Legal News
Page: 23
Kelsea Ballerini has reached a settlement to end her lawsuit against a superfan she had accused of leaking her unreleased album, agreeing to drop the case after the alleged hacker promised to never again share the materials.
Ballerini sued Bo Ewing in April over accusations that he hacked her unfinished album and shared it with a fan club. The country star claimed Ewing — allegedly an ex-fan who had become disillusioned with her — had gained illegal “back-door access” to song still in production.
But Ewing’s lawyers quickly promised to stop sharing her songs and to name names of any people he’d already sent them to, suggesting he was unwilling to fight Ballerini’s lawsuit. And in a Monday filing signed by both sides, Ewing agreed to permanently be barred from leaking the star’s songs.
Trending on Billboard
“Defendant is enjoined from knowingly or purposefully accessing any unreleased recordings, unreleased performances, unreleased videos, or any other unreleased content created by, believed to have been created by, or otherwise associated with plaintiffs in any form,” the two sides wrote in a joint filing. “Defendant is enjoined further accessing any of the recordings that are the subject of this litigation and which defendant has affirmatively declared are no longer in his possession.”
In return for such an agreement, Ballerini asked the judge overseeing the case to dismiss her lawsuit permanently. Any other specific terms of the settlement, including potential monetary payments, were not disclosed in court filings. Neither side immediately returned requests for comment on Tuesday.
Ballerini filed the case in April, claiming she had been the victim of a “nefarious digital attack” carried out by “unscrupulous individuals seeking attention.” The leak not only undercut “the most critical time” for an album’s commercial success, her attorneys said, but also deprived her of her artistic agency.
“Ms. Ballerini and her team are the only people who can say when the recordings are complete,” her lawyers wrote at the time. “Defendant’s actions have stripped plaintiffs of that right and caused the distribution of unfinished work that may not yet be up to plaintiffs’ high professional standards.”
Almost immediately, though, Ewing agreed to play ball with Ballerini’s attorneys. In a filing just days after he was sued, he agreed to be bound by a preliminary injunction that required him divulge who he has already shared them with and how he came into possession of her music.
“Defendant shall, within thirty days of entry of this order, provide plaintiffs with the names and contact information for all people to whom defendant disseminated the recordings,” the agreement reads. “Defendant shall use his best efforts to disclose to Plaintiffs from whom and by what means he obtained the recordings.”
The names of any alleged co-leakers were not disclosed in court filings, and it’s unclear if Ballerini will take further legal action against any others who may have been involved the alleged hack.
A filmmaker is suing Warner Music over the 2021 Tom Petty documentary Somewhere You Feel Free, calling the movie a “brazen exploitation” that used nearly an hour of his copyrighted film footage without permission.
In a lawsuit filed last week in Los Angeles federal court, Martyn Atkins says he never gave the Somewhere producers consent to use hours of footage he filmed of the music legend during the 1990s but that the movie nonetheless contained “a shocking 45 minutes” of his materials.
“Atkins did not provide consent, did not otherwise license any of the footage, and was not compensated in any manner for the Film’s unauthorized, brazen exploitation of the works Atkins created and owns,” his attorneys wrote in a June 18 complaint.
Trending on Billboard
Released in March 2021, Somewhere You Feel Free promised viewers “never-before-seen footage” of Petty as he worked on his 1994 album Wildflowers. Much of the footage was filmed by Atkins, who served as art director for the album and says he often documented the proceedings with a 16mm camera. Later, Atkins says he and the music legend watched the footage and discussed eventually using it to create such a documentary.
But after Petty’s tragic death in 2017, the project didn’t come together until 2020, when Atkins says he was invited to a meeting with Petty’s daughter and other reps from his estate. After they promised him the job of directing the upcoming documentary, Atkins says, he provided them with a detailed breakdown of where he had stored the original footage at Warner Music’s storage facility.
But after that first encounter, he says he was “never asked to another meeting.”
“Atkins had been conned into believing he would produce and direct the film so that Atkins would reveal the location of his footage to defendants,” his lawyers write. “He was then cut out completely — in every imaginable respect. He was not even told as a courtesy that his works would be misappropriated and featured, let alone asked his consent.”
When he saw the movie, Atkins says he says he was shocked at what he saw: Roughly half of the movie’s 90-minute runtime was composed of his footage, including some of the “most compelling and iconic shots of Petty” in the movie. “Atkins simply could not believe it.”
A likely defense argument from Warner Music is that Atkins produced the footage as a so-called work-for-hire — a legal term meaning he created it at the request of someone else. If true, that would mean that even though Atkins filmed the footage, the rights to it were retained by Petty or the label. After all, he was the art director on Petty’s album and stored the film in Warner’s facilities.
But in his lawsuit, Atkins specifically aimed to preempt that argument: “The footage Atkins shot … was not subject to a work-for-hire or other such agreement. Atkins did not license the footage to Petty, Warner Records, any Warner Records affiliate, or anybody else. He was not acting as an employee of Petty or Warner Records, or any other party [and] here is no agreement in existence relating to any of the film footage.”
Beyond simply using the footage, the lawsuit claims that Somewhere‘s producers have “repeatedly misrepresented” that the footage was “magically and unexpectedly discovered” before the documentary was shot. “The film’s producers have systematically implemented this false narrative to manipulate the viewing public and bolster the marketing of the film,” the complaint reads.
In technical terms, the lawsuit names Warner Music unit WMG Productions LLC, as well as the film’s production company, Girl On LSD LLC. The lawsuit includes counts of direct and secondary copyright infringement and a claim that the defendants effectively stole his property.
Read the entire lawsuit here:
The three major music companies filed lawsuits against AI music companies Suno and Udio on Monday, alleging the widespread infringement of copyrighted sound recordings “at an almost unimaginable scale.” The lawsuits, spearheaded by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), arrive four days after Billboard first reported the news the labels were seriously considering legal action against the two start-ups.
Filed by plaintiffs that include Sony Music, Warner Music Group and Universal Music Group, the lawsuits allege that Suno and Udio have unlawfully copied the labels’ sound recordings to train their AI models to generate music that could “saturate the market with machine-generated content that will directly compete with, cheapen and ultimately drown out the genuine sound recordings on which [the services were] built.”
“Building and operating [these services] requires at the outset copying and ingesting massive amounts of data to ‘train’ a software ‘model’ to generate outputs,” the lawyers for the major labels explain. “For [these services], this process involved copying decades worth of the world’s most popular sound recordings and then ingesting those copies [to] generate outputs that imitate the qualities of genuine human sound recordings.”
Trending on Billboard
“Since the day it launched, Udio has flouted the rights of copyright owners in the music industry as part of a mad dash to become the dominant AI music generation service,” the lawsuit against Udio reads. “Neither Udio, nor any other generative AI company, can be allowed to advance toward this goal by trampling the rights of copyright owners.”
The lawsuit is seeking both an injunction to bar the companies from continuing to train on the copyrighted songs, as well as damages from the infringements that have already taken place. Neither Suno nor Udio immediately returned requests for comment on Monday.
Suno and Udio have quickly become two of the most advanced and important players in the emerging field of generative AI music. While many competitors only create instrumentals or lyrics or vocals, Suno and Udio can generate all three in the click of a button with shocking precision. Udio has already produced what could be considered the first AI-generated hit song with the Drake diss track “BBL Drizzy,” which was generated on the platform by comedian King Willonius and popularized by a Metro Boomin remix. Suno has also achieved early success since its December 2023 launch, raising $125 million in funding from investors like Lightspeed Venture Partners, Matrix, Nat Friedman and Daniel Gross.
Both companies have declined to comment on whether or not unlicensed copyrights were part of their datasets. In a previous interview with Billboard, Udio co-founder David Ding said simply that the company trained on “good music.” However, in a series of articles for Music Business Worldwide, founder of AI music safety nonprofit Fairly Trained, Ed Newton-Rex, found that he was able to generate music from Suno and Udio that “bears a striking resemblance to copyrighted music. This is true across melody, chords, style and lyrics,” he wrote.
The complaints against the two companies also make the case that copyrighted material was used to train these models. Some of the circumstantial evidence cited in the lawsuits include generated songs by Suno and Udio that sound just like the voices of Bruce Springsteen, Lin-Manuel Miranda, Michael Jackson and ABBA; outputs that parrot the producer tags of Cash Money AP and Jason Derulo; and outputs that sound nearly identical to Mariah Carey’s “All I Want For Christmas Is You,” The Beach Boys’ “I Get Around,” ABBA’s “Dancing Queen,” The Temptations’ “My Girl,” Green Day’s “American Idiot,” and more.
In a recent Rolling Stone profile of Suno, investor Antonio Rodriguez admitted that the start-up does not have licenses for whatever music it has trained on but added that it was not a concern to him. Knowing that labels and publishers could sue was just “the risk we had to underwrite when we invested in the company, because we’re the fat wallet that will get sued right behind these guys… Honestly, if we had deals with labels when this company got started, I probably wouldn’t have invested in it. I think that they needed to make this product without the constraints.”
Many AI companies argue that training is protected by copyright’s fair use doctrine — an important rule that allows people to reuse protected works without breaking the law. Though fair use has historically allowed for things like news reporting and parody, AI firms say it applies equally to the “intermediate” use of millions of works to build a machine that spits out entirely new creations.
Anticipating that defense from Suno and Udio, the lawyers for the major labels argue that “[Suno and Udio] cannot avoid liability for [their] willful copyright infringement by claiming fair use. The doctrine of fair use promotes human expression by permitting the unlicensed use of copyrighted works in certain, limited circumstances, but [the services] offe[r] imitative machine-generated music—not human creativity or expression.”
News of the complaints filed against Suno and Udio follow up a previous lawsuit that also concerned the use of copyrighted materials to train models without a license. Filed by UMG, Concord and ABKCO in October against Anthropic, a major AI company, that case focused more specifically on copied lyrics.
In a statement about the lawsuits, RIAA CEO and chairman Mitch Glazier says, “The music community has embraced AI and we are already partnering and collaborating with responsible developers to build sustainable AI tools centered on human creativity that put artists and songwriters in charge. But we can only succeed if developers are willing to work together with us. Unlicensed services like Suno and Udio that claim it’s ‘fair’ to copy an artist’s life’s work and exploit it for their own profit without consent or pay set back the promise of genuinely innovative AI for us all.”
RIAA Chief Legal Officer Ken Doroshow adds, “These are straightforward cases of copyright infringement involving unlicensed copying of sound recordings on a massive scale. Suno and Udio are attempting to hide the full scope of their infringement rather than putting their services on a sound and lawful footing. These lawsuits are necessary to reinforce the most basic rules of the road for the responsible, ethical, and lawful development of generative AI systems and to bring Suno’s and Udio’s blatant infringement to an end.”
Ye (formerly Kanye West) has finalized a settlement with the estate of Donna Summer to resolve a copyright lawsuit that accused him of “shamelessly” using her 1977 hit “I Feel Love” without permission in his song “Good (Don’t Die).”
In court filings on Thursday, attorneys for both sides said they had “entered into a settlement agreement that is a full and final settlement of all of the claims in the action” and that each side would pay its own legal bills from the dispute. Neither side immediately returned requests for more information on the specific terms of the agreement.
The final settlement, first announced in court filings last month, comes less than four months after Summer’s estate sued the rapper for allegedly interpolating her track in “Good,” which he released on his chart-topping Vultures 1 album.
Trending on Billboard
Making good on threats to sue issued publicly weeks earlier, the estate’s attorneys claimed at the time that the rapper had “shamelessly used instantly recognizable portions” of her song in his track, despite the fact that her estate had already “explicitly denied” him authorization to do so.
“Summer’s estate … wanted no association with West’s controversial history and specifically rejected West’s proposed use,” her attorneys write. “In the face of this rejection, defendants arrogantly and unilaterally decided they would simply steal ‘I Feel Love’ and use it without permission.”
The Summer estate’s lawyers say Ye re-recorded “almost verbatim” the key portions of her song and then used them as the hook for his own. The estate claims the songs were so similar that fans and critics “instantly recognized” his track as a “blatant rip-off.” The lawsuit also named album collaborator Ty Dolla $ign (Tyrone William Griffin Jr.) as a defendant.
Before the case was even filed, “Good” had been pulled from streaming platforms and removed from digital download versions of the album. As of Friday, the song is still not included on Vultures 1 on Spotify, Apple Music or Amazon Music, though it’s available on YouTube from unofficial accounts.
It is unclear if Thursday’s settlement will allow Ye’s song to return to official circulation, or merely resolve the allegations of past copyright infringement over its initial use of Summer’s song. Attorneys for Ye, Ty Dolla and the estate did not respond to messages asking about the status of the song.
But at least in their initial lawsuit, the Summer estate did not seem to open to collecting an ongoing royalty from the controversial rapper.
“This lawsuit is about more than Defendants’ mere failure to pay the appropriate licensing fee for using another’s musical property. It is also about the rights of artists to decide how their works are used and presented to the public, and the need to prevent anyone from simply stealing creative works when they cannot secure the right to use them legally.”
Ye has been sued repeatedly for uncleared samples and interpolations in his music.
In 2022, he was hit with a lawsuit claiming his song “Life of the Party” illegally sampled a song by the pioneering rap group Boogie Down Productions; accused in another case over allegations that he used an uncleared snippet of Marshall Jefferson’s 1986 house track “Move Your Body” in the song “Flowers”; and sued in a different case by a Texas pastor for allegedly sampling from his recorded sermon in “Come to Life.”
Before that, West and Pusha T were sued in 2019 for sampling George Jackson‘s “I Can’t Do Without You” on the track “Come Back Baby.” That same year, he was sued for allegedly using an audio snippet of a young girl praying in his 2016 song “Ultralight Beam.” Further back, West was hit with similar cases over allegedly unlicensed samples used in “New Slaves,” “Bound 2” and “My Joy.”
One of Young Thug’s co-defendants is asking the Georgia Supreme Court to force the judge overseeing the rapper’s high-profile gang trial to recuse himself, arguing that a secret meeting with prosecutors and a witness was a serious violation of judicial ethics.
Judge Ural Glanville himself has already repeatedly refused requests from Thug’s attorney Brian Steel and other defense lawyers that he step aside over allegations about the so-called ex parte meeting – and instead ordered Steel jailed after he refused to divulge how he learned of it.
So on Thursday, lawyers for fellow rapper and co-defendant Yak Gotti (Deamonte Kendrick) filed an emergency petition asking the state’s high court to force Glanville to do so.
Trending on Billboard
“Glanville’s actions offend public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary,” wrote Yak Gotti’s attorney Doug Weinstein. “An appearance of impropriety and bias hangs over the present trial due to Glanville’s failure to follow the law.”
If the petition is granted, it would be the second time Georgia’s Supreme Court has jumped into the YSL trial. Last week, the high court hit pause on Steel’s jail sentence and agreed to review the judge’s decision to hold the lawyer in contempt.
Thug (Jeffery Williams) and dozens of others were indicted in May 2022 over allegations that his “YSL” was not really a record label called “Young Stoner Life” but rather a violent Atlanta gang called “Young Slime Life.” Prosecutors claim the group committed murders, carjackings, armed robberies, drug dealing and other crimes over the course of a decade. After kicking off in January 2023, the trial is already the longest in Georgia state history and is expected to run until early next year.
In an extraordinary courtroom episode last week, Steel revealed that he had learned of an ex parte meeting between Glanville, prosecutors and a witness named Kenneth Copeland. Steel argued that such a meeting, without defense counsel present, was clear grounds for a mistrial. He claimed Glanville had helped prosecutors coerce the uncooperative Copeland into testifying with threats of extended jail time.
Copeland is a central witness for the entire racketeering case against Thug and the other alleged YSL members, but he’s particularly important for the case against Yak Gotti. His testimony pertains to the 2015 murder of Donovan “Nut” Thomas Jr., which Gotti and fellow defendant Shannon Stillwell are directly charged with committing.
Rather than address Steel’s complaints, Glanville instead demanded to know how he had learned of the meeting, suggesting that it had been the result of an illegal leak. The judge eventually held Steel in contempt of court when the lawyer refused to name names, sentencing him to serve 20 days in county jail as punishment.
Earlier this week, Steel and other defense attorneys later demanded that the judge step aside from the case over the incident. In his motion, Thug’s attorney argued that Glanville had “forfeited [his] role as an impartial judge and has become a member of the prosecution team.” But the judge quickly denied the request, saying it was based on “bare assertions and legal conclusions.”
In his petition to the Supreme Court, Yak Gotti’s attorney Weinstein echoed Steel’s arguments. He said the allegations against the judge “casts a pall” over the ongoing case and represents “obstruction of defendant’s right to a fair and impartial trial.”
“Defense counsel should have been afforded an opportunity to attend any hearing where a sworn witness in a critical stage of the trial is being coerced to testify,” Weinstein wrote. “The only logical conclusion for the secret nature of the proceeding was to give Glanville in conjunction with the State the unfettered ability to harass and intimidate the sworn witness into testifying.”
TikTok disclosed a letter Thursday that accused the Biden administration of engaging in “political demagoguery” during high-stakes negotiations between the government and the company as it sought to relieve concerns about its presence in the U.S.
The letter — sent to David Newman, a top official in the Justice Department’s national security division, before President Biden signed the potential TikTok ban into law — was submitted in federal court along with a legal brief supporting the company’s lawsuit against measure. TikTok’s Beijing-based parent company ByteDance is also a plaintiff in the lawsuit, which is expected to be one of the biggest legal battles in tech and internet history.
The internal documents provide details about negotiations between TikTok and the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a secretive inter-agency panel that investigates corporate deals over national security concerns, between January 2021 and August 2022.
Trending on Billboard
TikTok has said those talks ultimately resulted in a 90-page draft security agreement that would have required the company to implement more robust safeguards around U.S. user data. It would have also required TikTok to put in a “kill switch” that would have allowed CFIUS to suspend the platform if it was found to be non-compliant with the agreement.
CFIUS did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The Justice Department said it is looking forward to defending the recently enacted legislation, which it says addresses “critical national security concerns in a manner that is consistent with the First Amendment and other constitutional limitations.”
“Alongside others in our intelligence community and in Congress, the Justice Department has consistently warned about the threat of autocratic nations that can weaponize technology — such as the apps and software that run on our phones – to use against us,” the statement said. “This threat is compounded when those autocratic nations require companies under their control to turn over sensitive data to the government in secret.”
The letter sent to Newman details additional meetings between TikTok and government officials since then, including a March 2023 call the company said was arranged by Paul Rosen, the U.S. Treasury’s undersecretary for investment security.
According to TikTok, Rosen told the company that “senior government officials” deemed the draft agreement to be insufficient to address the government’s national security concerns. Rosen also said a solution would have to involve a divestment by ByteDance and the migration of the social platform’s source code, or its fundamental programming, out of China.
TikTok’s lawsuit has painted divestment as a technological impossibility since the law requires all of TikTok’s millions of lines of code to be wrested from ByteDance so that there would be no “operational relationship” between the Chinese company and the new U.S. app.
After the Wall Street Journal reported in March 2023 that CFIUS had threatened ByteDance to divest TikTok or face a ban, TikTok’s attorneys held another call with senior staff from the Justice and Treasury departments where they said leaks to the media by government officials were “problematic and damaging.”
That call was followed by an in-person meeting in May 2023 between TikTok’s attorneys, technical experts and senior staff at the Treasury Department focused on data safety measures and TikTok’s source code, the company’s attorneys said. The last meeting with CFIUS occurred in September 2023.
In the letter to Newman, TikTok’s attorneys say CFIUS provides a constructive way to address the government’s concern. However, they added, the agency can only serve this purpose when the law – which imposes confidentiality – and regulations “are followed and both sides are engaged in good-faith discussions, as opposed to political subterfuge, where CFIUS negotiations are misappropriated for legislative purposes.”
The legal brief also shared details of, but does not include, a one-page document the Justice Department allegedly provided to members of Congress in March, a month before they passed the federal bill that would require the platform to be sold to an approved buyer or face a ban.
TikTok’s attorneys said the document asserted TikTok collects sensitive data without alleging the Chinese government has ever obtained such data. According to the company, the document also alleged that TikTok’s algorithm creates the potential for China to influence content on the platform without alleging the country has ever done so.
A federal judge says Megan Thee Stallion didn’t copy her chart-topping “Savage” from an earlier song, ruling there’s no evidence the superstar has ever even heard the little-known instrumental track.
In a decision issued Tuesday (June 18), Judge Katherine Polk Failla dismissed a lawsuit filed last year by producer James A. Greene, who claimed that Megan’s mega-hit infringed the copyrights to his own song “It’s About To Be On.”
Green claimed he had “no doubt” that “Savage” infringed his rights, but Judge Failla ruled that the two songs were clearly different.
Trending on Billboard
“Plaintiff’s work is an instrumental piece, with little variety in sounds and instruments used throughout,” the judge wrote. “By contrast, ‘Savage’ is a pop song, featuring lyrics as well as a more upbeat tempo. Plaintiff’s work is qualitatively different from ‘Savage,’ and any similarities implicate common, non-copyrightable elements of any song.”
The judge also ruled that the case was flawed for a simpler reason: That it was unlikely Megan and her co-writers had “access” to his song to copy it — a key element in any copyright lawsuit. Green had argued that he passed along CDs in the early 2000s to someone who might have later given them to “Savage” producer J. White Did It.
But Judge Failla said that wasn’t enough: “Plaintiff is unable to allege any chain of events that creates anything more than the ‘bare possibility’ that defendants gained access to plaintiff’s work.”
The judge also ruled that Green’s song was not popular enough that Megan might have heard it on her own: “At best, plaintiff alleges that he undertook his own efforts to distribute the work throughout the music industry to A&R’s, management teams, etc.,” Judge Failla wrote. “Yet such efforts alone fall short of widespread distribution.”
Greene sued Megan (Megan Pete), J. White (Anthony White) and Warner Music Group last year, claiming “Savage” had borrowed material from his “It’s About To Be On,” a three-minute instrumental track he says he released in 1999. He claimed that the two songs shared the same drum pattern and piano note pattern as well as similar siren sounds.
But in Thursday’s ruling, Judge Failla said each of those elements was different in Megan’s song, including the siren sounds.
“In [Green’s song], the siren sound is an atonal chord that appears to be created using a synthesizer,” the judge said. “By contrast, in ‘Savage,’ the alleged siren sound is not a siren at all, but rather is a distorted vocal sample. Put simply, no reasonable listener would discern any similarity.”
Neither side immediately returned a request for comment on Thursday (June 20).
Two Madonna fans have now dropped their lawsuit complaining about delayed starts to her concerts, but the star’s lawyers are emphatic that the move was “not the result of any settlement” and are warning they might even seek penalties over the “frivolous” case.
In a motion filed in federal court Wednesday (June 19), lawyers for the aggrieved fans said they would permanently drop the case, in which they accused Madonna and Live Nation of breaking laws by making fans wait for hours at December concerts in Brooklyn on her Celebration Tour.
But later that same day, Madonna and Live Nation’s lawyers fired off a letter to the judge advising him that the move to drop the case had been made “unilaterally” by the other side — and that they had not reached any kind of agreement to end a case they say should never have been filed.
Trending on Billboard
“Defendants believe that this action was a frivolous strike suit designed to force them to incur legal expenses,” the star’s lawyers write. “Plaintiffs have now abandoned this lawsuit when it became clear that this approach would not result in a settlement payment and that they would need to oppose defendants’ motion.”
The motion to drop the case said that each side would “bear its own fees and costs,” but Madonna’s lawyers said in their letter that they had never agreed to that — and that they might still demand that the plaintiffs repay the money they were forced to spend litigating the short-lived lawsuit.
“Given the legal expenses that defendants were forced to incur to defend this action … defendants reserve the right to move for sanctions, attorneys’ fees, and costs,” lawyers for Madonna and Live Nation write.
An attorney for the plaintiffs, Michael Fellows and Jason Alvarez, did not immediately return a request for comment on Thursday (June 20).
Madonna and Live Nation were first sued in January over the Brooklyn shows — a case that made headlines because it claimed the fans “had to get up early to go to work” the next day. She was later hit with a similar case in Washington, D.C., that claimed fans had waited in an “uncomfortably hot” arena and that she had lip-synched portions of the show. A third case, filed last month, echoed those claims but also alleged that Madonna’s show in Los Angeles had been unexpectedly “pornographic.”
All three cases have been filed as class actions, seeking to represent potentially thousands of other fans who also endured the alleged delays. By starting the concerts later than expected, the cases claim Madonna and Live Nation breached their contracts with fans and violated state consumer protection laws.
Madonna’s attorneys have strongly rejected those accusations. In a request to dismiss the New York case earlier this year, her lawyers argued that simply needing to wake up early was not the kind of “cognizable injury” that can form the basis for a lawsuit. And they say that anyone buying a concert ticket is well aware that a show likely won’t start at the exact time printed on the ticket.
“No reasonable concertgoer — and certainly no Madonna fan — would expect the headline act at a major arena concert to take the stage at the ticketed event time,” her legal team wrote in April.
While Wednesday’s dismissal means that the New York case is now closed, the D.C. and Los Angeles lawsuits remain pending.
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: Wu-Tang Clan’s one-of-a-kind album is at the center of a lawsuit against Martin Shkreli; Justin Timberlake faces a drunk driving charge; Young Thug’s lawyer avoids jail and demands that a judge recuse himself; Drake is sued by Members Only for trademark infringement; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: Once Upon A Time In Court
When the Wu-Tang Clan auctioned off their one-of-a-kind album Once Upon a Time in Shaolin to Martin Shkreli in 2015, the deal was famous for its kooky restrictions. A rumor about a clause allowing Bill Murray to steal the CD in a heist turned out to be fictional, but the deal really did include a requirement that the music could not be released to the general public until 2103. Needless to say, a lot has changed since then. Shkreli soon became the hated “Pharma Bro” who spiked the price of crucial AIDS medications; he then forfeited the album to federal prosecutors after he was convicted on securities fraud charges. Years later, the government then re-sold Shaolin to a group called PleasrDAO. But those weird contractual restrictions came back into the picture twice this past week — first when Pleasr sued Shkreli for threatening to leak the album online, and again when Pleasr itself said it would be offering fans the chance to buy a snippet of the mysterious album for just $1. Go read our full story on the lawsuit against Shkreli, which Billboard will be monitoring closely as it moves forward in court. And then go read our deep-dive into how a famously restricted album is being “offered to the public” decades earlier than it was supposed to be.
Trending on Billboard
Other top stories this week…
TIMBERLAKE ARREST – Justin Timberlake was arrested in the Hamptons on suspicion of driving while intoxicated after a police officer pulled him over for running a stop sign and failing to stay in his lane. According to court records, Timberlake told police he “had one martini and I followed my friends home,” but his “eyes were bloodshot and glassy” and the officer smelled “a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage” before he failed a field sobriety test.NO JAIL FOR THUG’S LAWYER – Young Thug’s attorney in his Atlanta gang trial isn’t going to jail — at least not for now. Days after Judge Ural Glanville held Brian Steel in contempt over a bizarre courtroom episode centered on claims of a secret meeting between the judge, prosecutors and a key witness, Georgia’s Supreme Court hit pause on Steel’s sentence while it reviews the judge’s decision. RECUSAL REFUSAL – Meanwhile, Steel demanded that Glanville recuse himself from the case, arguing that the secret meeting was an “unforgiveable” error and that the judge had “forfeited its role as an impartial judge and has become a member of the prosecution team.” The judge quickly denied the motion, saying Steel had provided only “bare assertions and legal conclusions.” MEMBERS ONLY v. DRAKE – Drake’s production company was hit with a lawsuit from the apparel brand Members Only, which claims that he’s been selling tour merch that infringed the company’s trademarks. The superstar’s concert t-shirts are a reference to a track of the same name on his 2023 album For All the Dogs, but the lawsuit says that’s no excuse. CARTEL CONCERTS? Angel Del Villar, the CEO of Los Angeles-based Del Records, asked a federal judge to dismiss criminal charges accusing him of doing business with a concert promoter linked to Mexican drug cartels. Del Villar’s lawyers say the indictment, handed down in 2022, is unfairly vague and the sign of an eventual “sucker punch” by prosecutors. LIL UZI SUED OVER UNPAID BILLS – Lil Uzi Vert was sued by a touring production company called M99 Studios that claims the rapper owes more than $500,000 in unpaid bills for work done at last year’s Rolling Loud, Roots Picnic and other events. Among other things, the lawsuit claims the bills involve satisfying the rapper’s “unrealistic production requests,” including finding and hiring more than two dozen adult dancers to appear onstage at a concert last year. DIVORCE DRAMA – Billy Ray Cyrus filed an emergency motion in Tennessee court amid his ongoing divorce from the singer Firerose, accusing her of nearly $100,000 in unauthorized credit card charges and seeking a temporary restraining order to stop her.
The Atlanta judge overseeing Young Thug’s gang trial is refusing to recuse himself from the case and declare a mistrial, denying a motion filed by the rapper’s lawyers over revelations of an allegedly “illegal” secret meeting with prosecutors and a star witness.
At a hearing in Fulton County Court on Tuesday, Judge Ural Glanville rejected arguments from Thug’s attorney Brian Steel that the judge had “forfeited its role as an impartial judge and has become a member of the prosecution team.” The ruling came just a day after Steel filed his motion, in which he argued that the secret meeting with prosecutors had been an “unforgivable” error.
“The court has become a member of the prosecution team in an effort to thwart Mr. Williams’ Constitutional right to a fair trial,” Steel wrote in the motion, referring to Thug by his real name Jeffery Williams. “This court must be recused, the court and the prosecution have violated Mr. Williams’ rights and the Indictment must be dismissed after a mistrial is declared.”
Trending on Billboard
But in Tuesday’s ruling from the bench, Glanville said that Steel’s allegations were based merely on “bare assertions and legal conclusions which aren’t sufficient for the court to grant your motion.” The judge also refused to pause the trial or allow an immediate appeal the ruling to a higher court.
Thug and dozens of others were indicted in May 2022 over allegations that his “YSL” group was not really a record label called “Young Stoner Life” but rather a violent Atlanta gang called “Young Slime Life.” Prosecutors claim the group committed murders, carjackings, armed robberies, drug dealing and other crimes over the course of a decade. After kicking off in January 2023, the trial is already the longest in Georgia state history and is expected to run until early next year.
In an extraordinary courtroom episode last week, Steel revealed that he had learned of a secret “ex parte” meeting that morning between Glanville, prosecutors and a witness named Kenneth Copeland. Steel argued that such a meeting, without defense counsel present, was clear grounds for a mistrial. He claimed Glanville had helped prosecutors coerce the uncooperative Copeland into testifying with threats of extended jail time.
Rather than address Steel’s complaints, Glanville instead repeatedly demanded that he divulge who had informed him about a private meeting in his chambers, suggesting the leak was illegal: “If you don’t tell me how you got this information, you and I are going to have problems.” After Steel refused to do so, the judge eventually held him in contempt and sentenced him to 20 days in jail. The Georgia Supreme Court later halted the sentence while it reviews Glanville’s decision.
In Monday’s motion demanding Glanville’s recusal, Steel lambasted the judge over the secret meeting, repeatedly referring to it as a “star chamber” – a reference to an ancient English judicial practice characterized by secrecy and a lack of due process. He said the incident illustrated that Glanville and the prosecutors are “teaming up to gain an unlawful advantage over Mr. Williams.”
“Mr. Williams’ trial is constitutionally fractured, unfair and lacks all constitutional, statutory and ethical safeguards and protections of due process of law,” Steel wrote. “No intellectually honest person could believe that coercing witness Copeland to testify in a ‘star chamber’ setting meets Constitutional muster.”
In the filings, Steel laid out in detail what he believes occurred during the ex parte meeting.
After Copeland had reneged on a plan to testify in exchange for immunity, Steel claimed prosecutors and Glanville had warned the witness that if he did not testify, he could be held in custody until the entire YSL case is over – a process that’s expected to take many years. Steel claims that Glanville gave Copeland a written copy on the rules of perjury, which Steel argued was “no subtle gesture and one that helped the prosecution team to obtain their mission for Mr. Copeland to change his mind and testify.”
“This court was a participant and was present during these admonitions/threats to Mr. Copeland,” Steel writes. “This is witness intimidation, coercion and the court has become a member of the prosecution team in assisting the prosecution to induce a material witness to testify.”
In addition to the substance of the meeting, Steel took particular aim at the secrecy of it – saying that Glanville and the prosecutors not only held the meeting without notice, but “never intended” to reveal it to defense attorneys until Steel himself learned of it through other means. He also argued that Glanville had “obstructed justice” by refusing to release a transcript, and even suggests that court officers “may have been instructed to turn off their body cameras.”
During Tuesday’s hearing, after Glanville denied the motion to recuse, Steel pleaded in vain with him to reconsider stepping aside. The attorney warned that when he cross-examined Copeland on the witness stand, he would need to ask him about the ex parte meeting with the judge.
“I’m going to ask him how much pressure, if any, the court put on him, and you’re going to be the one instructing the jury,” Steel said to Glanville. “And I just can’t imagine how that’s fair to Mr. Williams.”