Legal News
Page: 3
Salt-N-Pepa is taking Universal Music Group (UMG) to court to regain control of the duo’s masters, alleging in a new lawsuit that the record label is refusing to honor copyright clawback rights and has instead “punished” the legendary hip-hop act by removing some of its music from streaming.
The lawsuit, filed Monday (May 19) in New York federal court, accuses UMG of ignoring Salt-N-Pepa’s so-called “termination rights” under Section 203 of the Copyright Act. This provision allows artists who sign over their master recordings to regain control of that intellectual property 35 years after a song’s release.
UMG owns Salt-N-Pepa’s masters per two contracts that the “Push It” singers, Cheryl “Salt” James and Sandra “Pepa” Denton, signed with UMG subsidiaries Next Plateau Records and London Records in 1986 and 1992.
Trending on Billboard
Salt-N-Pepa served UMG with a notice of termination rights in 2022, claiming its albums Hot, Cool & Vicious (1986) and A Salt With A Deadly Pepa (1988) were both up for copyright termination in 2024. The duo also said Blacks’ Magic (1990) and A Blitz of Salt-N-Pepa Hits (1990) are up in 2025 and that Very Necessary (1993) — which peaked at No. 4 on the Billboard Hot 100 — is up in 2026 alongside The Greatest Hits (1991).
But UMG allegedly rejected Salt-N-Pepa’s notice as “invalid and ineffective,” claiming termination rights do not apply because the albums were “works made for hire.” UMG then took Hot, Cool & Vicious and A Salt With A Deadly Pepa down from streaming, a move Salt-N-Pepa describes as “punishing” the group by holding their music “hostage.”
“UMG has, in fact, halted exploitation of the relevant sound recordings in the United States, thereby effectively demonetizing plaintiffs’ catalogue,” wrote Salt-N-Pepa’s attorneys from the law firm Blank Rome. “This is an effort by UMG to pressure plaintiffs into giving up on their effort to recoup their rights to their sound recordings. Plaintiffs are not willing to do so.”
Salt-N-Pepa’s lawyers say that contrary to what UMG is claiming, nothing in the duo’s original contracts with Next Plateau Records and London Records defined its music as “works made for hire.” UMG therefore “makes no legitimate argument against the effectiveness of the notices of termination,” alleges the lawsuit.
“UMG appears to take the position that it can unilaterally decide when and/or if a recording artist is entitled to termination,” wrote the Blank Rome team. “This is not the law, and UMG does not have this power.”
Salt-N-Pepa is asking the court to declare the duo’s termination rights valid and award it control of the masters. The duo is also seeking monetary damages for UMG’s alleged wrongdoing in an amount “believed to well exceed $1 million.”
The lawsuit comes just months before Salt-N-Pepa is due to become the second-ever female hip-hop act to be inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame this November. The group’s legal reps say in a statement, “This fight is about more than contracts — it’s about legacy, justice and the future of artist ownership.”
“In a stunning act of retaliation, UMG has pulled their songs from all major platforms in the U.S., punishing them for asserting those rights and silencing decades of culture-shifting work,” the reps add. “Like many artists, they’re challenging a system that profits from their work while denying them control.”
Representatives from UMG did not immediately return a request for comment.
This is not the first time UMG has been pulled into court over termination rights. The label and Sony Music Entertainment both inked class action settlements last year over years of closely-watched litigation, in which recording artists sought to win back control of their masters en masse.
Individual artists have also brought one-off lawsuits over termination rights, such as a case that 2 Live Crew won at trial against a small record label last year. The provision also played a significant role in Cher’s royalty battle with Sonny Bono’s widow, in which a judge ruled that termination rights didn’t trump the couple’s divorce settlement.
Danity Kane singer Dawn Richard continued her testimony Monday at Sean “Diddy” Combs’ sex-trafficking trial, telling jurors that the rapper would “frequently” assault Cassie Ventura — including once at a restaurant in front of Usher and other celebrities.
The testimony from Richard, who rose to fame on Combs’ MTV reality show Making the Band, kicked off the second week of Combs’ criminal trial, in which the music mogul is accused of coercing Ventura and others into participating in drug-fueled sex shows known as “freak-offs.”
Days after she told the jury that she witnessed Combs abusing Ventura — including once trying to attack her with a skillet — Richard recounted other alleged assaults, according to CNN, The New York Times and other media reports.
In one alleged incident, she testified that Combs punched Ventura in the stomach at a Los Angeles restaurant where Usher and other celebrities were present. “She immediately bent over, he [Combs] told her to leave,” Richard testified, according to People. “No one intervened.”
A rep for Usher did not immediately return a request for comment from Billboard. The New York Post reported that Richard’s testimony left it “unclear” if Usher and other A-listers present had actually witnessed the alleged attack.
Later on Monday (May 19), Richard was grilled by defense attorney Nicole Westmoreland over apparent inconsistencies in her testimony, including the infamous skillet statements. In one such exchange, defense attorney pressed Richard about changes in her recollections about Combs’ drug use.
“You would agree with me that as time progresses your story changes,” Ms. Westmoreland asked. “Yes,” Richard replied.
Combs was indicted in September, charged with running a sprawling criminal operation aimed at facilitating the freak-offs — elaborate events in which Combs and others allegedly pressured Ventura and other victims into having sex with escorts while he watched and masturbated. Prosecutors also say the star and his associates used violence, money and blackmail to keep victims silent and under his control.
Once one of the music industry’s most powerful men, Combs is accused of racketeering conspiracy (a so-called RICO charge), sex trafficking and violating a federal prostitution statute. If convicted on all of the charges, he faces a potential life prison sentence.
During opening statements last week, defense attorneys told jurors that Ventura and other women had consensually taken part in the sex parties. They admitted that Combs had committed domestic violence during his and Ventura’s “toxic” relationship and had unusual sexual preferences, but that he had never coerced her into participating in his “swinger” lifestyle.
Ventura, the prosecution’s star witness, spent four days on the stand last week detailing how Combs allegedly controlled and physically abused her during their 11-year relationship.
After Richard wrapped up on Monday, Ventura’s longtime friend Kerry Morgan took the stand, testifying about multiple incidents in which she says she saw Combs attack Ventura. In one, she said Combs entered a bathroom and that she could hear Ventura screaming.
“It was guttural, terrifying. I heard her screaming so I went to the long hallway, they were coming out of the master bedroom and he was dragging her by her hair,” Morgan said, according to NBC News.
Later in the afternoon, jurors heard from David James, a former assistant to Combs, who testified that he once told Ventura she should leave the superstar, but that she felt she was unable to do so.
“I can’t. I can’t get out,” James said Ventura told him, citing the fact that he controlled her music career, paid for her lodgings and was her source of income: “I just didn’t think that she could easily leave.”
The trial is expected to pick up again on Tuesday (May 20) with more testimony from James. The proceedings are expected to last until early July.
Jennifer Lopez is facing copyright infringement claims for allegedly posting two paparazzi pictures of herself outside a Golden Globes pre-party in January without paying to license the photos.
Lopez was hit with a pair of federal court lawsuits on Saturday (May 17) from photographer Edwin Blanco and photo agency BackGrid USA. They say they co-own the two images of the pop singer and actress standing outside the Amazon MGM Studios x Vanity Fair Party at Los Angeles’ swanky Bar Marmont the night before this year’s Golden Globe Awards on Jan. 4.
A lawyer for Blanco and BackGrid alleges Lopez posted the photos to her Instagram and X accounts on Jan. 5 without permission. This supposedly set off a spate of reposts from fan pages and fashion brands, including the designer of a faux fur coat Lopez was wearing in the photos.
Trending on Billboard
“Ms. Lopez’s unauthorized use of the Images is commercial in nature, intended for the purpose of self-promotion,” wrote attorney Peter Perkowski. “For example, Ms. Lopez used the images to spotlight the designer of her clothing and jewelry, leveraging the publicity from the event to promote her fashion affiliations and brand partnerships.”
According to the lawsuits, a representative for BackGrid and Blanco contacted Lopez’s team about the alleged copyright infringement the next week. Perkowski says the two sides had “fruitful discussions” and orally agreed to a monetary settlement, but Lopez never signed a written settlement agreement and has not paid the promised money.
The lawsuits also note that Lopez was previously sued in 2019 for posting an unauthorized paparazzi image of herself and her then-boyfriend Alex Rodriguez to her Instagram account. That case, also brought by Perkowski, was ultimately dismissed voluntarily in 2020.
“This prior litigation placed Ms. Lopez on notice regarding the legal requirements and potential consequences associated with the use of copyrighted images without proper authorization,” continued Perkowski. “Despite this, Ms. Lopez has continued to engage in similar conduct, demonstrating a willful disregard for BackGrid’s copyrights through a pattern of behavior that undermines the rights of content creators.”
BackGrid and Blanco are accusing Lopez of willful infringement under the federal Copyright Act, which could entitle them to damages of up to $150,000 per photo.
Lopez’s reps did not immediately return a request for comment on Monday (May 19).
While seemingly strange, it’s quite common for celebrities to be sued for posting paparazzi photos of themselves to social media. Artists including Miley Cyrus, Dua Lipa and Justin Bieber have all faced similar lawsuits in the last few years.
As Billboard wrote in 2022, U.S. copyright law is on the side of photographers and image licensers. Though it may seem unfair, celebrities do not automatically co-own images of themselves and therefore don’t have the right to repost them for free.
Ed Sheeran wants the U.S. Supreme Court to finally end one of the long-running lawsuits claiming his “Thinking Out Loud” infringed Marvin Gaye‘s “Let’s Get It On,” calling a recent appeal to the high court “baseless.”
The star’s accuser — a company that owns a partial stake in Gaye’s 1973 song — asked the justices earlier this year to revive the case, which was dismissed in November after a lower court ruled that the two tracks share only basic “musical building blocks.”
In a response Friday (May 16), Sheeran’s attorneys said the “Thinking” case is not the kind of precedent-setting case that’s worth the Supreme Court’s time — but that the accusers are using a “false premise” and “baseless assertions” as it “pretends” that it is.
Trending on Billboard
“The question which petitioner purports to present is not actually presented by this case but has been fabricated in effort to attract this court’s attention,” Sheeran’s lawyers wr0te. “The petition should be denied.”
Sheeran has faced multiple lawsuits over “Thinking,” a 2014 track co-written with Amy Wadge that reached No. 2 on the Billboard Hot 100 and ultimately spent 58 weeks on the chart.
He was first sued by the daughter of Ed Townsend, who co-wrote the famed 1973 tune with Gaye. That case ended in a high-profile jury verdict that cleared Sheeran of any wrongdoing.
Thursday’s petition came in a separate case filed by a company called Structured Asset Sales (SAS), an entity owned by industry executive David Pullman that controls a different stake in Townsend’s copyrights to the legendary song. That suit was rejected in November by the federal Second Circuit appeals court, which said the lawsuit was essentially seeking “a monopoly over a combination of two fundamental musical building blocks.”
“The four-chord progression at issue — ubiquitous in pop music — even coupled with a syncopated harmonic rhythm, is too well-explored to meet the originality threshold that copyright law demands,” the appeals court wrote. “Overprotecting such basic elements would threaten to stifle creativity and undermine the purpose of copyright law.”
In a petition to the Supreme Court in March, SAS argued that the appeals court’s ruling had unfairly restricted its allegations to written sheet music rather than all elements included in Gaye’s iconic recorded version. That thorny issue, which has also cropped up in other major cases over “Blurred Lines” and “Stairway To Heaven” in recent years, must finally be resolved by the high court, the company said at the time.
“The rights of thousands of legacy musical composers and artists, of many of the most beloved and enduring pieces of popular music, are at the center of the controversy,” SAS’s lawyers wrote.
In Friday’s response, Sheeran’s lawyers said the stakes of the case had been vastly overstated — that the case law was clearly settled, that there was no controversy among the lower courts, and that it was SAS that was threatening to upend the law: “The self-serving free-for-all petitioner posits would foment vast uncertainty and encourage rampant speculation, decades after the fact.”
Appeals to the Supreme Court, known as petitions for writ of certiorari, face extremely long odds. The court takes less than 2% of the roughly 7,000 cases it receives each year, hearing only the disputes it deems most important to the national legal landscape.
Lil Nas X can’t be sued by an Instagram user who claimed the superstar stole his distinctive “poses” and used them in his own posts, federal appeals court says – ruling that the dispute images “share few similarities” and Lil Nas likely never saw them anyway.
Rodney Woodland, a freelance artist and model, claimed in his 2022 lawsuit that the “Old Town Road” rapper (Montero Lamar Hill) had illegally replicated several provocative photos in which Woodland struck elaborate poses while partially nude.
But in a ruling Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit says that the dueling sets of Instagram posts share only a few scattered similarities that didn’t legally add up to copyright infringement.
Trending on Billboard
“Hill’s photograph shares almost nothing in common with Woodland’s,” Judge Kenneth K. Lee writes, analyzing two of the images. “The photos both depict a Black man folded in on himself, but the similarities stop there. The objective elements in the photos—the men’s poses, colors, lighting, backgrounds, etc.—are different.”
The appeals court also rejects Woodland’s lawsuit for an even simpler reason: That Lil Nas had likely never seen the images he was accused of copying. That issue – known as “access” in copyright law – is a crucial component in any infringement lawsuit.
“It is not enough to simply allege that [Lil Nas] is an active user of Instagram and thus had a reasonable possibility of viewing Woodland’s photos,” Lee writes for a three-judge panel. “There are over a billion users and many more posts on Instagram. The mere fact that Hill uses Instagram and that Woodland’s photos are on Instagram raises no more than a bare possibility that Hill viewed Woodland’s photos.”
Attorneys for both sides did not return requests for comment on the ruling on Monday.
Woodland sued Lil Nas in June 2022, claiming the rapper had ripped off 11 of his copyrighted photographs, illegally copying “original and unique elements” of them including “poses, colors, lighting and coloring.” The images all feature Woodland and Nas naked with their genitals obscured, either by their pose or the use of editing elements.
A federal judge dismissed the case in 2023, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed that ruling on Friday. In its written opinion, the appeals court included side-by-sides of each disputed pair of photos and detailed why each of Nas’ posts were not improper.
“The commonalities go no further than the depiction of a man reclining on his side with certain body parts strategically covered — a common pose in photos of male models and actors,” the court wrote about one set of images.
Several of the disputed photos featured both Woodland and Nas “draped in chains.” The court said that was a clear similarity, but not one that trigger’s copyright law’s protections for creative expression.
“The idea in each of the photos is the same — the provocative image of a Black man in chains,” the court wrote. “But that idea is not protected — indeed, it is a common motif in many pieces of art. Only the expression through the selection and arrangement of objective elements receives copyright protection.”
Friday’s ruling carries added importance because it is a so-called precedential ruling, offering new case law on the issue of copyright “access” in the era of social media.
The court said the rules had involved in an analog world and that Instagram and other platforms had made it “easier than ever” for copyright works to be widely disseminated. But the court also warned that accusers would still need to prove that an alleged infringer had a good chance of seeing their work — and that none of Woodland’s posts had recieved more than 75 “likes” on Instagram.
“Social media and other digital-sharing platforms could make it easier for plaintiffs to show that defendants had access to their materials —but only if they can show that the defendants had a reasonable chance of seeing their work under that platform’s algorithm or content-sharing policy,” the appeals court wrote. “That is a big “if”— and, as explained below, Woodland has fallen short here.”
Aubrey O’Day has confirmed she will not be taking the stand in Sean “Diddy” Combs‘ federal sex-trafficking trial.
The former Danity Kane member made the announcement on Friday (May 16) during the premiere episode of Amy Robach & T.J. Holmes Present: Aubrey O’Day, Covering the Diddy Trial, an iHeartRadio podcast recorded in New York City.
“I’m not here to testify for the Diddy trial, that I know of,” O’Day said, according to People.
The 41-year-old singer suggested her involvement could still evolve, revealing she had been “contacted by Homeland Security” and had a meeting with the agency, which led March raids on Diddy’s homes in Los Angeles and Miami.
Earlier in the week, O’Day — who appeared on MTV’s Making the Band under Diddy’s mentorship — sparked speculation about a possible court appearance after sharing a cryptic Instagram post from New York City.
“Hey New York!!! Where y’all think I should head first?” she wrote on May 14, including a scale emoji. Us Weekly also reported that a source claimed O’Day was subpoenaed to testify at the trial.
During the podcast episode, O’Day clarified the post’s intent. “I posted on my Instagram that I was here in New York and enjoying myself because I wanted to make it clear to everyone that I am not here testifying,” she said.
Diddy is currently facing multiple federal charges, including sex trafficking and racketeering. His trial is set to resume Monday (May 19). If convicted on all counts, he could face life in prison.
O’Day previously spoke out after Diddy’s September 2024 arrest. “The purpose of Justice is to provide an ending and allow us the space to create a new chapter. Women never get this. I feel validated. Today is a win for women all over the world, not just me. Things are finally changing,” she wrote on X at the time.
Danity Kane, the girl group formed in 2005 on Making the Band, was signed to Diddy’s Bad Boy Records. O’Day was removed from the group in 2008 and later claimed on the Call Her Daddy podcast in 2022 that her exit stemmed from her refusal to comply with non-music-related requests from the music mogul.
Cassie’s husband, Alex Fine, has spoken out in defense of his wife’s harrowing testimony recounting her alleged abuse at the hands of Diddy during the Bad Boy mogul’s trial.
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
Fine released a statement on Friday (May 16) as Cassie’s four-day stint on the stand came to a close via his wife’s attorney, Doug Wigdor.
“I have felt tremendous pride and overwhelming love for Cass,” he said. “I have felt profound anger that she has been subjected to sitting in front of a person who tried to break her. You did not break her spirit nor her smile.”
Fine continued: “I did not save Cassie, as some have said. To say that is an insult to the years of painful work my wife has done to save herself. Cassie saved Cassie. She alone broke free from abuse, coercion, violence, and threats. She did the work of fighting the demons that only a demon himself could have done to her.”
Alex Fine was present in court for all four days his wife was on the stand this week, as day five of the trial wrapped up on Friday.
“All I have done is love her as she has loved me. Her life is now surrounded by love, laughter and our family,” he added. “This horrific chapter is forever put behind us, and we will not be making additional statements. We appreciate all of the love and support we have received, and we ask that you respect our privacy as we welcome our son into a world that is now safer because of his mom.”
The first week of Diddy’s trial finished on Friday as Cassie was cross-examined by Combs’ attorneys and grilled about various horrifying events and alleged abuse she recalled throughout her four-day testimony.
Looking to put this chapter of her life behind her once and for all, Cassie also released a statement via her attorney about the “challenging” yet “empowering and healing” week she experienced on the stand while digging up painful memories.
“This week has been extremely challenging, but also remarkably empowering and healing for me. I hope that my testimony has given strength and a voice to other survivors, and can help others who have suffered to speak up and also heal from abuse and fear,” she said via Wigdor. “For me, the more I heal, the more I can remember. And the more I can remember, the more I will never forget.”
Cassie continued: “I want to thank my family and my advocates for their unwavering support, and am grateful for all the kindness and encouragement that I have received. I am glad to put this chapter of my life to rest as I turn to focus on the conclusion of my pregnancy, I ask for privacy for me and for my growing family.”
The “Me & U” singer’s testimony ended with Cassie sobbing as she thought about how life would be if she never participated in the alleged days-long “freak-offs” allegedly orchestrated by Diddy.
Cassie and Diddy started dating on and off in 2007 and broke up for good in 2018, bringing the tumultuous relationship to a close. Cassie married Alex Fine in 2019, and the couple is expecting their third child together in the coming weeks.
Diddy is facing charges of sex trafficking and racketeering. Combs’ trial will resume in court on Monday (May 19). If found guilty on all counts, he potentially faces life in prison.
Sean “Diddy” Combs’ ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura, faced probing questions about her financial motivations on her last day of testimony in the rapper’s sex-trafficking trial on Friday (May 16), while Danity Kane alum Dawn Richard also took the stand and said she witnessed Combs abusing Ventura.
Richard’s testimony closed out the first week of Combs’ much-awaited criminal trial, in which the music mogul is accused of coercing Ventura and other women into participating in drug-fueled sex shows known as “freak-offs.” R&B singer Ventura, the prosecution’s star witness, spent four days on the stand detailing how Combs allegedly controlled and physically abused her during their 11-year relationship.
Ventura faced her second and final day of cross-examination on Friday from Combs’ attorney Anna Estevao, according to the Associated Press and the New York Times. Defense lawyers had previously suggested they may want to keep questioning Ventura next week, but backed off the request after prosecutors flagged concerns that the very pregnant Ventura might go into labor over the weekend.
Trending on Billboard
Continuing a strategy from the first day of cross-examination, Estevao confronted Ventura with more seemingly loving text messages between her and Combs. Some appeared to support the defense’s theory that the pair’s sex life, while unconventional, was consensual.
“I don’t want to freak off for the last time,” Ventura wrote in one such text to Combs. “I want it to be the first time for the rest of our lives.”
Estevao also tried to imply that Ventura is motivated by money to lie about her experience with Combs, getting the witness to reveal for the first time that she’s getting a $10 million settlement from the Intercontinental Hotel in Los Angeles, where Combs was seen beating Ventura in infamous video footage from 2016.
The newly-revealed $10 million settlement is on top of a $20 million civil payout Ventura got from Combs himself after she sued the rapper in 2023. Estevao noted Friday that Ventura canceled an upcoming concert tour soon after inking that settlement.
“As soon as you saw that you were going to get the $20 million, you canceled the tour because you didn’t need it anymore, right?” Estevao asked Ventura.
“That wasn’t the reason why,” Ventura replied.
When prosecutors got another chance to question Ventura on re-direct examination later on Friday, she explained that she would give the money back if she could reverse Combs’ abuse. “If I never had to have freak-offs I would have agency and autonomy,” Ventura said.
After Ventura completed her testimony, her attorney, Douglas Wigdor, shared a statement from the singer: “This week has been extremely challenging, but also remarkably empowering and healing for me,” Ventura wrote. “I hope that my testimony has given strength and a voice to other survivors, and can help others who have suffered to speak up and also heal from abuse and fear. For me, the more I heal, the more I can remember, and the more I can remember, the more I will never forget.”
Another figure in the music world took the witness stand after Ventura departed Friday: Dawn Richard, whose girl group Danity Kane was launched by Combs’ MTV reality show Making the Band.
Richard has a pending civil lawsuit against Combs, in which she alleges he harassed and assaulted her during “years of inhumane working conditions.” But those claims aren’t part of the criminal trial; instead, Richard served as a corroborating witness for Ventura.
During her brief testimony, Richard told the jury she witnessed Combs physically assault Ventura on multiple occasions. In one 2009 encounter, Richard said she saw Combs punch, kick, drag and even try to hit Ventura on the head with a cooking skillet.
The trial is expected to pick up Monday (May 19) with testimony from Ventura’s longtime friend Kerry Morgan, followed by other alleged victims of Combs’ freak-offs. The jury could hear evidence for up to two months total.
The U.S. Department of Justice is conducting a criminal investigation into whether Live Nation and AEG illegally colluded in their concert refund policies at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, Live Nation confirmed, though the concert giant is denying any wrongdoing.
Bloomberg first reported Thursday (May 15) that the Department of Justice (DOJ) is investigating whether Live Nation and AEG violated federal antitrust laws by coordinating their responses to mass concert cancellations via a task force when the pandemic first hit in 2020.
Prosecutors have weighed bringing charges against Live Nation and its CEO, Michael Rapino, according to Bloomberg. No such charges have yet been filed; the statute of limitations for federal antitrust prosecutions is five years, meaning that if a case is going to be brought, it will have to be soon.
Trending on Billboard
Live Nation’s regulatory chief, Dan Wall, confirmed the criminal probe in a statement to Billboard but says the company did nothing wrong.
“It is not illegal for artist agents, promoters and ticketing companies to work together to solve the unprecedented challenges of a global pandemic,” Wall says. “While Live Nation contributed to this industry effort in good faith, we set our own unique policies and refund terms to support fans and artists. We did not collude with AEG or anyone else. We are proud of our leadership during those trying times, and if any charges result from this investigation, we will defend them vigorously.”
A DOJ spokesperson declined to comment on the matter Friday (May 16). Reps for AEG did not immediately return a request for comment.
The criminal investigation comes on top of the DOJ’s civil antitrust action accusing Live Nation and its subsidiary Ticketmaster of illegally monopolizing the live music industry. The lawsuit, filed last May, seeks to break up the two live entertainment behemoths that merged in 2010.
Live Nation and Ticketmaster insist that they are in compliance with antitrust regulations and have said they plan to “vigorously defend” against the lawsuit at trial, currently scheduled for March 2026.
The Live Nation-Ticketmaster suit was brought by then-President Joe Biden’s DOJ, and Bloomberg reports that the criminal investigation into Live Nation and AEG also began when Biden was president. But both enforcement actions have continued under President Donald Trump, who has made a priority of cracking down on issues within the live entertainment business
Trump signed an executive order in March — with musician and political supporter Kid Rock in attendance — calling for greater transparency around ticket sales and directing regulators to look into possible instances of deceptive and anticompetitive conduct in the industry.
The DOJ and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) responded by launching an official inquiry into the event ticketing business on May 7. The agencies said the probe is aimed at increasing competition in order to lower ticket prices, as well as rooting out exploitative scalpers and bots.
In recent years, social media platforms have become a key battleground for copyright infringement disputes, with music rights holders targeting brands that use copyrighted tracks in social media posts.
This development can be traced, in part, to increasingly sophisticated software that major music labels and publishers use to monitor infringing uses of their songs online — a reaction to the “whack-a-mole” frustration that rights holders feel when they consistently find their songs being used on the Internet without permission. And with the risk of potential statutory damage awards for copyright infringement ranging from $200 to $150,000 per infringed work, rights holders can hold significant leverage in any ensuing legal action. Thus, whether a brand is incorporating music into posts on its social media channels or partnering with influencers who do the same, using music on social media has never been riskier.
Below, we examine the rising tide of recent lawsuits and other legal action taken against brands by music rightsholders and outline key takeaways to help avoid infringing uses and ensure that artists are properly compensated for their work.
Trending on Billboard
The Vital Pharmaceuticals Case
In 2021, UMG Recordings sued Vital Pharmaceuticals, the parent company of Bang Energy, for direct, contributory, and vicarious copyright infringement, alleging that videos posted by Bang and its influencers on TikTok used UMG’s copyrighted songs without permission. UMG argued that Bang was “well aware” that its conduct constituted copyright infringement because UMG had informed Bang of its unauthorized uses before bringing suit. UMG also argued that Bang had control over and financially benefited from its influencers’ infringing videos, which the influencers submitted to Bang for approval before posting.
Bang denied any knowledge of infringement, arguing that TikTok’s standard music license covered Bang’s use of UMG’s music. The court disagreed and granted summary judgment on UMG’s claim for direct copyright infringement, holding that UMG did not authorize TikTok to permit end users, such as Bang, to use the music for commercial (as opposed to personal) purposes. The court reasoned that because direct liability for copyright infringement does not require proof of intent, Bang’s belief that TikTok gave it permission to use UMG’s music was, at most, relevant to the amount of damages Bang owed, not whether it was liable for copyright infringement in the first instance.
The court ruled against UMG, however, on its vicarious and contributory infringement theories related to Bang’s influencers, concluding that UMG failed to prove that Bang had input regarding the selection of music included in influencers’ videos and did not point to any evidence that Bang received a direct financial benefit from the influencers’ videos.
The Growing Litigation Trend
Since UMG v. Vital Pharmaceuticals, music rights holders have ramped up enforcement efforts against other brands. Sony Music Entertainment launched its own copyright infringement lawsuit against Bang (as did Warner Music Group) and also filed claims against brands such as Gymshark, OFRA Cosmetics, Marriott International and the University of Southern California. In each case, the brands, and/or the influencers they hired, allegedly used Sony-owned sound recordings in posts promoting the companies’ products or services.
Similar to UMG’s argument in Vital Pharmaceuticals, Sony argued that each of the companies knew that their content infringed Sony’s copyrights prior to the lawsuits, and thus that the infringement was “willful,” entitling Sony to statutory damages as high as $150,000 per infringed work. In the Gymshark case, as in Vital Pharmaceuticals, it was alleged that Gymshark knew that the music was unlicensed because Gymshark previously approached Sony to discuss music licensing and then proceeded to use Sony’s music without securing commercial licenses. OFRA allegedly failed to take down infringing content after Sony sent a cease-and-desist letter and then posted new infringing content after learning of Sony’s claims. And Marriott allegedly did not take down its posts upon Sony’s request, was previously sued in 2021 for similar copyright infringement issue, and generally knew how to enter into music licenses.
As in Vital Pharmaceuticals, Sony also brought claims against alleged infringers, such as Gymshark and OFRA, for contributory and vicarious liability based on their influencers’ infringing content. Most recently, Warner Music Group (WMG) sued Crumbl and Designer Brands Inc., the parent company of DSW Shoe Warehouse, under similar theories.
While a number of these cases were just recently filed, and others ultimately settled out of court or appear to be moving towards settlement, there is no question that they are part of a fast-growing trend, and provide a glimpse into the mindset, and tactics, of rights holders with respect to unauthorized music use on social media platforms.
Navigating Platform Music Licenses
So what can brands do to avoid this type of legal action and ensure from the outset that artists are properly compensated for their copyrighted works? The best way to avoid copyright infringement when using music owned by a third party is, of course, to license the music directly from the third-party rights holders. This approach is often impractical, however, given the speed and volume with which brands need to publish content on social media.
Instead, many brands use music from the social media platforms’ respective “commercial music libraries” or “CMLs,” which contain different music options than those available for “personal” accounts. The CMLs, such as Meta’s Sound Collection and TikTok’s Commercial Music Library, allow companies and individuals to use music on the platform specifically for commercial purposes, so long as the brand also adheres to the platform’s other license terms.
Using CMLs can pose challenges, however, especially with respect to registering “business” accounts within each platform. Even with the proper registration, it is not always clear which music within the different libraries’ business or commercial accounts can use, and the scope of those rights may (and do) change over time. There are, however, a number of strategies brands can use to help ensure they are using permitted music.
For example, before using a platform’s CML, brands should review the CML’s terms of service and related policies, including terms that specify which commercial purposes the music can be used for and whether the songs can be used in videos on other platforms. It is equally important for brands to actively track the platforms’ evolving license terms in order to remain compliant. And for some brands, it may make sense to use software or external vendors to monitor and flag their brand and influencer posts for potential copyright violations across social media platforms. Of course, every brand’s business needs will be different. The key is finding the right combination of internal and external resources to help minimize the risk of copyright infringement.
Conclusion
The rising chorus of lawsuits from music rights holders is nothing to tune out. Brands using music as part of their social media strategies (which, practically speaking, is almost every brand) must take proactive steps to mitigate legal risks, and they will also be protecting artists’ rights in the process. This includes complying with and staying informed about changes to platform-specific licensing terms, ensuring that their influencers stay within the bounds of such terms, and considering tools to monitor, flag, and remove potentially infringing content. Failing to take these precautions can lead to costly litigation, reputational damage, and the forced removal of content.
Sarah Moses is an entertainment litigation partner with Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP and focuses her practice on a variety of complex litigation and commercial disputes. She represents media, entertainment and technology clients in copyright, trademark, right of publicity, First Amendment, blockchain and artificial intelligence (AI) matters, among others.
Monica Kulkarni is an advertising, marketing and media associate with Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP. She represents clients across a variety of industries and provides multidisciplinary legal counseling on transactional, compliance and regulatory matters in advertising, entertainment and media.
Jacob Geskin is a law clerk with Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP based in the Firm’s New York office where he works across music, intellectual property and media law.