State Champ Radio Legal News
Page: 127
If you saw a portable snack package of Fruity Pebbles or Honey Bunches of Oats under the brand name “OK Go!” on a supermarket shelf, would you think that the rock band OK Go was somehow involved?
That bizarre question is at the center of a new lawsuit filed by cereal giant Post Foods against the power pop band, which is best known for its viral music videos, including a Grammy-winning video for the song “Here It Goes Again.”
In a complaint filed Friday (Jan. 13) in Minnesota federal court, Post said OK Go had been quietly threatening to sue for months, claiming that the company had infringed the trademark rights to the band’s name by launching the new on-the-go packages earlier this month.
“Without resolution by this court, Post will be unfairly forced to continue investing in its new OK GO! brand while under the constant threat of unfounded future litigation by defendants,” the cereal company wrote in its lawsuit.
Post is seeking what’s known as a “declaratory judgment,” meaning a ruling by a judge that says the company did nothing wrong. Post says the trademark rights of a rock band like OK Go don’t extend to an unrelated product like cereal, and that the new cups of Fruity Pebbles and other cereals are clearly marked with Post’s own branding to avoid any confusion.
In a statement to Billboard, the members of OK Go said they’d been surprised to learn of Post’s lawsuit.
“A big corporation chose to steal the name of our band to market disposable plastic cups of sugar to children. That was an unwelcome surprise, to say the least,” the band wrote. “But then they sue US about it? Presumably, the idea is that they can just bully us out of our own name, since they have so much more money to spend on lawyers? I guess that’s often how it works, but hopefully, we’ll be the exception.”
According to Post’s lawsuit, the dispute with OK Go goes back many months — and court records reveal the kind of legal back-and-forth that often precedes such litigation.
Back in September, an attorney for the band sent a cease-and-desist letter to Post, saying that OK Go had been “surprised and alarmed” to see Post’s use of its name on the new products. He claimed the new brand name would “suggest to consumers that OK Go is endorsing Post’s products,” or falsely imply that the cereal company had received permission to use the band’s name on its products.
Citing advertising collaborations with brands like Sony, Mercedes Benz, Google and Chevrolet, the band’s attorney argued that consumers had come to associate the “OK Go” name with consumer products across an array of industries. And he made particular mention that the band had even previously worked with Post itself, releasing a series of promotional videos for Honey Bunches of Oats back in 2011.
“Our client regards this matter with the utmost seriousness and has authorized us to take all steps necessary in any venue to protect its rights,” OK Go’s attorney wrote in the September letter. “If we do not hear from you within 10 days of the date of this letter, we will assume that Post does not wish to resolve this matter amicably.”
A week later, an attorney representing Post responded, saying that the company must “respectfully disagree” with the band’s accusations. The attorney argued that rock music and breakfast cereal were “clearly unrelated” products and that the phrase “OK Go” was merely a common term that had previously been used by many other companies on their products. He also flatly rejected the band’s arguments about its previous work promoting Honey Bunches of Oats.
“Given the length of time that has passed since that limited collaboration over a decade ago, the very small number of views indicated on the YouTube videos you referenced, and the general consuming public’s rather short attention span, it will also have absolutely no bearing on consumer perception of Post’s mark OK GO! used with cereal or cereal-based snacks, and will not lead to any mistaken association with OK Go,” Post’s attorney wrote in the response.
According to Post’s complaint on Friday, the company offered to pay the band as part of a “good faith effort” to resolve the dispute without resorting to litigation, despite its belief that the accusations lacked legal merit. The total figure that Post offered for such a “branding collaboration/co-marketing arrangement” was not disclosed in court documents.
But the food company says OK Go rejected that offer last week and made no counter-proposal, leaving Post with no choice but to file a lawsuit. Citing a “clear threat of potential litigation,” Post wrote that the judge must rule that the company is “free to use the OK GO! Mark.”
The case was filed in federal court in Minnesota, where Post is headquartered. An attorney for Post did not immediately return a request for comment on the lawsuit.
Read the entire lawsuit here:
Kanye West’s lawyers are asking a federal judge to let them print newspaper ads announcing they’ve dropped the embattled rapper, claiming he has thus far evaded all their efforts to formally notify him that he’s been fired as a client.
Greenberg Traurig, one of the many law firms that have cut ties with West in the wake of his antisemitic statements last year, told a California federal judge on Friday (Jan. 13) that the firm had “exhausted all methods” of contacting the rapper, who has legally changed his name to Ye. The cell phone he listed is deactivated, they said, and his reps no longer work for him.
“GT has been unable to locate Ye for personal service despite its best efforts,” attorneys from the prestigious firm wrote. “GT has tried to arrange for personal service by dispatching process servers to his last known location and using all available means to contact Ye and his representatives since November but has not been successful.”
Claiming that Kanye appears to be engaged in “deliberate avoidance and obstruction,” the firm asked the judge to permit an extraordinary alternative: printing a formal public notice in Los Angeles newspapers.
“Publication of the Withdrawal Order’s contents in two Los Angeles-area newspapers, where Ye appears to reside, will also apprise him of the Withdrawal Order,” his former lawyers wrote. “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 filing came in a copyright lawsuit that alleged West had failed to pay for a sample he used in the track “Flowers” from his album Donda 2. Greenberg had represented him from the beginning of the case, but following West’s ugly statements, the firm announced publicly in October that it would withdraw: “This firm was founded by individuals who faced discrimination and many of us lost ancestors because of that kind of hate and prejudice.”
The firm got formal approval from the judge to withdraw from the case a short time later. But federal litigation rules and legal ethics require lawyers to serve clients with formal notice that they’ve been dropped; it’s this step that Greenberg says Kanye has evaded.
The request will require approval from the judge overseeing the case. West could not immediately be located for comment on Friday’s letter from his former lawyers.
In the wake of his public self-destruction last year, West has lost nearly every aspect of his once-formidable business empire. His representatives at CAA have dropped him, and his signature fashion partnerships with Adidas, The Gap and Balenciaga have all been terminated.
His lawyers have done the same. In addition to Greenberg, West has also been dropped by Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft, the prestigious Wall Street firm that repped him in his dealings with The Gap; Cohen Clair Lans Greifer Thorpe & Rottenstreich, who repped him in his divorce from Kim Kardashian; and Brown Rudnick partner Camille Vasquez, who rose to prominence representing Johnny Depp in his defamation case against Amber Heard and briefly repped West last fall. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan partner Alex Spiro, who reps Jay-Z and Elon Musk, publicly clarified that West sought to hire him but never did so.
Read Greenberg Traurig’s full letter here:
BMG Rights Management is facing a new lawsuit claiming the publisher has failed to pay royalties from Mark Ronson and Bruno Mars‘ smash hit “Uptown Funk” to the families of late members of the Gap Band who are credited as co-writers on the song.
In a complaint filed Thursday in Manhattan federal court, the heirs of Robert and Ronnie Wilson claim that BMG breached a 2015 deal that was inked because “Uptown Funk” incorporated elements of the Gap Band’s 1979 song “I Don’t Believe You Want to Get Up and Dance (Oops Upside Your Head).”
“Despite its obligations to account for and pay to plaintiffs their share of all income received from the Uptown Funk musical composition, BMG has refused and failed to provide either the funds due to plaintiffs or an accounting despite plaintiffs’ repeated demands,” the lawsuit says.
A rep for BMG did not immediately return a request for comment on the allegations on Friday. Mars and Ronson are not accused of any wrongdoing and are not named in the lawsuit.
In a statement, Wilson family attorney Michael Steger told Billboard that his clients had been “working for years” to receive credit for their contributions to “Uptown Funk” and had been “left with no choice but to pursue litigation to protect their rights.”
As reported by Billboard at the time, the songwriting credits to “Uptown Funk” were suddenly amended in 2015, months after the song was released. After the owners of “Oops Upside Your Head” filed a claim against the song on YouTube – and in the cautious aftermath of a blockbuster infringement verdict over Robin Thicke‘s “Blurred Lines” — the five co-writers of the Gap Band song were each given 3.4% stakes in the then-new track.
The new case was filed by Linda Wilson, the widow of Ronnie Wilson, and by Robin Lynn Wilson, LaTina Wilson and Robena Wilson, the heirs of Robert Wilson, over those two late band members’ respective 3.4% stakes. The other three members who received such stakes are not involved in the case.
In their complaint, the Wilson heirs called the new allegations of non-payment against BMG “yet another chapter in a long-running series of disputes” over the hit song, which spent 14 weeks atop the Hot 100 and 56 total weeks on the chart.
They aren’t wrong. In the years after “Uptown Funk” was released, at least three lawsuits were filed claiming Ronson and Mars stole elements from earlier songs. One case involved the 1983 song “Young Girls” by the band Collage; another centered on the 1980 funk song “More Bounce to the Ounce” by the band Zapp; the third alleged they copied material from the 1979 classic “Funk You Up” by The Sequence.
All three cases were later dropped or settled.
Read the entire new lawsuit against BMG here:
A Los Angeles judge has rejected Live Nation’s first attempt to end a wrongful death lawsuit over the 2021 murder of Drakeo The Ruler at a music festival, ruling that the late rapper’s family might have a valid case against the concert giant.
In a decision issued on Wednesday (Jan. 11), Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Yolanda Orozco denied Live Nation’s motion to dismiss the case at the outset, ruling that the lawsuit’s allegations, if later proven to be true, could put the company on the hook for Drakeo’s killing.
“[The lawsuit] sufficiently alleges that security was lax at the second checkpoint and that despite the presence of security guards and metal detectors, some vehicles were not adequately searched or not searched at all, thus allowing the assailants to enter the ‘all-access VIP’ area,” Judge Orozco wrote in the ruling.
Seeking to dismiss the case at the outset, Live Nation had argued that the mob attack on Drakeo backstage at the Once Upon A Time in L.A. festival was a unique tragedy and not the kind of thing a concert promoter could have “foreseen” in planning the event — a key requirement in any such negligence case. But in her ruling, Judge Orozco rejected that argument.
“The fact that defendants knew security would be needed for the event, supports the finding that the performing artists’ safety was a concern for defendants and foreseeable to defendants,” the judge wrote.
Wednesday’s ruling is not a decision on the merits of the allegations; it merely allows the case to move forward into discovery, where Drakeo’s family will be able to gather evidence. They will then need to show factual proof that their allegations are true.
A rep for Live Nation did not immediately return a request for comment on Thursday.
Then a rising star in the hip hop world, Drakeo the Ruler (real name Darrell Caldwell) was attacked by a large group of assailants and stabbed repeatedly on Dec. 18 while preparing to perform at Once Upon a Time in L.A. The rapper was rushed to the hospital in critical condition, where he later died from his injuries. The Los Angeles Police Department is investigating the attack, but no criminal charges have yet been filed and a suspect has not been named.
Drakeo’s brother, Devante Caldwell, filed the current lawsuit in February, accusing Live Nation of legal negligence over security measures at the concert that he claimed ranged from “lackadaisical to totally absent.” He said Live Nation should have known that nearby South Central Los Angeles was “rife with gang activity” and should have beefed up protection accordingly.
In seeking to toss the case out, Live Nation’s attorneys argued back in July that such generalizations were not enough to legally put the company on the hook for the attack; they said Caldwell’s lawyers needed to point to a specific previous attack that could have raised red flags for Live Nation. But on Wednesday, Judge Orozco rejected that argument — ruling that a broader awareness of danger could suffice.
“Although the occurrence of a mob/gang attack may have occurred for the first time, defendants may nevertheless be held liable if the facts show that the danger was foreseeable and/or preventable,” the judge wrote.
Devante Caldwell’s lawyer, Jovan Blacknell, did not immediately return a request for comment on the decision.
Read the entire decision here:
A lawyer for Marjorie Taylor Greene responded Wednesday to a cease and desist letter from Dr. Dre over her unlicensed use of the rapper’s 1999 smash hit “Still D.R.E.,” promising that the conservative lawmaker would make “no further use” of the song.
Two days after attorneys for Dre threatened to sue the Republican congresswoman for posting a video featuring the song to “promote your divisive and hateful political agenda,” Greene waved the white flag in a brief response.
“We are in receipt of your correspondence of January 9, 2023,” Greene’s lawyer wrote in a copy of the letter obtained by Billboard. “On behalf of Congresswoman Greene, please be advised that no further use of Mr. Young’s copyright will be made by a political committee or via social media outlet she controls.”
Notably, the response letter was signed by Stefan Passantino, a former Trump administration lawyer who briefly made headlines last month over his work representing White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson, a key witness for the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.
The video in question — posted Monday morning (Jan. 9) on Greene’s social media accounts — featured the Republican representative strutting through the halls of Congress in slow motion, grinning at the camera as Dre’s infamous piano riff from “Still D.R.E.” repeats on a loop. By Monday evening, the video had already been disabled by Twitter.
After the video was posted, Dre quickly released a public statement, saying he would never license his music to someone as “divisive and hateful” as Greene. In a letter later that day, his attorney Howard King threatened to sue for copyright infringement — warning Greene that a federal lawmaker “should be making laws not breaking laws.”
“One might expect that, as a member of Congress, you would have a passing familiarity with the laws of our country,” King wrote. “It’s possible, though, that laws governing intellectual property are a little too arcane and insufficiently populist for you to really have spent much time on.”
Wednesday’s response from Greene was exactly what was requested of her by Dre and King, who demanded that she respond with confirmation that the video had been removed by 5 p.m. ET on Wednesday. But it would not prevent the star from still choosing to sue her over the republication of his song, however briefly it existed online.
Perhaps hinting at that possibility, Greene and Passantino’s letter stressed that it should not be read as “an admission of any fact or waiver of any rights or defenses.” Dre’s lawyer King did not immediately return a request for comment on whether he would pursue additional action against Greene.
The response is a notable change of tone for Greene, who on Monday responded to Dre’s threats with a sharply-worded statement to TMZ: “While I appreciate the creative chord progression, I would never play your words of violence against women and police officers, and your glorification of the thug life and drugs.”
Singer and influencer Malú Trevejo is being sued by four former staffers for abuse.
According to the lawsuit, obtained by Billboard, plaintiffs Victoria Barreto, Ralph Colon, Edwardo Vidal and Witchneverson Lacroix allege they “endured mental, emotional, sexual and physical punishment” during their employment with the 20-year-old artist. They are now suing her for battery, defamation and sexual misconduct, among other complaints, and are seeking $4 million in damages.
Trevejo’s ex-employees — who stopped working for her between 2021 and 2022 — also claim that the Cuban-American social media star, who rose to prominence in 2017 with her first single, “Luna Llena,” berated them with racial slurs.
According to the civil lawsuit — filed in Miami against the singer and her company — Trevejo made sexual advances toward Barreto, who was hired in October 2021 as Trevejo’s personal assistant, once she began working for her. Barreto claims Trevejo asked her to “sleep with her in her bed, cuddle with her and watch television, controlling and claiming possession of” her during the course of her employment (which lasted three months). When she turned down Trevejo’s requests, Barreto “experienced increased aggression, dismissive responses” and would be called “stupid” or “dumb,” she claims.
Also in the complaint, Colon, who is listed as Trevejo’s security/bodyguard, claims he was “abused” by her one week after starting the job. According to Colon, Trevejo “frequently ignored” his security advice, “forcing” him to put himself in the line of danger in “avoidable” situations.
In a statement to Billboard, Trevejo’s attorney said, “Ms. Trevejo is aware of the false allegations in the lawsuit and looks forward to defending herself against these baseless claims.”
The lawsuit comes almost five years after Trevejo was granted a motion to disaffirm her obligations under her recording agreement with Universal Music Latino, a division of UMG Recordings. Malú asserted that her contract with Universal Music Latin was void on grounds that she was underage (14 years old) when she signed the recording and co-management agreement with Universal Music Latino imprint In-Tu Linea, adding that it was never certified by the court.
You can read the full lawsuit below.
Harry Styles is on the legal offensive to combat fake merch on the internet.
In a lawsuit filed Tuesday in Chicago federal court, the pop star sued a number of online sellers for allegedly violating his intellectual property rights by selling counterfeit merchandise to unsuspecting Harry fans.
Arguing that the counterfeiters use misleading tactics to make it “difficult for consumers to distinguish such stores from an authorized retailer,” attorneys for Styles want a judge to issue a sweeping court order that would, among other things, force big web platforms like Amazon and Etsy (who are not named as defendants) to immediately shut down the listings.
“Plaintiff is forced to file this action to combat defendants’ counterfeiting of its registered trademarks, as well as to protect unknowing consumers from purchasing counterfeit products over the Internet,” the star’s lawyers wrote.
In bringing the case, Styles is employing an anti-counterfeiting tactic that’s frequently used by big brands to fight fakes on the internet.
Such cases, filed against huge lists of URLs rather than actual people, allow brands to shut pirate sites down en masse, win court orders to freeze their assets, and continue to kill new sites if they pop up. The lawsuits also usually result in massive monetary judgments against the sellers, but those are typically hard to actually collect from elusive counterfeiters.
Notably, the counterfeiters that Styles is targeting in the lawsuit are not currently disclosed, because such lawsuits are designed to take them by surprise: “If defendants were to learn of these proceedings prematurely, the likely result would be the destruction of relevant documentary evidence and the hiding or transferring of assets to foreign jurisdictions,” the pop star’s lawyers told the judge.
Such lawsuits are more common among big retails brands — Nike, Ray-Ban, Toyota and Tommy Hilfiger have all filed nearly-identical cases in the past two months — but the music industry also regularly uses the same tactic. Nirvana sued nearly 200 sites for selling fake gear in January; a few months later, the late rapper XXXTentacion’s company filed a similar case.
In his lawsuit, Styles claimed the counterfeiters are mostly located in China, or in “other foreign jurisdictions with lax trademark enforcement system.” And he claimed they used sophisticated methods to target fans searching for Harry’s merch while avoiding detection, including “multiple fictitious aliases” and the use of meta tags.
“Tactics used by defendants to conceal their identities and the full scope of their operation make it virtually impossible for plaintiff to learn defendants’ true identities and the exact interworking of their counterfeit network,” the star’s attorneys wrote.
More than four years after gunmen killed emerging rap star XXXTentacion during a robbery outside a South Florida motorcycle shop, three suspects are now scheduled to go on trial. Shooting suspect Michael Boatwright, 28, and his accused accomplices, Dedrick Williams, 26, and Trayvon Newsome, 24, could all receive life sentences if convicted of first-degree murder. They are also charged with armed robbery. They have pleaded not guilty.
A fourth man, Robert Allen, 26, pleaded guilty to second-degree murder last year and is expected to testify against the other three. Jury selection is set to begin Jan. 18 and is expected to last three weeks. The trial is expected to last into March. In pretrial hearings, the defendants’ attorneys have suggested there were others who had financial and personal motives for killing the singer, including members of his family and other rappers.
“It’s been over four long years in the making. We are excited to take this first step to bringing Dedrick home,” said Mauricio Padilla, Williams’ attorney. The attorneys for Boatwright and Newsome did not respond to emails seeking comment. The COVID-19 pandemic and legal wrangling delayed the start of the trial.
Circuit Judge Michael Usan rejected last week an attempt by Boatwright’s attorney, Joseph Kimok, to have him declared mentally incompetent to stand trial. He also rejected a motion by the defendants’ attorneys to try the three separately.
They argued that evidence presented against just one defendant would be prejudicial to the other two. They also argued that each defense attorney could try to establish his client’s innocence or mitigate his guilt by pointing fingers at the other two suspects — they argued that would unfairly prejudice the jury against the trio. Prosecutor Pascale Achille told Usan that any evidence presented would pertain to all three.
Usan ruled the defense attorneys’ arguments could apply in all trials where there are multiple defendants, but in this case they don’t outweigh the needs of “judicial economy” to not hold three trials if not absolutely required.
XXXTentacion, whose real name was Jahseh Onfroy, had just left Riva Motorsports in suburban Fort Lauderdale on June 18, 2018, with a friend when his BMW was blocked by an SUV that swerved in front. Two masked gunmen emerged, confronted XXXTentacion at the driver’s window and one shot him. They then grabbed a Louis Vuitton bag containing $50,000 cash the singer had just withdrawn from the bank, got back into the SUV and sped away.
XXXTentacion, 20, died at the hospital shortly after. He pronounced his name “Ex ex ex ten-ta-see-YAWN” and was a platinum-selling rising star who tackled issues including prejudice and depression in his songs. He also drew criticism over bad behavior and multiple arrests, including charges that he severely beat and abused his girlfriend.
Investigators say surveillance video from the store and other evidence links the three defendants and Allen to the killing.
They say video shows the SUV arriving at the motorcycle shop just as XXXTentacion and his friend entered. Williams and Allen followed them inside, with Williams making a small purchase. They then walked back to the SUV. About 10 minutes later, XXXTentacion and his friend tried to leave, but the SUV blocked them. Prosecutors say Boatwright and Newsome were the gunmen who confronted the rapper, with Boatwright firing the fatal shots.
Investigators say Boatwright’s fingerprints were found on the driver’s door of the rapper’s BMW. Williams was identified by a Riva Motorsports clerk, who said he was a regular customer. Williams told investigators he did not know the other three were planning a robbery.
A search of Williams’ social media showed photos of him with Allen, who was then identified from the surveillance video. Williams’ girlfriend told investigators that he told her that the other gunman was Newsome. They say cellphone data also links the defendants to the scene.
Photos of Boatwright and Newsome holding up large amounts of $100 bills, timestamped on the night of the killing, were also found on their phones, prosecutors say.
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: A huge group of artists push to clear up uncertainty about termination rights and streaming royalties, Dr. Dre threatens to sue Marjorie Taylor Greene, the man accused of murdering Takeoff is released on bond, and more.
Sign up for the free email version of The Legal Beat here.
THE BIG STORY: Top Artists Demand Streaming Royalties Rule
When I first reported in October that the U.S. Copyright Office was looking to enact an “obscure” rule change about termination rights and streaming royalties, I received a bit of light-hearted criticism from some folks who had been following the issue closely. They conceded that the subject matter was complex — it’s mind-meltingly complex, trust me — but also said that the stakes were huge.
I guess others agree: In a letter sent last week, more than 350 artists, songwriters, managers and lawyers threw their weight behind the Copyright Office’s proposed rule change, saying they were worried about music creators being “deprived of the rights afforded to them by copyright law.” Signed by Don Henley, Sheryl Crow, Sting, Bob Seger, Maren Morris, John Mayer, Dave Matthews, members of The Black Keys and many others, the letter said that opposition to the agency’s new rule would constitute “a vote against songwriters.”
What’s this new rule they’re so fired up about? As mentioned, it’s pretty arcane stuff. (Go read our explainer if you want more details.) But basically:
The group created by the Music Modernization Act in 2018 to collect mechanical royalties from streaming services (the Mechanical Licensing Collective, or MLC) enacted a new policy in 2021, dealing with who should receive such royalties after a songwriter invokes their termination right. Termination is a provision under copyright law that allows creators to take back control of their works decades after signing them away to a publisher. The problem? The MLC’s new policy seemed to say that if a song had already been uploaded to Spotify’s server prior to when a songwriter invoked their termination right, those royalties would need to keep flowing to their old publisher — seemingly forever — regardless of who now owned them.
That bizarre outcome would seem to be at odds with the basic point of termination, which is designed to help original creators finally derive value from their own works. So in October, the Copyright Office proposed a new rule requiring the MLC to “immediately repeal its policy in full,” calling it an “erroneous” reading of the law. And last week, spurred by groups like the Music Artists Coalition, a huge number of influential members of the music industry said they agreed.
Some of the wording of the letter — about a “vote against songwriters” — was pretty ominous. But it doesn’t seem like there’s any real industry opposition to the Copyright Office’s change. The National Music Publishers’ Association has quibbles about how such changes are enacted, fearing that they might lead to uncertainty and litigation over past practices. But the group says it fully supports a rule change and the goal of making sure that terminating songwriters actually get paid.
Will the Copyright Office enact the new rule as originally proposed, or make changes when the final rule is released? We’ll let you know what the final rule looks like — and whether everyone likes it.
Other top stories this week…
DR. DRE WARNS REPUBLICAN – Dr. Dre sent a scathing cease-and-desist letter to Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, threatening the conservative lawmaker with a copyright lawsuit for using the rapper’s 1999 smash hit “Still D.R.E.” without permission in a social media post. “One might expect that, as a member of Congress, you would have a passing familiarity with the laws of our country,” the letter read.
MORE MUSIC TROUBLE FOR TRILLER – Universal Music Group filed a lawsuit against Triller over allegations that the video-sharing app has failed to make payments for months under its music licensing agreements, despite “lavish” spending elsewhere.
MIGOS MURDER SUSPECT RELEASED – Patrick Xavier Clark, the man accused of murdering Migos rapper Takeoff, was released from a Houston jail after posting a $1 million bond. He was placed under house arrest and will be subject to GPS monitoring.
LAWSUIT OVER UMG’S SPOTIFY STAKE – ’90s hip-hop duo Black Sheep filed a class action against Universal Music Group over the label’s ownership stake in Spotify, claiming UMG has accepted low royalties in return for stock in the streaming service. Seeking to represent thousands of others, the case says UMG is “withholding hundreds of millions of dollars in royalties.”
SONY SETTLES FUTURE CASE – Sony Music reached a settlement to end a lawsuit that claimed the name of Future’s chart-topping album High Off Life infringed the trademark rights of a company called High Off Life LLC, a creative agency that says it’s used the name for years.
ROCKER ARRESTED ON GUN CHARGES – Matt Shultz, the lead singer of the band Cage the Elephant, was arrested in New York City and hit with two charges of criminal possession of a weapon after police found two loaded firearms in his room at the Bowery Hotel.
MARILYN MANSON CASE DROPPED – A federal judge tossed out one of the several sexual abuse lawsuits filed against Marilyn Manson, dismissing a case filed by model Ashley Morgan Smithline because she failed to retain a new lawyer after splitting with her old legal team last fall.
GLORIA TREVI ABUSE SUIT – Mexican pop star Gloria Trevi was hit with a new lawsuit over a decades-old claim of sexual assault against two minors, who alleged the singer “groomed” and “exploited” them when they were between the ages of 13 and 15 back in the early 1990s. Trevi strongly denied the accusations, saying she’d been “totally acquitted” when such claims were made in a criminal case in Mexico in the 2000s.
Lawyers for Dr. Dre sent a scathing cease-and-desist letter to Marjorie Taylor Greene on Monday (Jan. 9), threatening her with legal action after she used the rapper’s 1999 smash hit “Still D.R.E.” without permission in a social media post.
Hours after the superstar publicly slammed the Republican congresswoman over the post — he said he’d never license his song to someone so “divisive and hateful” — his lawyers formally told Taylor Greene that her post constituted copyright infringement and that she had until Wednesday to remove it.
“You are wrongfully exploiting his work through the various social media outlets to promote your divisive and hateful political agenda,” wrote attorney Howard King in a copy of the letter obtained by Billboard.
The video in question — posted Monday morning on Greene’s social media accounts — features the Republican representative strutting through the halls of Congress in slow motion, grinning at the camera as Dre’s infamous piano riff from “Still D.R.E.” repeats on a loop. By Monday evening, the video had already been disabled by Twitter.
If actually unlicensed, the use of a copyrighted song in a political advertisement would almost certainly constitute infringement. In Monday’s letter, Dre’s lawyers told Greene as much — and then some.
“The United States Copyright Act says a lot of things, one of the things it says is that you can’t use someone else’s song for your political campaign promotions unless you get permission from the owner of the copyright in the song, a step you failed to take,” King wrote.
Top artists have long chafed at the use of their music by politicians, particularly conservatives. Foo Fighters and John Mellencamp blasted John McCain for using their music during the 2008 presidential election, and Neil Young, Guns N’ Roses, Pharrell, Rihanna and the estate of Tom Petty have all spoken out about their music being used at campaign events for Donald Trump.
Owing to the complex thicket of blanket licenses that govern the public performance of music, it’s actually more complicated than you might expect for artists to prevent their music from being played at political rallies. But the use of music in a video advertisement is far more straightforward; if a politician doesn’t secure a license, a musician has a great case for copyright infringement.
In Monday’s letter, Dre’s lawyers said that a federal lawmaker ought to know that.
“One might expect that, as a member of Congress, you would have a passing familiarity with the laws of our country,” King wrote. “It’s possible, though, that laws governing intellectual property are a little too arcane and insufficiently populist for you to really have spent much time on. We’re writing because we think an actual lawmaker should be making laws not breaking laws, especially those embodied in the constitution by the founding fathers.”
Greene’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Billboard, but she reportedly told TMZ: “While I appreciate the creative chord progression, I would never play your words of violence against women and police officers, and your glorification of the thug life and drugs.”
