State Champ Radio Legal News
Page: 32
Sean “Diddy” Combs has been hit with a pair of new sexual assault lawsuits that allege he drugged and sexually assaulted the plaintiffs and/or forced them to engage in sex acts with others during a “group-sex” party at Trump Hotel in midtown Manhattan.
Filed in New York state court on Tuesday (Feb. 4), the lawsuits — the latest to be lodged by Texas attorney Tony Buzbee against the disgraced hip-hop mogul — were filed by Jane Doe plaintiffs who say they were involved in the New York hip-hop scene in the ’80s and ’90s.
The first complaint was filed by a woman who says she was “an active member of New York’s hip-hop industry from the 1980s onward” and “appeared in numerous music videos for varying hip hop artists, was employed as a hip hop dancer for live productions, as well as having roles in major motion pictures.” According to the complaint, she was subject to “sexual assault, coercion, abuse and violence either at the hands of, or direction of Combs” on numerous occasions.
In the first alleged incident, the woman claims she was drugged and “forced to participate in group sexual activity” with Combs and others while attending (and being prevented from leaving) a so-called “shadow party” held at a New York bar sometime in the 1990s.
Later in the decade, while allegedly dating Combs’ security guard, the woman says she attended another of Combs’ parties at the five-story New York nightclub Limelight, where she says “group-sex parties” were occurring on the top two floors. After the party, she claims Combs and the security guard took her and a friend to a penthouse at a Trump hotel in midtown Manhattan, where she says she was “physically and sexually assaulted” by the guard as Combs watched. Later that evening, she claims she and her friend were forced to take “ecstasy or [a] similar ‘party’ drug” and “engage in a group sex activity that [they] did not want to participate in.”
This alleged incident is echoed in the second lawsuit filed on Tuesday by a woman who claims she was “a part of the hip-hop scene that was developing in New York City” in the ’80s and ’90s and “appeared in numerous music videos for various hip-hop artists and participated in other projects within the industry.”
After attending a party also allegedly held at the Limelight — which reads like the same event described by the first plaintiff — the woman claims she and a friend were taken to the Trump Hotel in midtown Manhattan against their will, drugged “and forced to participate in group-sex activity during which she [was] sexually assaulted over the next several hours. For instance, Plaintiff was vaginally raped by a club promoter at Combs’ direction, while Combs observed.”
The woman also outlines a second incident she says occurred after she was hired to serve as a “bottle-service attendant” at a party Combs hosted in the Hamptons in 1997. Shortly after arriving at the event, the woman says she and others hired for the event were encouraged by Combs to drink from coolers and offered marijuana, after which she “began to feel woozy, slipping in and out of consciousness.” At this point, she says she was “sexually assaulted and vaginally raped by Combs’ associates, at Combs’ direction, while Combs was present.” After suspecting the assault was videotaped, she says she reached out to Combs “to request that he delete the video, but Combs refused to comply.”
The woman further alleges she “suffered several incidences of sexual assault at Combs’ hands while traveling to other states, including California,” though only the New York incidents are included in the complaint.
Both women are asking for compensatory and punitive damages from Combs and his various Combs Global businesses, which are named as co-defendants for “enabl[ing]” the alleged abuse.
A representative for Combs and Combs Global did not immediately respond to Billboard‘s request for comment.
Combs is currently awaiting the start of his criminal trial, which is set to commence on May 5, at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn. He is charged with running a criminal enterprise aimed at satisfying his need for “sexual gratification.” Among other accusations, Combs is alleged to have held so-called “freak offs” during which he and others drugged victims and coerced them into having sex. He is also accused of acts of violence and intimidation to silence his alleged victims. Combs faces a potential life prison sentence if convicted on all charges.
Will Drake’s pending defamation lawsuit stop Kendrick Lamar from performing “Not Like Us” during his Super Bowl halftime performance? Legal experts say it might — but that it really shouldn’t.
Under normal circumstances, it’s silly to even ask the question. Obviously a Super Bowl halftime performer will play their chart-topping banger — a track that just swept record and song of the year at the Grammys and was arguably music’s most significant song of the past year.
But these are very much not normal circumstances. Last month, Drake filed a lawsuit over “Not Like Us,” accusing Universal Music Group of defaming him by boosting the scathing diss track. The case, which doesn’t name Lamar as a defendant, claims UMG spread the song’s “malicious narrative” — namely, that Drake is a pedophile — despite knowing it was false.
Trending on Billboard
That pending legal action makes it fair to wonder: When Lamar steps onto the world’s biggest stage on Sunday night (Feb. 9), will he face pressure to avoid the whole mess by just skipping “Not Like Us” entirely?
He shouldn’t, legal experts say, and for a pretty simple reason: Drake’s lawsuit against UMG is a legal loser. “I don’t think the case is strong at all,” says Samantha Barbas, a legal historian and an expert in defamation law at the University of Iowa’s College of Law.
For Drake to eventually win the case over “Not Like Us,” he’ll need to show that Lamar’s claims about him are provably false assertions — meaning the average person would hear them and assume Kendrick was stating actual facts. Barbas says that’ll be tough for Drake to do about a diss track, where fans expect bombast and “rhetorical hyperbole” more so than objective reality.
“In the context of a rap battle, the average listener is going to know that the allegations aren’t to be taken seriously,” she says. “Taunts and wild exaggerations are par for the course.”
Another challenge for Drake is that he’s a public figure. Under key First Amendment rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court, a public figure like Drake must show that UMG either knew the lyrics were false or that the company acted with reckless disregard for the truth — a legal standard that’s intentionally difficult to meet so that rich and famous people don’t abuse libel lawsuits to squelch free speech.
“A high-profile public figure like Drake immediately enters the case with a high burden of proof,” says Roy Gutterman, the director of the Newhouse School’s Tully Center for Free Speech at Syracuse University.
UMG’s attorneys will also likely point to the fact that Drake himself made harmful allegations against Kendrick earlier in the same exchange of diss tracks, including that Lamar had abused his fiancée and that one of his children was fathered by another man. Were those defamatory statements of fact, or merely the exercise of artistic license within the conventions of a specific genre of music?
“Factoring in the context here — music and art within an ongoing dispute between rival musicians — he has an even tougher case,” Gutterman says.
So if Drake’s case is likely to eventually be dismissed, then there’s no reason for Kendrick to hold back on Sunday, right?
Not exactly.
For starters, Federal Communications Commission rules prohibit the airing of “obscene, indecent, or profane content” on broadcast television during primetime hours. To avoid those rules, Super Bowl halftime performers typically avoid curse words or overtly sexual material — something that would probably already preclude the “pedophile” line and other lyrics in “Not Like Us.”
Corporate legal departments are also famously risk averse, and often prefer to play it safe rather than potentially face expensive litigation, even if they’d ultimately win. That could lead any of the big companies involved here to put pressure on Kendrick to skip “Not Like Us.” His label, UMG, has vowed to fight back against Drake’s “frivolous” lawsuit, but might not want to add complications mid-litigation; the game’s broadcaster, Fox, or the NFL itself might worry about getting added to the suit as defendants.
Gutterman said it would be “a significant stretch of liability law” for Drake to successfully sue Fox or the NFL simply because Kendrick played “Not Like Us” at the halftime show. But in practice, that might not be how their in-house attorneys are thinking about it.
“The threat of litigation can have a chilling effect on speech,” Barbas says. “The safe thing to do is not to publish or broadcast.”
Reps for Lamar did not return a request for comment on whether he’ll perform the song. The British tabloid newspaper The Sun, citing anonymous sources, reported last week that Kendrick has faced pressure to skip the track but plans to perform it anyway and “won’t be silenced.” But that report could not be confirmed by Billboard and was not widely re-reported by other outlets.
Asked whether they have a position on whether Lamar plays the song, reps for UMG, Fox, the NFL and Roc Nation (Jay-Z’s company that produces the halftime show) all either declined to comment or did not return requests for comment.
When the show kicks off on Sunday night, the most likely outcome is probably somewhere down the middle: That Kendrick plays the song’s already-iconic instrumental hook and perhaps some of the lyrics, but skips any of the portions that are directly at play in Drake’s lawsuit.
“It wouldn’t be surprising,” Barbas says, “if the challenged lyrics are changed.”
Sean “Diddy” Combs has been hit with yet another lawsuit, this one filed by a man who says the hip-hop mogul drugged and sexually assaulted him at a Los Angeles party in 2015 after luring him with the promise of a record deal.
The new lawsuit was filed Monday (Feb. 3) in New York state court by Texas attorney Tony Buzbee, who has already filed a slew of other lawsuits against Combs. In it, a man identified only as John Doe claims that before performing for an audience at a Los Angeles venue called QC’s 20/20 with Combs in attendance, “a long-time and wellknown associate of Combs” told him “that Combs had heard of his talent and would be watching him perform. The associate specifically told Doe that if he performed well, Combs would discuss getting a deal with Bad Boy Records and arrange studio time between him and Combs.”
Following the performance, the man says that he attended an afterparty in the back of club, during which he was handed an “alcoholic beverage” containing Ciroc — Combs’ vodka brand — that was allegedly “from Combs himself.” After consuming the drink, the man claims he “quickly felt lightheaded and began slipping in and out of consciousness.”
During this time, according to the complaint, “Doe observed Combs and his entourage engaging in group sexual activity, often with other attendees who appeared either drugged, unconscious, or as if they were paid escorts. Doe believed most of the men participating in the sexual activities belonged to Combs’ entourage.”
At one point, the man claims that he regained consciousness to see Combs “grabbing his crotch while his pants had already been removed,” adding that “he believes that Combs had been performing oral sex on him because his penis was noticeably wet.” He goes on to allege that after regaining consciousness again, he “attempted to fight Combs off, but Combs’ security team stepped in,” and that Combs subsequently “threatened” him, “stating that he could easily contact his manager and ruin any chances he had of succeeding in the music industry if he did not comply.”
At this point, the man claims Combs ordered him “to have sex with a woman he did not know while Combs wanted to watch,” but that he escaped the venue after convincing Combs and his security team to let him use the bathroom.
He says that after the assault, he was afraid to report the alleged assault for fear of being blackballed in the music industry and later experienced “pain and suffering, mental anguish, physical impairment and emotional torment,” adding that it “greatly affected” his desire to continue pursuing a music career.
Also named as defendants in the suit are Combs’ various business entities under the Combs Global umbrella, which are alleged to have “enabled” the assault.
The man is asking for compensatory and punitive damages.
“As we’ve said before, Mr. Combs cannot respond to every new publicity stunt, even in response to claims that are facially ridiculous or demonstrably false,” said attorneys for Combs in a statement sent to Billboard. “Mr. Combs and his legal team have full confidence in the facts and the integrity of the judicial process. In court, the truth will prevail: that Mr. Combs never sexually assaulted or trafficked anyone — man or woman, adult or minor.”
Combs is currently awaiting the start of his criminal trial, which is set to commence on May 5, at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn. He is charged with running a criminal enterprise aimed at satisfying his need for “sexual gratification.” Among other accusations, Combs is alleged to have held so-called “freak offs” during which he and others drugged victims and coerced them into having sex. He is also accused of acts of violence and intimidation to silence his alleged victims. Combs faces a potential life prison sentence if convicted on all charges.
A Louisiana federal judge has finalized an unusual legal decision that says American copyright termination rules apply not just stateside but also across the globe, unswayed by warnings that it will cause “destabilization of long-settled business practices” in the music industry.
Ruling on a dispute over the 1963 rock classic “Double Shot (Of My Baby’s Love),” Judge Shelly Dick said Thursday that songwriter Cyril Vetter could win back full copyright ownership to the track from publisher Resnik Music Group via termination — an important federal provision that allows artists to take back their rights decades after they sold them away.
What makes the ruling notable is that Judge Dick said Vetter could recapture rights to the song “throughout the world,” not just in the U.S. That’s a big departure from the status quo under longstanding legal precedents, which say that reversions apply only to the American market and have no effect on rights in foreign countries.
Trending on Billboard
Resnik has warned that such a decision will be deeply disruptive to the music industry. In court filings, the company has argued it will “upend” existing practices and could even violate international treaty obligations: “The result would be chaos … rather than the orderly system that the nations of the world have in fact developed over more than a century.”
Music attorneys have also taken notice. Tal Dickstein, a prominent litigator at the law firm Loeb & Loeb, wrote in August that Judge Dick was “breaking with existing precedent” by extending the power of termination overseas. Eric J. Schwartz, an attorney at the firm Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp, said the ruling would be a “major upheaval” if upheld (though he said that “seems unlikely”). Bill Hochberg, another longtime music attorney, went much further, saying the “Double Shot” case could “radically revolutionize the way the music business runs” and might be “financially devastating” for large entertainment companies.
The ruling for Vetter — largely explained in an earlier decision last summer and finalized in Thursday’s judgment — is likely to be challenged at a federal appeals court; defense attorneys already attempted to file an appeal at an earlier stage in the case. An attorney for Resnik did not immediately return a request for comment on the ruling on Friday (Jan. 31).
If it were to be adopted in courts across the country, Judge Dick’s approach would be a boon for songwriters and their heirs. Under existing precedent and practices, publishers often continue to own foreign rights even after a U.S. termination, giving them potential veto power over cross-border projects and a bargaining chip in negotiations with the artist. Under the new ruling, songwriters would get back all of their rights, not just their American copyright.
For Tim Kappel, the attorney who represented Vetter in the case, that’s exactly the point — helping songwriters truly get the artist-friendly protections that federal lawmakers envisioned when they created the termination right in the 1970s.
“The [ruling] is consistent with Congress’ intent to provide creators with a second chance to benefit from the fruits of their labor,” Kappel tells Billboard. “There’s a fundamental fairness to that result that Mr. Vetter is dedicated to defending.”
Asked about the cries of “chaos” from his opponents, Kappel called those claims “speculative and fairly alarmist.” As to whether the ruling will “destabilize” music industry practices, he said those practices might just be ripe for disruption.
“A court is not bound to interpret the Copyright Act so as to conform to comfortable business practices,” Kappel said. “In fact, to the extent these business practices rely on misguided legal theories that prevent artists and writers from receiving the full benefit of their termination rights, we believe such practices are rightfully destabilized.”
Prosecutors have filed a superseding indictment against Sean “Diddy” Combs that includes additional victims and new allegations in the sprawling criminal case against him, according to documents entered in New York federal court on Thursday (Jan. 30). Though it includes no new charges, the amended indictment extends the amount of time Combs allegedly operated a […]
A new federal report on artificial intelligence says that merely prompting a computer to write a song isn’t enough to secure a copyright on the resulting track — but that using AI as a “brainstorming tool” or to assist in a recording studio would be fair game.
In a long-awaited report issued Wednesday (Jan. 29), the U.S. Copyright Office reiterated the agency’s basic stance on legal protections for AI-generated works: That only human authors are eligible for copyrights, but that material created with the assistance of AI can qualify on a case-by-case basis.
Amid the surging growth of AI technology over the past two years, the question of copyright coverage for outputs has loomed large for the nascent industry, since works that aren’t protected by copyrights would be far harder for their creators to monetize.
Trending on Billboard
“Where that [human] creativity is expressed through the use of AI systems, it continues to enjoy protection,” said Shira Perlmutter, Register of Copyrights, in the report. “Extending protection to material whose expressive elements are determined by a machine, however, would undermine rather than further the constitutional goals of copyright.”
Simply using a written prompt to order an AI model to spit out an entire song or other work would fail that test, the Copyright Office said. The report directly quoted from a comment submitted by Universal Music Group, which likened that scenario to “someone who tells a musician friend to ‘write me a pretty love song in a major key’ and then falsely claims co-ownership.”
“Prompts alone do not provide sufficient human control to make users of an AI system the authors of the output,” the agency wrote. “Prompts essentially function as instructions that convey unprotectible ideas.”
But the agency also made clear that using AI to help create new works would not automatically void copyright protection — and that when AI “functions as an assistive tool” that helps a person express themselves, the final output would “in many circumstances” still be protected.
“There is an important distinction between using AI as a tool to assist in the creation of works and using AI as a stand-in for human creativity,” the Office wrote.
To make that point, the report cited specific examples that would likely be fair game, including Hollywood studios using AI-powered tech to “de-age” actors in movies. The report also said AI could be used as a “brainstorming tool,” quoting from a Recording Academy submission that said artists are currently using AI to “assist them in creating new music.”
“In these cases, the user appears to be prompting a generative AI system and referencing, but not incorporating, the output in the development of her own work of authorship,” the agency wrote. “Using AI in this way should not affect the copyrightability of the resulting human-authored work.”
Wednesday’s report, like previous statements from the Copyright Office on AI, offered broad guidance but avoided hard-and-fast rules. Songs and other works that use AI will require “case-by-case determinations,” the agency said, as to whether they “reflect sufficient human contribution” to merit copyright protection. The exact legal framework for deciding such cases was not laid out in the report.
The new study on copyrightability is the second of three studies the agency is conducting on AI. The first report, issued last year, recommended federal legislation banning the use of AI to create fake replicas of real people; bills that would do so are pending before Congress.
The final report, set for release at some point in the future, deals with the biggest AI legal question of all: whether AI companies break the law when they “train” their models on vast quantities of copyrighted works. That question — which could implicate trillions of dollars in damages and exert a profound effect on future AI development — is already the subject of widespread litigation.
Spotify won a ruling Wednesday dismissing a lawsuit from the Mechanical Licensing Collective that accused the streamer of unfairly slashing royalty rates, with a federal judge ruling that Spotify’s move was supported by “unambiguous” regulations.
The MLC sued last year, claiming Spotify had “unilaterally and unlawfully” chosen to cut its music royalty payments nearly in half through bookmaking trickery – namely, by claiming that the addition of audiobooks to the platform entitled the company to pay a lower “bundled” rate.
But in her decision on Wednesday, Judge Analisa Torres said that federal royalty rate rules clearly allowed Spotify to legally claim the lower rate, rejecting MLC’s argument that the company was not actually offering a “bundle” of services.
Trending on Billboard
“Audiobook streaming is a product or service that is distinct from music streaming and has more than token value,” the judge wrote, alluding to the specific wording of the federal rule. “Premium is, therefore, properly categorized as a Bundle.”
A spokeswoman for the MLC did not immediately return a request for comment on the ruling.
The MLC, which collects streaming royalties for songwriters and publishers, filed its lawsuit in late May — a week after Billboard estimated that Spotify’s move would result in the company paying roughly $150 million less over the next year. In its complaint, the MLC claimed Spotify was “erroneously recharacterizing” the nature of its streaming services to secure the lower rate.
“The financial consequences of Spotify’s failure to meet its statutory obligations are enormous for songwriters and music publishers,” the group’s attorneys wrote at the time. “If unchecked, the impact on songwriters and music publishers of Spotify’s unlawful underreporting could run into the hundreds of millions of dollars.”
At issue in the lawsuit is Spotify’s recent addition of audiobooks to its premium subscription service. The streamer believes that because of the new offering, it’s now entitled to pay a discounted “bundled” royalty rate under the federal legal settlement that governs how much streamers pay rightsholders.
In Wednesday’s ruling, Judge Torres agreed. She said the rules required only that Spotify offered a different service and that it provided users with more than “token value” – and that the addition of audiobooks was clearly covered by those terms.
MLC’s attorneys had argued that audiobooks were that kind of “token” non-factor, since Spotify didn’t raises prices when it added them and only a small proportion of subscribers actually listen to them. MLC had claimed Spotify added the books was merely a “pretext” to cut rates for music.
Spotify moved to dismiss the case in August, calling it “nonsensical” and “wasteful.” The company’s attorneys blasted the MLC’s argument that the audiobooks were aimed at a legal loophole, saying it “profoundly devalues the contributions of the tens of thousands of book authors.”
In her decision on Wednesday, Judge Torres sided with Spotify’s argument. Though she said the new offering might strike ordinary consumers as more of a “two-for-one deal” than a traditional bundle, she said Spotify’s addition of the books had clearly brought more than nominal value to its users.
“MLC cannot plausibly claim that having access to audiobooks is not something of intrinsic and monetary value to many, even if only a fraction of Spotify’s millions of Premium subscribers may take advantage of it,” the judge wrote. “The court can draw only one conclusion: that 15 hours of monthly audiobook streaming is a product or service that has more than token value.”
If anything, Judge Torres said, Spotify had “likely paid more in royalties to MLC than it was otherwise required to pay” because it did not immediately claim bundled status after introducing the audiobook feature.
In addition to dismissing the lawsuit, Judge Torres did not give MLC a chance to refile the case, saying the law was clear and that amending the accusations would be futile. The group can still challenge the ruling at a federal appeals court, however.
In a statement to Billboard on Wednesday, a Spotify spokesperson said the company was “pleased” with the court’s decision: “Bundle offerings play a critical role in expanding the interest in paying for music and growing the pie for the music industry. We know the regulations can be complex, but there’s plenty of room for collaboration—and our recent deal with [Universal Music Publishing Group] shows how direct licenses can create flexibility and additional benefits.”
A Detroit rapper is suing Lyft for discrimination over allegations that one of the company’s drivers told her she was too large to fit inside his car.
In a lawsuit filed in Michigan court Monday (Jan. 27), Dank Demoss (Dajua Blanding) says the driver of a black Mercedes sedan told her during the Jan. 18 incident that she was “too big” for the backseat of his car and that “his tires were not capable of supporting plaintiff’s weight.”
“Defendant Lyft … unlawfully discriminated against plaintiff based on her weight,” Blanding’s attorneys write in the lawsuit, which was obtained by Billboard. Blanding, who has described herself as a “Big Beautiful Woman” on social media, says she was embarrassed, humiliated and suffered “mental anguish.”
The lawsuit comes after Blanding posted an alleged video of the incident to TikTok and other platforms, showing her arguing with the driver over his seeming refusal to take her.
Trending on Billboard
In the video, she can be heard telling the driver, “I can fit in this car,” after which he quickly responds, “Believe me, you can’t.” After telling Blanding that he’s “been in this situation before,” the driver can be heard saying that she needs to order a pricier “Uber XL” to accommodate her size.
Blanding’s post on TikTok has been viewed more than 345,000 times; another clip on Instagram has been liked more than 7,000 times.
In her complaint filed Monday, Blanding says the driver’s refusal violates Michigan’s civil rights laws, which prohibit any discrimination for public accommodations based on a variety of factors, including a person’s weight.
“Plaintiff’s weight was at least one factor that made a difference in defendants’ treatment of plaintiff and subjected her to a hostile environment,” her lawyers write.
In a statement to Billboard, a Lyft spokesperson declined to comment on the specifics of a pending legal action, but stressed that its driver regulations “explicitly prohibit harassment or discrimination.”
“Lyft unequivocally condemns all forms of discrimination — we believe in a community where everyone is treated with equal respect and mutual kindness,” the company said.
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: Limp Bizkit suffers a setback in its $200 million lawsuit against Universal Music Group; A$AP Rocky’s assault trial kicks off in Los Angeles; a deep-dive into the legal teams representing Drake and UMG in their legal battle over Kendrick Lamar’s diss track; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: Limp Bizkit’s UMG Lawsuit Hits A Snag
A lawsuit from Limp Bizkit says Universal Music Group (UMG) used “systemic” and “fraudulent” policies to deprive the band of millions in royalties. But a judge ruled last week that there was a big legal flaw in the blockbuster case.
Trending on Billboard
The lawsuit, filed last year and seeking $200 million in damages, claims that frontman Fred Durst and the band have “not seen a dime in royalties” due to “fraudulent” policies by UMG. The lawsuit argued the label’s conduct was so egregious that the band was entitled to “rescission” — a legal term for a ruling that would void its entire decades-long deal with UMG.
Rescission is not Limp Bizkit’s only legal angle, but it’s crucial to the band’s case. Without it, the group can’t pursue its separate allegations of copyright infringement — claims that would carry a huge damages award if proven. Such a claim could only succeed if the band’s contracts are voided and it legally regains its ownership of the copyrights.
It turns out Friday (Jan. 24) was just one of those days. In a ruling on UMG’s motion to dismiss the case, Judge Percy Anderson rejected the rescission claim — noting that, despite the band’s claim to have never been paid, it had in fact been “paid millions in advances” and that UMG had fronted “substantial sums” to produce its albums.
“Plaintiffs seek rescission of contracts that have governed the parties’ relationship beginning in 1996 — nearly 30 years — [but] plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged the type of ‘substantial’ or ‘total failure’ in the performance of the contracts that could support rescission,” the judge wrote.
The ruling isn’t a total defeat. Judge Anderson didn’t reach conclusions on many of the lawsuit’s other legal claims, including fraudulent concealment and intentional misrepresentation, and gave Limp Bizkit’s lawyers a chance to fix the rescission claim. But the judge’s wording suggested he will be skeptical of revoking a contract when “millions in royalties were advanced and paid under decades-old agreements.”
Following Friday’s decision, Limp Bizkit has until early next month to refile an amended version of the lawsuit. We’ll keep you posted at Billboard when they do so.
Other top stories this week…
A$AP SHOOTING TRIAL – A criminal trial in Los Angeles kicked off for rapper A$AP Rocky over accusations that he fired a gun at former friend A$AP Relli on a Hollywood street in 2021. The star (Rakim Meyers), charged with two felony counts of assault with a firearm, faces 24 years in prison if convicted after turning down a plea deal for just 180 days in county jail. In opening statements, prosecutors told jurors Rocky fired a 9mm pistol and revealed that they had recovered a loaded magazine from such a gun during a search of his home. Defense attorneys responded by arguing that Rocky carried only a “prop gun” and had fired it as a warning to “scare” Relli because he was attacking another A$AP crew member. Stay tuned: Rihanna, Rocky’s wife, is expected to appear in court on Wednesday (Jan. 29).
LAWYER UP – With Drake’s lawsuit against UMG over Kendrick Lamar’s diss track “Not Like Us” still in the earliest stages, I wrote a deep-dive on the high-powered legal teams each side has hired. For Drake, that meant turning to a veteran litigator who has made a name for himself representing the alleged victims of conspiracy theories on the internet. For UMG, it meant hiring one of the biggest law firms in the world — and one that the music giant has repeatedly used in major cases over the years.
MICHAEL MOVIE DELAY – An upcoming Michael Jackson biopic has been delayed for months due to a recently revealed, decades-old legal agreement that will require costly re-shoots of key scenes. First reported last week by the news site Puck, the agreement barred any portrayal of the family of Jordan Chandler, a then-13-year-old boy who accused the superstar singer of molestation in the 1990s — but the movie featured the family prominently anyway. A source with knowledge of the film’s production told Billboard that re-shoots are already scheduled and that the movie’s ultimate release — now scheduled for October — is not in jeopardy.
THERE GOES GRAVITY – Eight Mile Style, the publishing company that owns the copyrights to Eminem’s “Lose Yourself,” filed an infringement lawsuit against a Ford dealership near the rapper’s native Detroit, accusing the company of using the iconic track in TikTok videos that warned viewers they “only get one shot” to buy a special edition truck. The case is just the latest over social media videos allegedly featuring uncleared music — a problem that has recently led to litigation against Chili’s, Marriott and a slew of NBA teams.
SPEIDI SUIT – Spencer Pratt and Heidi Montag joined more than 20 other property owners in suing the city of Los Angeles over the recent devastating fires in Southern California. Attorneys for Montag — whose 2010 album recently re-charted after going viral — claim the city’s decision to “drain” a local reservoir left firefighters without enough water to battle the blaze effectively.
CHRIS BROWN SUES – The R&B star filed a defamation case against Warner Bros. Discovery over a 2024 documentary claiming he had a long history of sexually abusing women. Brown’s attorneys say Warner’s ID network released the movie in “their pursuit of likes, clicks, downloads and dollars” even though they knew it contained false and damaging claims about him: “They did so after being provided proof that their information was false.”
ROCK & ROLL FAIR USE – The Rock & Roll Hall of Fame asked a federal judge to dismiss a copyright lawsuit over an image of Eddie Van Halen snapped by Neil Zlozower, a prolific rock photographer who has filed dozens of such cases in recent years. In seeking to toss the case, the Rock Hall argued that it made legal “fair use” of the Van Halen pic, saying it was part of a museum exhibit designed to “educate the public about the history of rock and roll music.”
MANSON NOT CHARGED – Los Angeles prosecutors announced that Marilyn Manson (Brian Warner) won’t face criminal charges following a four-year investigation into allegations of domestic violence and sexual assault. The city’s newly-elected DA praised the “courage and resilience of the women who came forward,” but said that the statute of limitations had expired for any domestic violence charges against the rocker and that his office simply could not prove a sexual assault charge in court.
“BRAZEN THIEVERY” – Independent label and publisher Artist Partner Group (APG) filed a copyright lawsuit against Create Music Group, claiming that the digital distributor uploaded and monetized songs on YouTube that it didn’t actually own. “Create’s ‘business model’ is to steal the intellectual property and contractual rights of innocent rightsholders,” APG’s attorneys wrote.
DIDDY DEFAMATION – Sean “Diddy” Combs lodged a defamation lawsuit over allegations that a man named Courtney Burgess falsely claimed to have videos of the embattled hip-hop mogul committing sexual assault. The lawsuit, which also names Burgess’ attorney Ariel Mitchell as a defendant, claims the fake reports about the videos caused him “profound reputational and economic injury and severe prejudice” ahead of his looming criminal trial on sex trafficking and racketeering charges.
The company that owns the copyrights to Eminem’s “Lose Yourself” is suing a Ford dealership near the rapper’s native Detroit for using the iconic track in TikTok videos that warned viewers they “only get one shot” to buy a special edition truck.
In a lawsuit filed on Monday (Jan. 27) in Michigan federal court, Eight Mile Style accuses LaFontaine Ford St. Clair — which owns several dealerships near Eminem’s hometown — of blasting the song in the social media videos even though “at no time” did it get a license to do so.
“This is an action for willful copyright infringement … against LaFontaine for its unauthorized use of the composition in online advertisements for one or more car dealerships in blatant disregard of the exclusive rights vested in Eight Mile,” the company’s attorneys write.
Trending on Billboard
The lawsuit says the videos, which allegedly appeared on TikTok, Instagram and Facebook in September and October, used “Lose Yourself” to boost a special Detroit Lions-themed Ford truck, telling viewers: “With only 800 produced, you only get one shot to own a Special Edition Detroit Lions 2024 PowerBoost Hybrid F-150.”
Social media platforms like TikTok and Instagram provide huge libraries of licensed music for users to easily add to their videos. But there’s a key exception: The songs can’t be used for commercial or promotional videos posted by brands. That kind of content requires a separate “synch” license, just like any conventional advertisement on TV.
That crucial distinction has led to numerous lawsuits in recent years. The restaurant chain Chili’s has been sued twice for using copyrighted songs in social videos, including once by the Beastie Boys over “Sabotage” and again by Universal Music Group for allegedly using more than 60 songs from Ariana Grande, Justin Bieber and many others. The hotel chain Marriott and more than a dozen NBA teams have also recently faced copyright lawsuits over the same thing.
In the current case, Eight Mile Style pointedly noted that it had previously approved car commercials involving “Lose Yourself” — something of a natural fit, given the song’s connections to the Motor City.
“The composition was licensed and featured in a two-minute Chrysler television commercial that aired during the 2011 Super Bowl,” Eight Mile’s lawyers write. “Chrysler generated millions of dollars of new and used automobile sales across the world from this use of the composition.”
But LaFontaine’s decision to use the song without approval “usurped Plaintiffs’ exclusive rights to determine when and under what terms the composition may be used for commercial endorsements and advertising,” the company’s lawyers write.
