Legal News
Page: 42
A jury found Friday that celebrity tattoo artist Kat Von D did not violate a photographer’s copyright when she used his portrait of Miles Davis as the basis for a tattoo she put on the arm of a friend.
The Los Angeles jury deliberated for just over two hours before deciding that the tattoo by the former star of the reality shows “Miami Ink” and “LA Ink” was not similar enough to photographer Jeffrey Sedlik’s 1989 portrait of the jazz legend that she needed to have paid permission.
“I’m obviously very happy for this to be over,” Von D, who inked her friend’s arm with Davis as a gift about seven years ago, said outside the courtroom. “It’s been two years of a nightmare worrying about this, not just for myself but for my fellow tattoo artists.”
The eight jurors made the same decision about a drawing Von D made from the portrait to base the tattoo on, and to several social media posts she made about the process, which were also part of Sedlik’s lawsuit. And they found that the tattoo, drawing and posts also all fell within the legal doctrine of fair use of a copyrighted work, giving Von D and other tattoo artists who supported her and followed the trial a resounding across-the-board victory.
“We’ve said all along that this case never should have been brought,” Von D’s attorney Allen B. Grodsky said after the verdict. “The jury recognized that this was just ridiculous.”
Sedlik’s attorney Robert Edward Allen said they plan to appeal. He said it the images, which both featured a close-up of Davis gazing toward the viewer and making a “shh” gesture, were so similar he didn’t know how the jury could reach the conclusion they did.
“If those two things are not substantially similar, then no one’s art is safe,” Allen said.
He told jurors during closing arguments earlier Friday that the case has “nothing to do with tattoos.”
“It’s about copying others’ protected works,” Allen said. “It’s not going to hurt the tattoo industry. The tattoo police are not going to come after anyone.”
Allen emphasized the meticulous work Sedlik did to set up the shoot, to create the lighting and mood, and to put Davis in the pose that would make for an iconic photo that was first published on the cover of JAZZIZ magazine in 1989. Sedlik registered the copyright in 1994.
And he said that subsequently, licensing the image to others including tattoo artists was a major part of how he made his living.
Von D said during the three-day trial that she never licenses the images she recreates, and she considers work like the Davis tattoo a form of “fan art.”
“I made zero money off it,” she testified. “I’m not mass-producing anything. I think there is a big difference.”
Her attorney Grodsky emphasized for jurors that that lack of an attempt to cash in on the image was essential to the tattoo being a form of fair use, an exception in copyright law used for works including commentary, criticism and parody.
Allen argued in his closing that the social media posts about the tattoo were a promotion of her and her studio, and thus a form of monetizing the image.
If jurors had sided with Sedlik, they could have awarded him as little as a few hundred dollars or as much as $150,000.
Von D was among the stars of the reality series “Miami Ink” then was the featured artist on its spinoff “LA Ink,” which ran on TLC from 2007 to 2011.
The 41-year-old Von D, whose legal name is Katherine von Drachenberg, was already a prominent young tattoo artist when she became a TV personality through her appearances on TLC’s “Miami Ink” starting in 2005 on TLC. She was the central star of its spinoff, “LA Ink,” which ran from 2007 to 2011 and made her possibly the most famous tattoo artist in the country.
Von D said that despite the victory, she’s not enthused about getting back to work.
“I think I don’t want to ever tattoo again, my heart has been crushed through this in different ways,” she said. “We’ll see with time.”
50 Cent is facing a new civil lawsuit over an incident last summer in which he was captured on video throwing a microphone at a concert, filed by a Los Angeles radio host who says she was struck by the mic and suffered “severe and permanent injuries.”
In a lawsuit filed Thursday in Los Angeles court, Power 106 host Bryhana Monegain accused 50 Cent (Curtis Jackson) and concert giant AEG of legal negligence over the August episode, in which the rapper chucked the mic off to the side of the stage after he became frustrated that it was not working.
Monegain – who publicly shared images of gash on her forehead the next day – claims in her lawsuit that the microphone hit her in the face and left wrist, causing major injuries.
“Plaintiff was transported by ambulance to the Los Angeles General Medical Center emergency department for treatment of injuries, including but not limited to, a concussion, laceration over her forehead, and pain in her left wrist,” her lawyers write. “Plaintiff complained of dizziness, headaches, light and sound sensitivity, and nausea [and] continues to suffer from here severe injuries and emotional distress.”
Part of the incident — which happened on Aug 30. while 50 Cent was performing at Crypto.com Arena in Los Angeles as part of his Final Lap Tour — was captured in viral videos. In them, the rapper is seen looking frustrated with a microphone, then throwing it down off the side of the stage. Later in the performance, while Nas was onstage, videos show 50 getting annoyed again before hurling the new mic to the same offstage section.
While the viral video doesn’t show the microphone hitting anyone, Monegain appeared in photos shared on social media with a wound on her forehead that was allegedly caused by 50 Cent’s mic.
Reps for 50 Cent did not return a request for comment on Friday. In a statement at the time, his lawyer Scott Leemon told Billboard that “Curtis would never intentionally strike anyone with a microphone.”
Thursday’s lawsuit is purely a civil matter. At the time of the incident, Monegain reportedly filed a police report on the night of the concert alleging criminal battery. But court records show that no charges were ever filed, and TMZ later reported that both the L.A. District Attorney’s office and the L.A. City Attorney’s office had both declined to bring a criminal case against the rapper.
As in any negligence lawsuit, Monegain claims that 50 Cent and AEG had a duty to keep her and other attendees safe from any dangers that they either knew about or should have seen coming. Instead, she says they “failed to create an environment that was safe for attendees on the subject premises.” She claims that 50 Cent should have known “the dangerous nature of a performer throwing a microphone into a crowed area” but did so anyway.
The lawsuit does not say how much money Monegain is seeking, but asks for “past and future wage loss, hospital and medical expenses” and other unspecified “general damages” over the harm she allegedly suffered.
A spokesperson for AEG did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the lawsuit’s allegations.
Chicago rapper Lil Zay Osama is facing a two-count federal indictment for illegal firearm possession after he allegedly left an automatic Glock pistol in the back of an Uber after a ride in New York City.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
Prosecutors say that Lil Zay (real name Isaiah Dukes) carried a loaded pistol that had been modified into a machine gun during the rideshare trip from a luxury hotel in Manhattan to a recording studio in Queens, then left it in the back when he exited the vehicle.
The indictment, handed down by a Brooklyn federal grand jury Wednesday, charges Lil Zay with possession of a machine gun and possession of an unregistered firearm – accusations that carry a prison sentence as long as twenty years if he’s convicted.
“Machineguns have no place on the streets of our communities,” said Tommy Kalogiros, the lead investigator at the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, better known as the ATF. “They are weapons intended to kill and injure with maximum effect, with the shooter often firing uncontrollably and indiscriminately.”
The new federal case is only the latest gun charge for Lil Zay.
Last month, he was arrested in Chicago after Lil Zay and three other men allegedly led police on a high-speed chase. When the car was finally stopped, police reportedly found multiple loaded Glock pistols, as well as the same kind of modification device to convert a firearm into a fully automatic machine gun that was featured in Wednesday’s indictment. Before that, Lil Zay was reportedly arrested in Chicago in January 2023 on separate weapons charges – an incident that led to Lil Zay’s awkward-looking mugshot going viral on social media.
After the September 2022 taxi incident at the center of Wednesday’s indictment, Lil Zay was arrested in New York, but he was later released after he posted bond. Two months later, the rapper claimed on Instagram that the case over the incident had been “dismissed” and demanded an apology from hip hop personality DJ Akademiks, who had publicized incident on social media.
“Me personally leaving a gun in an Uber? Think about it lol I never did that!” he wrote in an Instagram story the time. “So stop saying I did cause if I did DNA would’ve been on gun and they would have found me with it.”
There’s a new front in the long legal war between the family members of late Ramones founders Joey and Johnny Ramone, this time over a planned Netflix movie starring Pete Davidson centered on the pioneering punk band.
In a lawsuit filed Saturday (Jan. 21) in Manhattan court, Johnny’s widow, Linda Ramone, claims that Joey’s brother, Mickey Leigh (Mitchel Hyman) “covertly developed an unapproved and unauthorized Ramones-based biopic” based on his own “one-sided recitation of the history of the Ramones.”
Though the lawsuit doesn’t identify Netflix by name, it says that the disputed movie will be based on Leigh’s memoir, I Slept with Joey Ramone. Netflix’s planned movie, announced in 2021, has the same name; is based on the same book; and is being developed with the “support of the Estate of Joey Ramone.”
Since Linda and Leigh split ownership of the intellectual property for the band — widely regarded as pioneers of punk rock and one of the most influential rock bands of all time — Linda says a movie that will focus heavily on the Ramones as a group cannot go forward without her say-so.
“Ms. Ramone objects to defendants’ attempt to create a Ramones film without her involvement — not to be obstinate, but rather based on defendants’ disregard for [Ramones] assets and their conduct and treatment of Ms. Ramone and her late husband,” Linda’s attorneys write. “To permit defendants alone to tell the authoritative story of the Ramones would be an injustice to the band and its legacy.”
Though the planned movie is one major point of dispute, Linda’s lawsuit also includes a raft of other allegations against Leigh and David Frey, a director of the Ramones’ holding company appointed to his role by Leigh. She says the pair have “effectively shut down the entire company,” unfairly withheld payments to her, and otherwise thrown the company’s operations into chaos.
“It is apparent from defendants’ continuing course of conduct that their main objective is to torment Ms. Ramone until she agrees to sell her interests,” Linda’s lawyers write. “Regrettably, Defendants appear willing to allow the band’s legacy to decay, in order to benefit their own self-interest.”
“They Weren’t Friendly”
Joey (real name Jeffrey Ross Hyman), who served as the band’s lead vocalist from their founding in 1974, died of cancer in 2001. Johnny (real name John William Cummings), the band’s guitarist, died in 2004, also of cancer.
The two punk rockers, who were not actually related, had a notoriously unbrotherly relationship — a rift rooted partly in their differing personalities and political views, but also in the fact that Linda dated Joey before eventually marrying Johnny. The two nonetheless formed a lucrative business partnership, touring heavily for decades until the band finally broke up for good in 1996. But in a 2016 interview with the New York Post, Leigh put it bluntly: “They weren’t friendly.”
In the years since the two bandmates passed away, that feud has seemingly continued between Leigh and Linda.
As the executors of Johnny and Joey’s respective estates, Linda and Leigh each own half of Ramones Productions Inc., an entity that has been described in court filings as “the vehicle through which the iconic punk rock musical group … markets, merchandizes, licenses and produces its memorabilia and musical related products.”
In 2018, Leigh filed a legal action against Linda via private arbitration, alleging that she was improperly using the band’s intellectual property and unfairly associating herself with the “Ramones” name with projects like a “Ramones Ranch” in Los Angeles, violating the agreement that governs how Ramones Productions is run.
In a decision that was later made public in court, an arbitrator partly sided with Leigh, restricting how Linda could use “The Ramones” name, and even requiring her to go by “Linda Cummings-Ramone” in certain situations. But the arbitrator roundly criticized both sides for their ongoing feuding, reminding them that they had an “almost sacred mission to be the caretakers for the band’s creative work.”
“Instead, the parties have allowed their personal egos and their animus for one another to interfere with their joint obligations by failing to communicate, obfuscating information and unreasonably withholding their approvals,” the arbitrator wrote in May 2019.
The admonishment did little good. Last year, the pair headed back to litigation, this time after Linda initiated arbitration proceedings that aimed to remove someone from the board of directors of Ramones Productions. Leigh filed a court case to halt the arbitration, arguing that it was an improper use of that process. That case remains pending.
“A Universal Story of Family”
The latest legal scuffle appears to have been triggered in part by the plans for a movie version of I Slept With Joey Ramone — Leigh’s 2009 memoir billed as “an enduring portrait of a man who struggled to find his voice and of the brother who loved him.” Netflix announced the film in April 2021, with Davidson set to co-write and star as Joey, and Jason Orley (Big Time Adolescence, I Want You Back) signed on to direct.
“’I Slept with Joey Ramone’ is a great rock anthem that will make an equally great rock biopic, set apart by a universal story of family,” Adam Fogelson, chairman of the company spearheading the film, said in Netflix’s press release announcing the project.
Netflix said that the movie, which remains in early-stage “development” in 2024, would be produced with “the cooperation and support of the Estate of Joey Ramone.” But in her new lawsuit this week, Linda says that such a project needs the sign-off of Ramones Productions, not just Joey’s estate.
“As 50% shareholder of RPI, Ms. Ramone would never have consented to defendants’ unilateral development of a Ramones biopic,” her lawyers wrote. “Nor would she (then or at any point in the future) agree to permit the inclusion of any RPI intellectual property or recordings in such a film project.”
According to Linda’s attorneys, Leigh and Frey have told others that they plan to “circumvent” any objections she has to the movie, including by potentially re-recording Ramones songs that could be used in the film. And once they do so, she says they will unfairly get to tell the “authoritative story” of the iconic band.
“There will likely not be an appetite for a subsequent Ramones film, thus destroying the single most lucrative and substantial corporate opportunity of the company and usurping it as defendants’ own,” Linda wrote.
Netflix is not named in the lawsuit and is not accused of any wrongdoing. The company did not return a request for comment on the new lawsuit.
Life Rights? Or Free Speech Rights?
Legally speaking, whether a movie producer would need one band member to sign off on a movie about one of his famous bandmates is a tricky question. Would John Lennon’s estate need to sign off on a Paul McCartney movie? Could Dave Grohl stop a Kurt Cobain biopic?
While many risk-averse filmmakers and studios secure “life rights” before they make such movies — essentially a guarantee that the production will not be hamstrung by litigation over likeness rights or defamation allegations — they’re not strictly necessary. The First Amendment largely protects the right to make movies based on real historical figures, whether they want their story told or not.
“Life rights are an agreement for access and a promise not to sue, but there’s no intellectual property attached to our life story itself,” says Lisa Callif, an attorney at the firm Donaldson Callif Perez who specializes in rights clearance for films and TV. “We all have a First Amendment right to tell a story. A story about a band is just comprised of facts, even if they’re really interesting facts.”
But in practical terms, a movie about a famous band raises a unique problem: It effectively needs to use that band’s copyrighted music. Can you imagine watching Walk The Line without hearing Johnny Cash songs, or Straight Outta Compton without any N.W.A tracks? In the context of a musical biopic, that gives someone like Linda, with her veto power over the band’s music, more leverage to demand involvement.
“It gets stickier with rights to music,” Callif said. “Even if you can tell the story, you’re not going to be able to license any of the music.”
The other layer to the current dispute is contractual. Linda’s lawsuit points to a legal settlement from 2009 in which both she and Leigh allegedly agreed that any “separate or individual projects” involving Ramones intellectual property would “require the prior written approval” of the company and its owners. Even if a studio has the right to tell any historical story it wants, a party to a contract could be barred from signing certain deals.
“Intransigence and Harmful Actions”
Beyond the dispute over the film, Linda’s new lawsuit includes a slew of other accusations about Leigh, echoing the strongly worded tone of their previous legal battles.
Linda says Leigh and Frey have “refused to engage with the Ramones’ record label, its social media creative agency, its merchandising partners, or its long-term business managers”; that they “regularly create internecine disputes and unnecessary work that drains the company of funds”; that they have “prevented the company from conducting basic operational tasks”; and have “baselessly and in bad faith” withheld dividend payments from her, “effectively holding Ms. Ramone’s money hostage” unless she agrees with their initiatives.
“After exhausting every resource at her disposal to try to right the ship … Linda Ramone reluctantly brings this action as a last resort,” Linda’s lawyers write. “Simply put, RPI, as currently constituted, is not working due to the intransigence and harmful actions undertaken by [Frey and Leigh].”
Ultimately, Linda claims that the only possible solution to the years-long dispute is to remove Frey from the company and appoint a court-order receiver to take charge of it: “Mr. Frey’s continued involvement and obfuscation remains a significant hurdle toward resolving even the most straightforward of operational issues.”
In technical terms, the lawsuit accuses Frey and Leigh of breaching their fiduciary duty to the company and of unjust enrichment. It demands that the court order Frey’s removal as director of the company, and requests the appointment of a receiver.
An attorney for Leigh declined to comment on the lawsuit’s allegations. An attorney for Frey did not immediately return requests for comment.
“Ramones Fans Want A Ramones Movie”
In some ways, the current dispute over the Joey biopic was predicted by that 2019 arbitration ruling which detailed the long struggle between Linda and Leigh.
In it, the arbitrator went to great lengths to plead with Linda and Leigh to put aside their differences. He warned them that their “time-consuming and costly” legal battles had caused the Ramones brand to experience “tepid growth.”
“Mickey Hyman and Linda Cummings-Ramone have been entrusted with the exceedingly important mission of preserving the legacy of the Ramones for its existing followers, and to grow this iconic brand to a new world-wide group of music fans,” the arbitrator wrote at the time “The only way those goals can be accomplished, in my estimation, is for there to be some radical changes made by Mickey, Linda, and their representatives.”
If those changes could be made, the arbitrator identified one key area for future growth: A movie. He cited the then-recent success of the movie Bohemian Rhapsody, which he said had boosted Queen to “its highest chart position in 38 years” and “demonstrates the power that a biopic can have on improving the stature of a rock band.” That movie eventually earned more than $900 million.
“In my estimation, Ramones fans want a Ramones movie,” the arbitrator wrote at the time. “To make that happen, each side will need to put on hold their individual desires to make a Mickey movie or a Linda movie and join together to authorize a great biopic to be made about this historically important band.”
David Kenner, the attorney who unsuccessfully represented Fugees rapper Prakazrel “Pras” Michel in his criminal trial case year, will plead guilty to a criminal contempt charge over allegations that he leaked grand jury materials to reporters ahead of the trial, prosecutors say.
In a court filing Thursday, prosecutors told a federal judge that Kenner had “agreed to accept responsibility for violating the court’s protective order” and plead guilty to a misdemeanor over the incident, in which he allegedly leaked “swathes of sensitive internal government records” to reporters.
It’s unclear what kind of repercussions Kenner will face under the plea deal. His attorney did not immediately return a request for comment. A hearing is set for Friday for Kenner to enter his plea.
Kenner’s planned plea comes as he is already facing accusations that he botched Michel’s April trial, in which the rapper was convicted of violating federal foreign lobbying laws. Michel’s new lawyers say Kenner “utterly failed” his client — including by using experimental A.I. tools to work the case — and are seeking a new trial on the grounds that he deprived Michel of an adequate defense.
Michel, a founding member of the influential hip-hop group Fugees, was charged in 2019 with funneling money from a now-fugitive Malaysian financier through straw donors to Barack Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign. He was also accused of trying to squelch a Justice Department investigation and influence an extradition case on behalf of China under the Trump administration.
In April, following a trial that included testimony from actor Leonardo DiCaprio and former U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Michel was convicted on 10 counts including conspiracy, witness tampering and failing to register as an agent of China. Throughout the trial, Michel was represented by Kenner, a well-known Los Angeles criminal defense attorney who has previously worked for hip-hop luminaries like Snoop Dogg, Suge Knight and, most recently, Tory Lanez.
Weeks before the trial even began, federal prosecutors accused Kenner of committing a “blatant violation” of court orders by leaking sealed documents, including materials from a grand jury, to reporters for the financial outlet Bloomberg in an effort to engineer “defense-oriented articles” on Michel’s case ahead of the trial.
“In a show of gamesmanship seeking to influence public opinion and bias potential jurors in favor of defendant, the defense has disclosed for publication swaths of sensitive internal government records,” prosecutors wrote at the time. “The disclosure may result in harassment or intimidation of government witnesses – in a case in which witness tampering is among the charges.”
According to prosecutors, the two Bloomberg articles (read them here and here) that came from Kenner’s leaks not only included sensitive sealed information, but told the story “largely from Michel’s perspective” and incorporated “defense themes of innocent alternative explanations.” They called Kenner’s conduct an effort to “influence the jury pool” by selectively disclosing facts about the case. Bloomberg and its reporters were not accused of any wrongdoing.
After Michel split with Kenner, his new lawyers raised those leaking accusations as another sign of Kenner’s missteps during the case. They said the charges against Kenner himself created a conflict of interest and a distraction as he was trying to defend his client during the trial.
“Kenner’s conflict of interest—owing to his significant stress and distraction from the contempt charges, and his incentive to curry favor with the prosecution and pursue an unaggressive defense—adversely affected his performance at trial,” Michel’s new lawyers wrote back in October.
Kenner has denied the accusations, and prosecutors have argued that his conduct during the trial was not enough to require an entirely new trial. A hearing on the issue was held earlier this month, and a judge will soon rule on Michel’s motion to overturn the verdict.
In a statement to Billboard on Thursday, Erica Dumas, a spokeswoman for Pras, cited Kenner’s guilty plea as yet another example of his ex-attorney’s shortcomings: “Unfortunately, former attorney David Kenner failed at every turn to competently represent Pras over the course of this lengthy legal battle.”
A man charged with stalking Taylor Swift outside her Manhattan home was arrested for a third time Wednesday shortly after he was released from police custody, meaning he’s facing new felony charges that could keep him behind bars for years.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
David Crowe, 31, had already been arrested on Saturday and Monday outside Swift’s TriBeCa apartment building and charged with misdemeanor stalking and harassment. But after he was released following an arraignment hearing on Wednesday, he apparently bee-lined back to the same location.
Police say they responded to a 911 call around 2:30 pm about a disorderly male in the area of Swift’s apartment. Though Crowe was gone when they arrived, police say he later turned himself in and was arrested for violating the strict protection order imposed on him as a condition of his release.
In addition to the original charges, Crowe is now facing four counts of criminal contempt in the first degree, a spokesman for the New York Police Department confirmed to Billboard – a felony that can result in as much as a five-year prison sentence. It’s unclear if the new counts are bail-eligible under New York state law, which would make it harder for Crowe to seek another quick release.
Crowe could be arraigned in Manhattan court on Thursday or Friday on the new charges. Manhattan prosecutors declined to comment on Crowe’s latest arrest.
The Seattle native was first arrested on Saturday afternoon, police say, after they responded to a 911 call regarding a “disorderly person” near Swift’s apartment. Crowe had allegedly “attempted to open a door to a building at the location” and was taken into custody on a previous arrest warrant.
Then on Monday evening, witnesses reported an “emotionally disturbed male acting erratically” near the same location, police say; officers then spotted Crowe “harassing multiple complainants” and he was taken into custody.
Following that arrest, Crowe was charged with one count of stalking in the fourth degree, one count of harassment in the first degree, and one count of harassment in the second degree.
In charging documents, prosecutors say that a security guard for an unnamed individual — presumed to be Swift — reported that Crowe has been spotted near Swift’s apartment roughly 30 times since late November and that on multiple occasions he had stated that he was there to speak to the same unnamed individual. The security guard reported that he had “asked the defendant not to approach the building or to leave the immediate area surrounding the building” on 10 separate occasions.
If convicted of those original charges — all misdemeanors — Crowe faces up to three months in prison for both the stalking count and the first-degree harassment count. If convicted on the second-degree, Crowe faces up to a year in prison.
A man arrested and charged with stalking Taylor Swift outside her Manhattan home has been released from police custody on supervised release after an arraignment hearing on Wednesday (Jan. 24).
David Crowe, 31, was arrested both Saturday and Monday outside Swift’s TriBeCa apartment building. Manhattan prosecutors, who charged the man with one count of stalking and two counts of harassment, say Crowe has been seen at the location more than 30 times since November.
At his first court hearing on Wednesday, a judge ordered Crowe released from custody but issued a protection order barring him from trying to contact Swift and imposed supervision to ensure that he abides by the order and returns to court for his next hearing.
The charges against Crowe were not eligible for bail under New York law, but prosecutors had urged the judge to impose “supervised release at the highest possible tier and level.”
“The defendant’s continued conduct in showing up to this location despite numerous directives to leave shows a clear risk that the defendant will not abide by court orders to return to court,” Harriet Jiranek told the judge at the hearing. “Based on the conduct in this case, the defendant should be under some level of supervision to ensure he abides by the order of protection and returns to court as directed.
Crowe was first arrested on Saturday afternoon, police say, after they responded to a 911 call regarding a “disorderly person” near Swift’s apartment. Crowe had allegedly “attempted to open a door to a building at the location” and was taken into custody on a previous arrest warrant.
Then on Monday evening, witnesses reported an “emotionally disturbed male acting erratically” near the same location, police say; officers then spotted Crowe “harassing multiple complainants” and he was taken into custody.
In charging documents, prosecutors say that a security guard for an unnamed individual — presumed to be Swift — reported that Crowe has been spotted near Swift’s apartment roughly 30 times since late November and that on multiple occasions he had stated that he was there to speak to the same unnamed individual. The security guard reported that he had “asked the defendant not to approach the building or to leave the immediate area surrounding the building” on 10 separate occasions.
If convicted of the charges — all misdemeanors — Crowe faces up to three months in prison for both the stalking count and the harassment in the first degree count. If convicted of his third count, of harassment in the second degree, Crowe faces up to a year in prison.
Swift’s publicist did not immediately return a request for comment on the incident. Crowe could not immediately be located for comment.
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: Madonna is sued by angry fans over concerts that started later than scheduled; Michael Jackson’s estate faces a lawsuit after threatening to sue a Las Vegas tribute act; Ice Spice is sued over allegations that her “In Ha Mood” ripped off an earlier track; and much more.
Want to get The Legal Beat newsletter in your email inbox every Tuesday? Subscribe here for free.
THE BIG STORY: Madonna Fans Sue Over Delayed Concerts
Finally: a lawsuit for people who just want to get some sleep.
Madonna was hit with a proposed class action last week because the Material Girl allegedly started three New York City concerts later than scheduled, a delay that her accusers say caused real legal harm to ticket buyers who, among other things, “had to get up early to go to work” the next day.
Can you really sue over that? Madonna and Live Nation will probably argue that concert fans are on notice that shows sometimes start a little later than scheduled. But ticket buyers Michael Fellows and Jonathan Hadden claim that by making fans wait two extra hours beyond the listed start time, she not only breached her contract with them, but also committed a “wanton exercise in false advertising, negligent misrepresentation, and unfair and deceptive trade practices.”
For more, go read our full story, including Fellows and Hadden’s claims about “Madonna’s long history of arriving and starting her concerts late” and full access to the actual court docs filed against her.
Other top stories this week…
MJ TRIBUTE BATTLE – A long-running Michael Jackson tribute act in Las Vegas called “MJ Live” filed a preemptive lawsuit against the singer’s estate, asking a judge to rule that it could legally continue to perform the show. The organizers of MJ Live say the King of Pop’s attorneys have been unfairly threatening to sue even though the show has been running successfully for more than a decade. The estate called the case “beyond frivolous” and vowed to “vigorously” defend itself.
ICE SPICE COPYRIGHT CASE – The Bronx rapper was hit with a copyright lawsuit over allegations that her recent hit, “In Ha Mood,” was copied from an earlier track called “In That Mood” by a Brooklyn artist named D.Chamberz. The lawsuit claims the two songs share so many similarities — including beat, lyrics, hook, rhythmic structure, metrical placement and narrative context — that the overlap “cannot be purely coincidental.”
COULDN’T PICTURE THIS – The Notorious B.I.G.’s estate reached a settlement with the widow of late hip hop photographer Chi Modu, resolving years of litigation over merch bearing Modu’s famed image of the late rapper standing in front of the World Trade Center. A judge had ruled earlier in the case that Modu was entitled to reproduce and sell his image, but that slapping it onto products likely violated Biggie’s likeness rights.
MILES DAVIS TATTOO TRIAL – A trial is set to kick off this week over whether celebrity tattoo artist Kat Von D violated copyright law when she inked a photographer’s portrait of jazz legend Miles Davis onto the arm of a friend. He says she chose to “precisely replicate” every aspect of his image; she says it was a legal fair use.
INFRINGEMENT ON THE RADIO – Irving Azoff’s Global Music Rights (GMR), a boutique performance rights organization with a star-studded catalog, filed a copyright lawsuit claiming that a group of Vermont radio stations operated without a license for years. The allegations come after GMR spent years litigating against the Radio Music Licensing Committee, the group that negotiates music licensing deals for more than 10,000 radio stations.
TEKASHI 6IX9INE CHARGES – Authorities in the Dominican Republic arrested the embattled rapper on charges of domestic violence. This marks the latest in a long string of legal issues for the American rapper, who was arrested in October for a separate assault in the Dominican Republic, and faced federal gang charges in the United States before that.
JONAS-TURNER DIVORCE SETTLEMENT – Former Games of Thrones actress Sophie Turner dropped her “wrongful retention” lawsuit against ex-husband Joe Jonas over the custody of their two daughters after the former couple signed a co-parenting consent plan approved by a U.K. judge.
SiriusXM and Stitcher will not have to face a lawsuit from former Dawson’s Creek star James Van Der Beek accusing them of reneging on a $700,000 podcast deal.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Robert Broadbelt, in a tentative order issued on Friday, dismissed the suit, finding that the audio giant “did not enter into a contract” with the actor since they didn’t finalize the agreement.
Van Der Beek said he reached a deal over email with executives from SiriusXM to host 40 episodes in exchange for a $700,000 minimum guarantee and a 50 percent cut of the net ad revenue. He sued in 2022 after the company walked away from the agreement.
Ruling in favor of SiriusXM on summary judgment, the court concluded that the two sides aren’t bound by an April 2022 document outlining the terms of the deal. It pointed to the first page of the proposal, which states that it’s for “discussion purposes only, is not a binding commitment in any respect, and is not to be interpreted in any respect as a binding commitment to negotiate.”
There was extensive evidence presented to the court referencing the need to sign a definitive, longform agreement contemplated in the initial proposal. Included among them was an email from Stitcher’s Associate Director of Business Development Leah Reis-Dennis, who stated in an April 2022 email “we are ready to call terms officially closed and (finally!) get the longform started.”
Van Der Beek argued that the proposal constitutes a valid, binding contract because Reis-Dennis made various comments indicating that the terms were “closed.”
“However, in those emails, Reis-Dennis also stated that Defendants would be working to begin drafting the longform agreement or request that the longform be drafted,” stated the order, which noted that the actor’s transactional lawyer also discussed having to sign the document to lock down the deal.
Broadbelt also rejected arguments that SiriusXM should be bound by the April 2022 document because the company already started to fulfill some of its terms by beginning the process of hiring a senior producer and requesting Van Der Beek’s payroll information.
In a declaration to the court, Reis-Dennis testified that she requested “loanout info” in order to set up payments to the actor but clarified that she would pay him only “if that agreement was signed.”
The order explained, “Plaintiff has not presented any evidence or argument showing that Reis-Dennis’s request for information to set up payments in the future (1) is inconsistent with the earlier statements that the parties would be bound only upon the execution of a longform agreement, or (2) constitutes an outward manifestation that Defendants intended to be bound by the terms of the April 28 Proposal without such a longform agreement.”
Van Der Beek brought claims relating to breach of contract and sought damages exceeding the $700,000 agreement.
SiriusXM, which was represented by Jordan Susman of Nolan Heimann, didn’t respond to a request for comment.
This article was originally published by The Hollywood Reporter.
Notorious B.I.G.’s estate has reached a settlement with the widow of late hip hop photographer Chi Modu, resolving long-running litigation over other merch bearing Modu’s famed image of the late rapper standing in front of the World Trade Center.
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
Biggie’s estate sued in 2019, claiming Modu had illegally authorized the use of his 1996 photograph of the rapper (real name Christopher Wallace) on commercial products like skateboards and shower curtains. In 2022, a judge ruled that such merch likely violated the rapper’s likeness rights.
Terms of the settlement, first disclosed in a court filing on Thursday, were not made public. But the estate’s attorney, Staci Jennifer Trager of the law firm Nixon Peabody, said she and her client were “satisfied to bring this high-profile matter to an end.”
“Pictures of Christopher cannot be commercially exploited without a license from our client,” Trager said. “The settlement agreement is a testament to the dedication of our client as well as our team members in staying the course over several years.”
An attorney for Modu’s widow (the photographer himself passed away in 2021) did not immediately return a request for comment.
A longtime photographer for The Source, Modu captured images of some of hip-hop’s biggest names, including Tupac Shakur, Mary J. Blige, Mobb Deep and LL Cool J. In a 1996 cover shoot for the magazine, he snapped several images of Biggie standing in front of the Twin Towers – a year before the rapper was shot and killed, and five years before the towers were destroyed on Sept. 11, 2001.
In a 2011 interview, Modu said the shoot was partly inspired by the lyric in Biggie’s “Juicy,” in which he references the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center with the line “‘blow up like the World Trade.’”
“When the idea came to me to represent Notorious B.I.G as the King of New York, I thought what better setting than to have two of the quintessential New York City buildings in the background,” Modu said at the time. “This image remains fresh and can help to further immortalize these icons in the hearts and minds of a generation.”
But in 2019, Biggie’s estate took Modu to court over the image. In their complaint, they argued that he had moved beyond merely selling his image – and that he was instead trying to profit by exploiting the rapper’s likeness “in complete disregard for BIG’s rights.” The estate claimed that Modu had improperly licensed the image for use on snowboards, skateboards, shower curtains, NFTs and other goods.
“Unfortunately, when an artist’s work has touched people so significantly, there are often usurpers that want to capitalize on that connection,” the rapper’s lawyers wrote. “A strong brand attracts parasites that attempt to create profits through no work of their own.”
In June 2022, the federal judge overseeing the case granted a preliminary injunction to the estate. The judge was careful to rule that the photographer’s estate could continue to sell physical and digital reprints of his image, but that other merchandise likely violated Biggie’s likeness rights.
“Plaintiff’s use of Wallace’s image to promote and sell such merchandise constitutes an exploitation of his likeness on an unrelated product for that purpose, which extends beyond control of the artistic work itself,” the judge wrote at the time.
Since that ruling, the estate’s case against Modu’s estate and others had been moving toward a trial, with proceedings set to kick off next month.