stink of collusion.”
The proposed agreement, first publicly filed in court last month, would allow tens of thousands of MoFi customers to secure a full refund for any eligible records that they purchased. Alternatively, it would also allow them to keep their albums and instead take a 5% cash refund or a 10% refund in credit.
The final monetary total depends on how many consumers utilize the settlement and which options they choose, but court filings say the money available under the deal is “expected to be over $25 million.” Under the settlement, MoFi will continue to deny any wrongdoing.
But the deal is not final, and it’s already facing stiff objections from attorneys who filed similar lawsuits against MoFi. They say the settlement was struck without their input, by “ineffectual” lawyers who took a bad deal: “Despite this clear abdication of their duties to class members, counsel … are now trying to ram an inadequate, collusive settlement through this court.”
The scandal at MoFi first erupted last summer, after Phoenix-area record store owner Mike Esposito posted a pair of videos to YouTube alleging that the company’s “all-analog” and “triple analog” records were in fact partially created using so-called direct stream digital technology. In one of the videos, MoFi’s engineers appeared to confirm that some digital tech had in fact been used in production.
As reported by the Washington Post, the digital revelations created “something of an existential crisis” in the analog-obsessed vinyl community. In a statement in late July, MoFi apologized for using “vague language” and for “taking for granted the goodwill and trust” of its customers: “We recognize our conduct has resulted in both anger and confusion in the marketplace. Moving forward, we are adopting a policy of 100% transparency regarding the provenance of our audio products.”
But the apology wasn’t enough to avoid litigation. In early August, a pair MoFi customers named Stephen J. Tuttle and Dustin Collman filed a proposed class action in Washington federal court, claiming the company’s analog branding had been “deceptive and misleading” and had duped them into paying premium prices.
Later, at least four more similar cases over the analog scandal were filed in federal courts around the country, including a class action filed in Illinois on behalf of a MoFi buyer named Adam Stiles, who claimed the company had “intentionally hid this fact from consumers.”
“When defendant began using a digital mastering process in its records as opposed to purely analog, it inherently produced less valuable records — because the records were no longer of limited quantity and were not as close to the studio recording — yet still charged the higher price,” the lawyers for Stiles wrote at the time.
The proposed settlement, first filed on Jan. 15 in the lawsuit filed by Tuttle and Collman, is expected to cover at least 40,000 consumers who purchased records marketed as analog. The “total gross value” of the refunds and credits available to consumers is over $25 million, according to the agreement; the lawyers who filed the case will be paid $290,000 for their services.
Seeking approval of the settlement, attorneys for both sides argued the deal was reached through “arm’s-length negotiations” and represents “a fair compromise in light of potential risks of continued litigation.” They warned that if the case continued, MoFi might have success in defending itself by arguing that the customers didn’t actually suffer any real harm by buying the digitally-processed records.
In a statement to Billboard in response to a request for comment on the proposed settlement, MoFi lead counsel Joseph J. Madonia said: “Unfortunately, we can’t comment on pending litigation, but MoFi stands behind its records and is offering anyone who is not satisfied a refund.”
While the new settlement was filed solely in one case (the case filed by Tuttle and Collman), it would cover all applicable MoFi buyers nationwide — including those who filed the separate cases in other courts and weren’t involved in negotiating the deal. If the agreement is approved, those other customers would be eligible for the same refunds, but they would also be barred from continuing to bring their own claims against MoFi.
Faced with that scenario, the attorneys who filed those other cases are none-too-pleased about the deal.
In a Jan. 27 filing, the lawyers who filed the Illinois case on behalf of Stiles decried the agreement as a “reverse auction” settlement, alleging that MoFi essentially shopped around between the various lawsuits and picked the most “ineffectual” lawyers it could find in order to get the cheapest nationwide settlement possible. They claimed MoFi’s lawyer had directly stated that he would “pick the lowest bidder” from the five class actions.
“There is no doubt that the [settling] plaintiffs have inadequately represented the class,” they wrote, saying that the settlement will be “perpetually tainted by the stink of collusion.”
An attorney for the settling customers declined to comment on the allegations of “collusion” and “reverse auctions.” A representative for MoFi declined to comment directly on those claims, but in a court document filed this week in the Stiles case, the company’s attorneys flatly rejected those allegations, arguing that the proposed settlement would “afford the best possible representation for the class.”
Attorneys for the objecting customers did not immediately return a request for comment on Thursday (Feb. 9).
Lawyers for YNW Melly have launched an appeal to the Florida Supreme Court, asking the court to overturn a ruling last year that said the rapper could face the death penalty if convicted in his upcoming murder trial.
In an opening brief filed last month, Melly’s lawyers urged Florida’s top court to rule that prosecutors had forfeited the right to seek capital punishment. They say the government failed to give Melly and his attorneys proper notice that they planned to do so, violating strict procedural rules.
In making their argument to the state high court, the rapper’s lawyers said the justices should take the case because it raises issues of “great public importance” beyond Melly’s individual charges.
“Death penalty law is an area where it is in the clear interest of everyone — defendants, victims, lawyers, judges, etc. — to have precisely defined and easily understood rules,” Melly’s attorneys, Daniel Tibbitt and Philip R. Horowitz, wrote in the Jan. 27 brief.
Melly (real name Jamell Demons) has spent years awaiting trial on first-degree murder charges over accusations that he and another YNW rapper shot and killed Anthony “YNW Sakchaser” Williams and Christopher “YNW Juvy” Thomas Jr. in 2018.
A first-degree murder defendant in Florida would typically face the possibility of execution if convicted, but Melly’s attorneys argued in April that the state had failed to comply with strict laws on how they must warn defendants that they’ll seek the death penalty.
Florida requires prosecutors to give notice 45 days after arraignment if they plan to seek capital punishment. In Melly’s case, the state attorney filed such a notice when they originally indicted the rapper in 2019, but failed to do so when a so-called superseding indictment was handed down earlier this year.
In July, a trial judge sided with Melly’s attorneys and said prosecutors had forfeited the chance to seek death. But in November, an appeals court ruled the judge’s decision was incorrect. The court wrote that since prosecutors gave notice that they might seek death when they first charged Melly in 2019, they had complied with state rules: “Notice is notice.”
In taking the case to the Florida Supreme Court last month, Melly’s lawyers argued the state rules “plainly require” new notice be filed when a new indictment is handed down.
“The Petitioner was arraigned on a new indictment, and the State did not file the requisite notice within 45 days of that arraignment (or ever),” the rapper’s lawyers wrote. “The State relies on a notice that was filed as to an original indictment that is, and has been since the filing of the new indictment, a legal nullity.”
An attorney for the state of Florida did not immediately return a request for comment. The state can file a response to the brief in the months ahead.
In an upcoming courtroom showdown, is a YouTube video of Ed Sheeran switching between his “Thinking Out Loud” and Marvin Gaye‘s “Let’s Get It On” a smoking gun? Or just smoke and mirrors?
Facing a trial in April over whether his smash hit infringed Gaye‘s iconic song, Sheeran’s lawyers asked a federal judge Tuesday (Feb. 7) to block his accusers from citing that clip, which captures the star at a 2014 concert entertaining the crowd by seamlessly toggling between the two songs.
The problem? Sheeran’s lawyers say the mash-up video is falsely incriminating. It could look to jurors like damning evidence that Sheeran copied “Let’s Get It On,” they say, but only actually shows that both songs contain a common chord progression — one that isn’t covered by copyrights and was “freely available to all songwriters.”
“There are dozens if not hundreds of songs that predate and postdate LGO utilizing the same or similar chord progression,” Sheeran’s lawyers wrote. “These medleys are irrelevant to any issue in the case and would be misleading [and] confuse the jury.”
The case against Sheeran was filed way back in 2017 by heirs of Ed Townsend, who co-wrote “Let’s Get It On.” Gaye’s heirs, who once famously sued Robin Thicke over accusations that his “Blurred Lines” was stolen from the legendary singer, are not involved in the case.
Sheeran’s lawyers have long argued that the star did nothing wrong, since “Thinking Out Loud” and “Let’s Get It On” share only “unprotectable and commonplace elements” that are not covered by copyright law. But Judge Louis D. Stanton has repeatedly refused to decide the case in their favor, ruling that the dispute is close enough that it must be decided by a jury.
In the lead-up to the trial, attorneys for the Townsend heirs filed a formal notice that they planned to play the YouTube clip for jurors. In the video — a 6-minute snippet of a November 2014 concert in Zurich that’s been viewed nearly 300,000 times — Sheeran abruptly switches from “Thinking” to “Lets” and back again, drawing huge cheers from the crowd.
It’s not surprising that Sheeran’s accusers want to use the medley video. In a 2019 ruling in which he sent the case to trial, Judge Stanton specifically highlighted the clip as potential evidence that might resonate with jurors, saying they “may be impressed by footage of a Sheeran performance which shows him seamlessly transitioning between LGO and TOL.”
But in Tuesday’s objections, Sheeran’s lawyers argued that the jury would be impressed for all the wrong reasons.
“The admission of this evidence will mislead the jury and cause unjustified prejudice – suggesting to the jury, inaccurately, that segueing from singing the lyrics of TOL over the TOL chord progression to singing a snippet of the lyrics of LGO over the TOL chord progression is ‘evidence’ that Sheeran copied LGO,” they wrote.
Sheeran’s lawyers also argued that letting such evidence play a key role in the upcoming trial would have a broader “chilling effect” on the music industry and on medleys, which they called an “important, enduring aspect of live concerts.”
“Such ‘mash-ups’ underscore the fact … that music has been, and always will be, built on commonplace and unprotectable musical building blocks freely available to all composers to use,” Sheeran’s lawyers wrote, but allowing it to serve as evidence would deter artists “for fear of creating a suggestion of infringement and encouraging unfounded claims.”
In a statement to Billboard, the Townsend heirs attorney Patrick R. Frank strongly disagreed with Sheeran’s attorneys, pointing directly to Judge Stanton’s previous ruling about the medley clip’s potential value to jurors.
“The passage of time has not diminished the acknowledged evidentiary significance of the medley,” Frank said. “I suspect that if there was, in fact, a legally-cognizable basis for [Sheeran’s motion], we would have seen the motion quite some time ago, as opposed to on the proverbial ‘eve’ an imminent trial.”
Frank will file his own formal response to Sheeran’s motion in court in the coming weeks.
Just before the start of his previously scheduled trial, Jose Teran, who was accused of running a YouTube scam with a partner, has accepted a plea deal in which he has admitted to counts of conspiracy, wire fraud and transactional money laundering for his role in one of the largest royalty scams in history. In his plea, Teran admits to stealing over $23 million in royalties from Latin artists that he admits now he had “no lawful rights to monetize or otherwise control.”
Teran and his business partner, Webster Batista Fernandez, operated their scam under the business name “MediaMuv” and were originally indicted by a federal grand jury in Arizona on Nov. 16, 2021, on 30 counts of conspiracy, wire fraud, money laundering and aggravated identity theft. The scam was the subject of a Billboard investigation. Batista took a plea deal on April 21, 2022, in which he admitted to one count of conspiracy and one count of wire fraud. Batista now awaits sentencing, which is currently scheduled for March.
Teran’s plea agreement echoes much of Batista’s. Both pleas say that the MediaMuv founders “discovered there were songs of musicians and bands on the internet that were not being monetized.” So they began uploading the recordings to YouTube as MP3 files, claiming to own or control the rights. Between 2016 and 2021, Teran and Batista falsely claimed royalties from songwriters and artists ranging from independent creators to songs recorded by global stars like Daddy Yankee, Don Omar, Prince Royce, Julio Iglesias and Anuel AA.
Under the name MediaMuv, Teran and Batista signed a contract with YouTube to use its content management system (CMS), which rights holders use to claim copyright ownership and the ensuing royalties. “We falsely claimed that MediaMuv owned over 50,000 songs and further sought access to YouTube’s CMS in order to obtain royalty payments for these songs,” Teran said in his plea. In addition, the duo entered a contract with AdRev, a rights management company owned by Downtown Music Holdings, “to assist in administering the music [they] fraudulently claimed to own.”
Billboard’s investigation uncovered that YouTube royalty-claiming scams like MediaMuv’s are more common than is generally believed, but Teran and Batista’s scheme was particularly brazen in terms of both scale and style.
Sources who work closely with the platform say YouTube scammers typically just claim small fractions of songs they suspect have not been claimed properly and might go unnoticed. This is especially common on the publishing side, where some compositions have so many songwriters that ownership and royalties are far more complicated than they are for recordings. But MediaMuv often claimed 100% of royalties for master recordings or compositions.
Both Batista and Teran admitted in their pleas that they sent three falsified contracts with companies that “purportedly” managed artists to AdRev and YouTube “for the purpose of deceiving [them] into allowing [MediaMuv] to continue [its] fraudulent operation” in July 2017. According to Teran’s plea deal, these three forged management contracts were provided to support MediaMuv’s assertion that it controlled a vast Latin music catalog.
The plea deals also say the duo did not act alone. Both mention that they hired “over five co-conspirators” to help them find new music to fraudulently claim and, in return, those co-conspirators were paid “a portion of [MediaMuv’s] royalties.” Names are not revealed in these documents, but other court documents tied MediaMuv to a network of people who seem to have benefited financially from Teran and Batista’s scheme, including Batista’s then-wife, who purchased a house in Phoenix in cash with money from a MediaMuv-associated bank account, according to a court document filed by prosecutors.
The house she purchased, along with six bank accounts, a Tesla, a BMW and a plot of land, are all listed in Teran and Batistas’ plea deals as items they agree to forfeit.
Though the duo is ordered to “make restitution to any victim” of their crimes, one of the businessmen who represented multiple MediaMuv victims told Billboard in August he doesn’t “expect to get it all back. I’m sure they spent a lot of it on cars and travel and stuff.”
In a statement to Billboard, a spokesman for Downtown Music Holdings says the company is “pleased by the latest developments in the MediaMuv criminal case, as both defendants have now pleaded guilty and admitted their role in this complex fraud scheme. This case sends a strong message to other potential bad actors that this kind of fraudulent activity in our industry will be investigated and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.”
Representatives for Teran and YouTube did not respond to Billboard’s request for comment.
Teran’s sentencing is set for April 17, 2023.
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: Lizzo wins a key ruling in her efforts to secure trademark protection for ‘100% That B-tch,” Taylor Swift calls a lawsuit over her Lovers companion book “legally and factually baseless,” Kanye’s lawyers finally track him down long enough to drop him as a client, and much more.
THE BIG STORY: Lizzo Is Now – Legally Speaking – ‘100% That B-tch’
A Grammy for record of the year wasn’t all Lizzo won last week.
Just days before her big Grammy win Sunday night, a tribunal at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office sided with the superstar in her quest to secure a federal trademark registration for “100% That B-tch” – the iconic lyric from her breakout single “Truth Hurts.”
Last year, the agency had rejected Lizzo’s application for the trademark on the grounds that it was merely a commonplace “motivational phrase” aimed at “female empowerment,” not the kind of unique brand name that’s eligible for trademark protection.
But the USPTO’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) overturned that ruling last week, saying that consumers who see the phrase on apparel would likely “associate the term with Lizzo and her music.”
For a full breakdown of Lizzo’s legal victory, including access to all the actual court documents, go read our story here.
Other top stories this week…
SWIFT RIPS COPYRIGHT SUIT – Taylor Swift‘s attorneys asked a federal judge to toss out a copyright case claiming the star stole aspects of a self-published book of poetry when she created a companion book for her album Lover, calling it “a lawsuit that never should have been filed.”
LAW FIRM FINDS KANYE – After months of searching, attorneys from the law firm Greenberg Traurig said they had finally tracked down Kanye West and formally notified him that he’s no longer a client of the firm, ending a bizarre ordeal in which the lawyers said they’d be willing to run newspaper ads to be rid of the disgraced rapper.
COGNAC UNDER THE BRIDGE – Jay-Z and Bacardi reached an agreement to end bitter litigation over their D’Ussé Cognac brand. Under the deal, Bacardi will take over a “majority interest” in the company, which was previously split 50-50 between the two sides.
COACHELLA v. MOECHELLA – The organizers of Coachella filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against the operators of a Washington D.C.-based music event called “Moechella,” accusing the smaller group of confusing consumers with the similar name.
RAPHY PINA LOSES APPEAL – A federal appeals court upheld a federal gun conviction against Daddy Yankee’s manager Raphy Pina, citing “overwhelming” evidence. The court overturned a separate conviction over an illegal automatic weapon, but it’s unclear if the ruling will reduce Pina’s 41 month sentence.
NICK CARTER STRIKES BACK – Two months after Nick Carter was hit with a civil lawsuit claiming he raped a 17-year-old girl on his tour bus in 2001, the Backstreet Boys member filed a countersuit claiming the allegations were the product of a “five-year conspiracy,” designed to extort him by coopting the #MeToo movement.
The long ordeal for Kanye West’s former lawyers is finally over — and they didn’t need to run those newspaper ads after all.
A month after attorneys from the law firm Greenberg Traurig asked a judge to let them to run notices in Los Angeles newspapers announcing they had dropped Ye as a client because they had “exhausted all methods” of contacting him, they told a federal judge Friday (Feb. 3) that they had finally gotten a hold of him.
“The address at which Ye was personally served is not one that is publicly affiliated with Ye or his businesses, but one that Ye nonetheless frequents,” the lawyers wrote in a court filing. “The location also appears to be primarily used by persons and entities not affiliated with Ye or his businesses.”
According to court papers, the notification process was finally accomplished after the firm was contacted by an unnamed attorney who said he would be representing Ye “on some of his legal matters.” A signed document shows that West was formally served on Jan. 27.
Greenberg, one of many law firms to cut ties with Ye in the wake of his antisemitic statements last year, had been trying for months to legally notify the rapper that its lawyers will no longer be representing him. The firm had previously repped West in a copyright lawsuit filed over one of the tracks off his album Donda 2.
Judge Analisa Torres already approved the firm’s withdrawal last year, but federal litigation rules and legal ethics require lawyers to personally serve clients with formal notice that they’ve been dropped as a client. And last month, the Greenberg lawyers notified Judge Torres that West was making it impossible for them to do so. They said he had engaged in “deliberate avoidance and obstruction,” including ditching his previous representatives and changing his phone number.
Faced with that obstinance, the firm asked the judge to permit an extraordinary alternative: printing a formal public notice in Los Angeles newspapers.
“Given Ye’s public status, publication of the Withdrawal Order will likely garner significant media attention, resulting in broader publication and provide an even greater likelihood of apprising Ye of the Order,” the Greenberg lawyers wrote at the time.
Such steps will now not be necessary. In a declaration, Greenberg attorney Nina D. Boyajian detailed how the firm finally got the formal notification to their disgraced former client.
“On January 18, 2023, an attorney based in California contacted my firm advising that he would be representing ‘Ye on some of his legal matters,’” she wrote. “During the course of several emails and a phone call with this attorney, I requested that he coordinate personal service of the Order on Ye. On February 1, 2023, the attorney referenced above emailed me the executed Certificate of Service.”
The name of Kanye’s new attorney and the location where the star was finally located were not disclosed in public documents. Kanye could not immediately be located for comment.
Taylor Swift‘s attorneys are asking a federal judge to dismiss a copyright lawsuit claiming the star stole aspects of a self-published book of poetry when she created a companion book for her album Lover, calling the case “legally and factually baseless.”
A woman named Teresa La Dart sued Swift last year, claiming that “a number of creative elements” from her 2010 book (also called Lover) were copied into Swift’s book. But in a motion filed Friday in Tennessee federal court, Swift’s lawyers said the copyright lawsuit should be dismissed immediately because it failed in every way possible.
“This is a lawsuit that never should have been filed,” attorney Doug Baldridge wrote for the superstar.
La Dart sued Swift in August over the star’s Lover book – an extra bundled with the special-edition of her Lover CD that the New York Times called a “must-read companion” for Swifties. Released in four different versions, Swift’s book included a total of 120 pages of personal diary entries, accompanied by photos selected by the singer.
La Dart’s lawsuit claims the book’s outer design borrowed a number of visual elements, including its “pastel pinks and blues” and an image of the author “photographed in a downward pose,” as well as the book’s overall format: “a recollection of past years memorialized in a combination of written and pictorial components.” La Dart also says the inner book design – specifically that it’s composed of “interspersed photographs and writings” – infringed her copyrights.
But in Friday’s response, Swift’s lawyers said those elements were just commonplace features of almost any book, meaning they fall well-short of being unique enough to qualify for copyright protection.
“These allegedly-infringing elements, each a generic design format, are not subject to copyright protection,” Baldridge wrote. “Thus, defendants could not possibly have infringed plaintiff’s copyright.”
And even if La Dart had valid copyrights to her book, Swift’s lawyers argued that the accuser has no proof that Swift ever even saw the earlier book, nor that the two books are legally similar to constitute copyright infringement.
“When compared, it is undeniable that the book formats and inner book designs are not similar in the slightest,” Baldridge wrote.
Friday’s arguments closely track what legal experts have told Billboard about the potential weaknesses of La Dart’s case. In an interview last year, copyright expert Aaron Moss said that such a simple book format cannot not be monopolized by any one author: “If it were, this person might as well sue anyone who’s ever written a diary or made a scrap book.”
At the time, La Dart’s attorney William S. Parks defended bringing the case: “My client feels strongly about her position and the full comparison of both books side-by-side would provide a clearer view. This filing was not taken lightly.”
Parks did not return a request for comment on Swift’s motion to dismiss the case.
After months of fighting in court, Jay-Z and Bacardi have decided it’s all cognac — er — water under the bridge.
The superstar rapper and the spirits giant said Friday they had reached an agreement to end bitter litigation over their D’Ussé Cognac brand. Under the deal, Bacardi will take over a “majority interest” in the company, which was previously split 50-50 between the two stakeholders.
The exact terms — what percentage Bacardi bought and how much Jay-Z was paid for it — were not disclosed, beyond a statement that the star would “retain a significant ownership stake” after the deal. Earlier filings in the case suggested the privately-held company could be worth as much as $5 billion.
In a statement, Jay-Z (real name Shawn Carter) said he was “excited to renew this partnership with Bacardi.”
“Growing D’Ussé over the past decade from an idea to one of the fastest-selling spirits in history has been a blessing,” the rapper wrote. “The next phase of this journey will further cement D’Ussé’s legacy as one of the world’s most respected brands.”
Until recently, Jay-Z was not at all excited to renew his D’Ussé deal with Bacardi. The rapper has spent the last year in a sprawling legal battle aimed at exiting the partnership, spanning at least four lawsuits in two states as well as private arbitration cases.
The dispute centered on Jay-Z’s exercise of a so-called “put option” — a legal mechanism in the joint venture’s operating agreement that, when triggered, required Bacardi to buy out his half of the business. Once invoked, the two sides were supposed to negotiate in “good faith,” exchange information and agree on a fair price for Bacardi to pay.
The rapper triggered the put option in September 2021, but the two sides quickly came to loggerheads over how much his half of the company was worth. The rapper suggested his half of the business was worth $2.5 billion; Bacardi said the number was just $460 million.
That core dispute eventually led to two private arbitrations, as well as lawsuits in both New York and Delaware courts. The two sides battled over what information should be used to fairly value Jay-Z’s stake, and he later accused Bacardi of “lowballing” and “stonewalling” him to get a cheaper price.
In November, unsealed court documents revealed key details of the months that had led up to the dispute.
For instance, when Bacardi offered $460 million for Jay’s half of the business, the hip-hop magnate’s attorneys said he responded by flipping the script. Rather than continue to invoke his put option requiring Bacardi to buy him out, they said he offered to go vice-versa and buy out Bacardi’s share for $1.5 billion — far more than the figure Bacardi had just cited as the fair value of half the company.
When Bacardi turned down that offer, the legal battle kicked off.
