Legal News
Page: 43
Global Music Rights, the boutique performance rights organization that represents Bruce Springsteen, Bruno Mars, Prince, Drake, Pharrell Williams, John Lennon, Eagles and others, has filed a copyright lawsuit against a Vermont-based group of radio stations that has allegedly played songs for years without a license.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
The lawsuit targeted Vermont Broadcast Associates, which operates seven radio stations serving local communities in Northern Vermont, New Hampshire and Quebec. The complaint, filed in Vermont federal court Thursday, also names Bruce James names as the owner of the company and a defendant.
GMR claims that VBA’s stations have been playing 66 songs in the GMR catalog since 2017 without a license, amounting to 1,600 violations of copyright law, even though the PRO has submitted 10 separate written licenses during that time period.
“Defendants’ infringements were neither incidental nor accidental,” the group’s lawyers write in the complaint.
After being founded by longtime music exec Irving Azoff in 2013, GMR spent years in court litigating over licensing terms with the Radio Music Licensing Committee, the group that negotiates music licensing deals for more than 10,000 member stations. The case finally settled in 2022 with a long-term licensing agreement.
In Thursday’s complaint, GMR claims that VBA is a member of the RMLC but nevertheless ignored “GMR’s communications and chose not to enter into GMR licenses, but continued playing GMR songs on its stations.”
“While we only turn to litigation as a last resort, it is long established U.S. law that GMR’s clients’ copyrighted works cannot be publicly performed without a license,” GMR’s general counsel Emio Zizza said in a statement. “All the radio stations that have entered into a GMR license and are paying their fees deserve the benefit of that license. Station groups who don’t want to pay for a GMR license are not entitled to play GMR’s immensely popular catalog of songs, depriving creators of their due.”
The GMR complaint, filed by the law firms of Lynn Lynn Blackman & Manitsky, P.C.; and O’Melveny & Myers LLP — claims that “GMR is entitled to maximum statutory damages of $150,000” if willful infringement is proven for each song played without a GMR license.
In response to a request for comment, Vermont Broadcast Associates owner Bruce James said by e-mail: “I have been working with Zachary Dekel representing GMR and believe we are licensed.” He added he has contacted Mr. Dekel on Friday morning (Jan. 19) to “resolve any issues.” According to the O’Melveny & Meyers website, Dekel is a litigation counsel with the firm.
In response to James’ comment, GMR representatives say that Dekel reached out to the VBA owner many times but a GMR license was never taken, which is why the lawsuit was filed.
The case is not the first time GMR has gone after radio stations that allegedly failed to pay. In October 2022, the group filed three similar copyright cases against radio stations in California, Connecticut, Florida, claiming each had made the “strategic decision” to simply not pay performance royalties to the group and “hoped to get away with it.”
“Defendants did not get away with it,” GMR’s attorneys wrote at the time. “Its stations have been caught red-handed violating the law.”
The Michael Jackson estate is embroiled in a lawsuit with a Las Vegas tribute act called MJ Live, which claims that the King of Pop’s attorneys have unfairly begun threatening to sue over a show that’s been performed nightly on the Strip for more than a decade.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
In a complaint filed Wednesday in Nevada federal court, the organizers of MJ Live asked a judge to rule that they could continue to stage their concerts featuring a Jackson impersonator, which are held six nights per week at the Tropicana in addition to other venues around the country.
Despite the fact that the show has allegedly been performed more than 3,600 times since 2012, MJ Live says the Jackson estate has only recently begun threatening to sue – including sending cease-and-desist letters to other venues demanding that they cancel upcoming tour dates.
A rep for the Jackson estate did not immediately return a request for comment.
Wednesday’s lawsuit is primarily what’s known as a “declaratory judgment action” – a type of case aimed at proving that you’ve done nothing wrong. In their complaint, MJ Live’s lawyers argue that the group has not infringed any trademarks held by the estate, nor has it violated his likeness rights by impersonating him.
Notably, Nevada’s state likeness laws have an unusual carveout the allows for the legal use of a celebrity’s likeness by “impersonators in live performances” – likely a nod to the long-standing and beloved tradition of Elvis Presley look-alikes in Las Vegas. Citing that statute, as well as the First Amendment’s protections for free speech, MJ Live says it has a clear legal right “to impersonate Michael Jackson” in its shows.
But the group also goes further, boldly arguing that it’s actually the Jackson estate that’s infringing intellectual property. By using the “MJ Live” name for more than a decade, MJ Live’s lawyers say the group has developed its own trademark rights to that particular name – and that the estate’s recent use of “MJ The Musical” on a Broadway show is infringing of those rights.
“Over the past eleven and one-half years … plaintiff has spent millions of dollars advertising and promoting its MJ Live show,” MJ Live’s lawyers write. “Plaintiff estimates that over 2,500,000 audience members, clapping and singing in their seats, jumping to their feet, and dancing in the aisles, have experienced the joy, excitement, and thrill of MJ Live.”
The complaint also argues that the estate’s decision to send cease-and-desist letters to block future tour dates represents “intentional and wrongful interference” in MJ Live’s business. MJ Live says the letters, allegedly sent to six different venues in total, in California, Florida, Illinois, Ohio and Wisconsin, were “intended to harm Plaintiff.”
This isn’t the first time the estate of a famed artist has tried to crack down on Vegas impersonators. Back in 2022, Authentic Brands Group – the company that owns the rights to Elvis’ likeness – sent letters to a number of Las Vegas chapels where Presley impersonators officiate weddings, demanding that they obtain licenses. At the time, ABG said it was not seeking to shut down the impersonators, but partner with them to “safeguard his legacy.”
Authorities in the Dominican Republic have arrested U.S. rapper Tekashi 6ix9ine, who is scheduled to appear in court on Thursday on charges of domestic violence. The rapper, whose real name is Daniel Hernández, is being held at a jail in the capital of Santo Domingo, where he was arrested Wednesday, officials said. No further details […]
Madonna is facing a federal class action lawsuit because she allegedly started three New York City concerts later than scheduled, a delay that her accusers say caused real legal harm to ticket buyers who “had to get up early to go to work” the next day.
In a complaint filed Wednesday (Jan. 17) in Brooklyn federal court, ticket buyers Michael Fellows and Jonathan Hadden claim the Material Girl breached her contract with concertgoers and violated New York state laws by starting three December shows past 10:30 rather than the scheduled 8:30.
“Defendants’ actions constitute not just a breach of their contracts … but also a wanton exercise in false advertising, negligent misrepresentation, and unfair and deceptive trade practices,” attorneys for the two men write.
The three concerts at Brooklyn’s Barclays Center, stops on Madonna’s Celebration Tour, were originally scheduled for July but rescheduled to December due to the singer’s illness. Fellows and Hadden say they expected their show (Dec. 13) to start on time, and “would not have paid for their tickets had they known that the concerts would start after 10:30 p.m.”
“Defendants failed to provide any notice to the ticketholders that the concerts would start much later than the start time printed on the ticket and as advertised,” attorneys for the two men write.
Leaving Barclays Center after 1:00 a.m., the two men say ticket buyers were “left stranded in the middle of the night,” some “confronted with limited public transportation” options and others with increased prices for ride-share services. They also point out that the concert took place “on a weeknight,” meaning they “had to get up early to go to work and/or take care of their family responsibilities the next day.”
In addition to Madonna herself, the lawsuit also names Live Nation and Barclays Center as defendants. In technical terms, the complaint alleges breach of contract; violation of New York’s business practices and false advertising laws; and several other forms of wrongdoing, including unjust enrichment.
The lawsuit also includes a claim of so-called negligent misrepresentation, saying the concert organizers “knew or should have known” that the concerts would not start at 8:30 because of alleged past instances of Madonna taking the stage late — and should have warned fans.
“Madonna has a long history of arriving and starting her concerts late, sometimes several hours late,” attorneys for Fellows and Hadden write. “This history occurred throughout her 2016 Rebel Heart Tour, her 2019-2020 Madame X Tour, and prior tours, where Madonna continuously started her concerts over two hours late.”
Reps for Madonna and Live Nation did not immediately return requests for comment.
Read the entire lawsuit against Madonna here:
Ice Spice is facing a copyright lawsuit over allegations that her recent hit “In Ha Mood” was copied from a Brooklyn rapper’s earlier track.
In a complaint filed Wednesday in Brooklyn federal court, the rapper D.Chamberz (Duval Chamberlain) says Ice Spice’s 2023 song is “strikingly similar” to his own “In That Mood” that he released in 2021.
“By every method of analysis, ‘In Ha Mood’ is a forgery,” D.Chamberz’s attorneys write in their complaint, obtained by Billboard. “Any proper comparative analysis of the beat, lyrics, hook, rhythmic structure, metrical placement, and narrative context will demonstrate that ‘In Ha Mood’ was copied.”
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
In addition to naming Ice Spice (Isis Naija Gaston) as a defendant, the lawsuit also names her frequent producer, RiotUSA (Ephrem Lopez, Jr.), as well as Universal Music Group, Capitol Records and 10K Projects.
Released early last year following Ice Spice’s 2022 breakout, “In Ha Mood” reached No. 58 on the Hot 100 and No. 18 on the US Hot R&B/Hip Hop Songs chart. It was later included on her debut EP Like..?, and she performed the song during her October appearance as the musical guest on Saturday Night Live.
But D.Chamberz says the song shares so many similarities with “In That Mood” that the overlap “cannot be purely coincidental.” He says the similar elements “go the core of each work,” and are so obvious that they’ve already been spotted by listeners.
“Non-expert listeners have independently pointed out that Defendants ‘stole’ ‘In That Mood’ in creating In Ha Mood,” the rapper’s lawyers write. “The two songs clearly employ numerous noticeably similar composition elements and lyrics, which result in a sound and feel that are very much alike.”
In any copyright lawsuit, an accuser like D.Chamberz must show that an alleged infringer had “access” to their work in order to copy it. That requirement might seem technical, but it’s often the fatal flaw in copyright cases filed by lesser-known acts, like one filed against Dua Lipa over “Levitating.”
In an effort to show “access,” Tuesday’s lawsuit notes that D.Chamberz shared “In That Mood” to his Instagram followers, and that the song got “significant airplay” on New York City radio stations, including Hot 97 and Power 105.1. It even cites one instance in which Riot allegedly posted an Instagram story of him listening to Hot 97 “less than two minutes” before the song was played on the air. And Chamberz’s lawyers also point out that Riot’s father is the well-known New York City radio personality DJ Enuff, who hosts a show on Hot 97 and allegedly “actively engaged with D.Chamberz’s social media content.”
“Based on all of the facts and circumstances known to plaintiffs, as described above, it is probable – or, at the very least, reasonably possible – that defendants heard the work and knew about the work prior to the creation and publication of ‘In Ha Mood,’” his lawyers write.
Read the full lawsuit filed against Ice Spice here:
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 last week. According to The New York Times, a judge in the U.S. District Court for the Southern […]
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: An ugly new legal battle erupts within the Prince estate; Madison Square Garden CEO James Dolan is sued for sexual assault; a judge issues a ruling on the ongoing battle between members of Mötley Crüe; and much more.
Want to get The Legal Beat newsletter in your email inbox every Tuesday? Subscribe here for free.
THE BIG STORY: Civil War in The Prince Estate
After Prince died without a will in 2016, it took more than six years of legal wrangling to settle his estate, as heirs, advisors, a court-appointed bank and Primary Wave all battled before a Minnesota probate judge over how exactly the star’s assets should be divided.
When the dust finally settled in 2022 — with tax issues resolved and the $146 million estate split evenly into two LLCs — it seemed that the case was closed. Primary Wave (which bought out three of the heirs) would control one-half of the estate, while the remaining heirs and a pair of advisors would control the other half. Each side vowed to bring Prince’s music to a new generation of music fans.
But less than two years later, the Prince estate is suddenly back in court — this time, over allegations of an attempted coup within one of the ownership groups, of severe dysfunction at Paisley Park and of attempts by two heirs to unilaterally sell more shares to Primary Wave. For more, go read our full story here.
Other top stories this week…
JAMES DOLAN UNDER FIRE – The Madison Square Garden executive was hit with a sexual assault lawsuit claiming he pressured a masseuse into unwanted sex while his band was touring with the Eagles — and that he later facilitated an incident in which she was also assaulted by Harvey Weinstein. The lawsuit also named Irving Azoff’s The Azoff Company, claiming it had “benefited from facilitating Dolan’s behavior.”
CRÜE’S COURT CLASH – Mötley Crüe co-founder Mick Mars won a court order against his former bandmates, requiring them to repay some of his legal bills after a judge said they refused to turn over key financial records and other information. The decision was a win for Mars, but the real battle — a private arbitration case over whether the band acted illegally when they tried to kick him out of the band — remains ahead.
DIDDY BOOZE SETTLEMENT – Sean “Diddy” Combs and alcohol giant Diageo reached a settlement to resolve a year-long lawsuit over their soured partnership for DeLeón tequila. The deal, which will end a bitter legal battle that saw Combs accuse the liquor company of racism, came just months after he was hit with multiple sexual assault lawsuits.
G HERBO SENTENCED – A federal judge sentenced the Chicago rapper to three years of probation after he pleaded guilty to participating in a scam involving stolen credit card information — a fraud that prosecutors say netted the Chicago rapper almost $140,000 in private jet flights, vacation lodgings and luxury car rentals.
ALLEGED TUPAC KILLER GETS BAIL – A judge set bail at $750,000 for Duane “Keffe D” Davis, the former Los Angeles-area gang leader charged with orchestrating the killing of hip-hop legend Tupac Shakur in 1996. The judge ruled that Davis, who is allegedly in poor health after battling cancer, can serve house arrest with electronic monitoring ahead of his trial in June.
AI LEGISLATION IN WASHINGTON – A bipartisan group of lawmakers in the U.S. House of Representatives introduced a bill called No Artificial Intelligence Fake Replicas And Unauthorized Duplications Act, or No AI FRAUD Act, legislation that would aim to regulate the use of artificial intelligence for cloning voices and other forms of likeness. The same day, lawmakers in Tennessee unveiled similar legislation called the Ensuring Likeness Voice and Image Security Act, or ELVIS Act, which would beef up existing state-level protections for such likeness rights.
Mötley Crüe co-founder Mick Mars has won a court order against his former bandmates, but the legal battle over his exit from the band is far from over.
In a decision Tuesday (Jan. 16), a Los Angeles judge ruled that the band should have handed over financial records, operating agreements and other key information earlier — and that Mars was therefore entitled to be repaid the legal bills he spent suing to win access to those files.
“The requests were not burdensome. Yet, Mars was compelled to file suit, and it appears plain that production would not have occurred without it. Mars is entitled to attorney fees,” Los Angeles Superior Court Judge James C. Chalfant wrote in the ruling, which was obtained by Billboard.
Since the band ultimately ended up handing over those files in December, the judge ruled Tuesday that Mars’ court case is now legally moot. But he ruled that the band’s delay had been improper, meaning they owed Mars reimbursement: “These documents should have been produced without the need for prodding by Mars.” The total amount of legal fees will be decided in future proceedings.
The decision is a win for Mars, who claimed in court filings that Mötley Crüe was trying to make sure he “spends as much money as possible” so that he would be “starved out.” But it does not mean he has won his case against the band. The real battle, over whether his bandmates breached their contract by kicking him out, is going to take place in a private arbitration case that remains pending.
The civil war within Crüe first burst into the open in April, when Mars filed his lawsuit claiming he had been unceremoniously terminated by his “brothers of 41 years.” Though technically only seeking access to the band’s records, the lawsuit disclosed for the first time that the two sides were already locked in arbitration proceedings over his exit from the band.
In the complaint, Mars argued the band had moved to illegally deprive him of his 25% ownership stake in the group, a move he claimed came after he made the “tragic announcement” that he could no longer tour due to an arthritic condition called ankylosing spondylitis.
The band quickly responded, saying it “did not owe Mick anything” under existing band agreements and had done nothing wrong. They cited sworn declarations in which numerous touring staffers stated that Mars had repeatedly made serious errors on stage before he exited the band, including suddenly “playing a different song in a middle of another one” and “forgetting chords and songs.”
With that core dispute still unresolved and set to be decided by an arbitrator later this year, both sides portrayed Tuesday’s court ruling as a victory.
The band’s lawyer, Sasha Frid, pointed to the fact the judge declared Mars’ case moot: “The case is over. That’s the key takeaway. By denying the petition as moot and ending the case, the court found that the band turned over all the documents to Mars and there is nothing more to do. The band went above and beyond its obligations by providing much more documents than the statute required.”
Mars’ lawyer Ed McPherson, meanwhile, sharply rejected that interpretation: “If it makes the band feel better to say that they won, that is fine — but they apparently haven’t read the judge’s decision. When the judge says that they failed to produce documents ‘without justification,’ and he orders them to pay Mick’s attorneys’ fees, that does not feel like a win for the band to me!”
Madison Square Garden executive James Dolan is facing a sexual assault lawsuit that claims he pressured a masseuse into unwanted sex while his band was touring with the Eagles — and that he later facilitated an incident in which she was also assaulted by Harvey Weinstein.
In a lawsuit filed Tuesday (Jan. 15) in Manhattan federal court, Kellye Croft says that Dolan coerced her into “unlawful and unwelcome sex acts” on repeated occasions after she was hired to serve as a massage therapist for the Eagles’ Glenn Frey during the 2013 tour.
Croft says she thought the job on the concert tour — on which Dolan’s band JD & The Straight Shot opened for the Eagles — was “her big break” and the “opportunity of a lifetime.” But she says she quickly realized the real reason she was there.
“Dolan was extremely assertive, and pressured Ms. Croft into unwanted sexual intercourse with him,” writes Croft’s attorney, Douglas Wigdor. “Ms. Croft was disgusted by Dolan, but her youth and extreme loneliness while on the road with strangers, as well as Dolan’s immense power, made it possible for Dolan to manipulate Ms. Croft and lure her under his control.”
Dolan is the majority owner/CEO of Madison Square Garden Entertainment Corp., a live music giant that operates the famed New York City arena in addition to Manhattan’s Radio City Music Hall, the Las Vegas Sphere and other prominent venues.
Tuesday’s lawsuit also claims that Dolan later secretly orchestrated a 2014 encounter between Croft and his friend Weinstein, the disgraced film producer whose many sexual assault allegations helped spark the #MeToo movement in 2017. Weinstein is currently serving a decades-long prison sentence after being convicted on multiple felony charges.
Croft’s lawyers say Dolan arranged the early 2014 meetup, during which Weinstein allegedly invited her to his hotel room under the guise of discussing an opportunity for her to work as a massage therapist for actors on movie sets. After she refused his “escalating” behavior and returned to her room, her lawyers say Weinstein chased her down the hall, “barged into Ms. Croft’s hotel room” and proceeded to sexually assault her.
In a response sent to Billboard, Dolan’s attorney, E. Danya Perry, said there was “absolutely no merit to any of the allegations against Mr. Dolan” and that the references to Weinstein were “simply meant to inflame.” Perry alleges the claims were an “act of retaliation” by Wigdor, describing him as “an attorney who has brought multiple cases against Mr. Dolan and has not, and cannot, win a judgment against him.”
“Mr. Dolan always believed Ms. Croft to be a good person and is surprised she would agree to these claims,” Perry wrote. “Bottom line, this is not a he said/she said matter and there is compelling evidence to back up our position. We look forward to proving that in court.”
In his own statement, Wigdor said that “our firm has not lost multiple cases to Dolan — that is a fabrication.” He said that with the filing of the lawsuit, “it is time to finally hold Dolan accountable for his outrageous conduct.”
In addition to Dolan and Weinstein, the lawsuit also names several entities owned by The Azoff Company, the privately held company founded by legendary music industry executive Irving Azoff. Though Azoff himself is not individually named as a defendant, the lawsuit claims he was “extremely close friends” with Dolan as well as a frequent business partner — and that Azoff’s companies thus enabled Dolan’s alleged abuse.
“In addition to the extremely close personal relationship between Dolan and Irving Azoff, Dolan was a critically important business partner for the Azoff Entities,” Croft’s lawyers write. “The Azoff Entities thus benefited from facilitating Dolan’s behavior to the extent it kept their partner, a notoriously erratic billionaire, happy.”
In a statement to Billboard, a representative for Azoff strongly denied the lawsuit’s allegations: “Irving Azoff is not a party to this lawsuit. Neither he nor his companies had any involvement in any alleged misconduct by others.”
An attorney for Weinstein did not immediately return a request for comment.
Sean “Diddy” Combs and alcohol giant Diageo reached a settlement Tuesday to resolve a lawsuit over their soured tequila partnership, ending a bitter legal battle that saw the embattled hip-hop star and mogul accuse the company of racism.
Combs, who is now facing multiple sexual assault lawsuits, claimed in the lawsuit that Diageo had breached their agreement by failing to adequately support his DeLeón brand of tequila. In doing so, he accused Diageo of treating his product line “worse than others because he is Black.”
The detailed terms of Tuesday’s settlement were not disclosed, but Diageo and Combs said in a joint statement that the agreement would leave the two with “no ongoing business relationship,” removing Combs from any further involvement in not just DeLeón but also the company’s popular Cîroc vodka.
“Sean Combs and Diageo have now agreed to resolve all disputes between them,” the two sides said in a joint statement. “Mr. Combs has withdrawn all of his allegations about Diageo and will voluntarily dismiss his lawsuits against Diageo with prejudice.”
The abrupt settlement with Diageo came as Combs is facing multiple accusations of sexual assault. After he quickly settled a rape lawsuit filed in November by longtime romantic partner Cassie, he was then quickly sued again by three different times by three different women over similar allegations. Diddy has strongly denied all such accusations and vowed to clear his name in court.
Before any of those allegations came to light, Combs sued Diageo in May, claiming the company breached his partnership deal for DeLeón. But he also went a lot further than that, claiming Diageo had “typecast” the tequila as a “Black brand” that could only be sold to “urban” consumers, harming its sales and leaving it lagging behind competing Diageo brands like Casamigos and Don Julio.
“Cloaking itself in the language of diversity and equality is good for Diageo’s business, but it is a lie,” Combs’ lawyers wrote. “While Diageo may conspicuously include images of its Black partners in advertising materials and press releases, its words only provide the illusion of inclusion.”
Diageo responded a month later, calling the lawsuit a “bad faith, sham action” filed by a star who had “amassed nearly one billion dollars” from their partnership but now wanted to “extract” billions more.
“These allegations are nothing more than opportunistic attempts to garner press attention and distract the court from the fact that plaintiff’s breach-of-contract claim is entirely without merit,” the company’s attorneys wrote. “Diageo categorically denies these accusations.”
Diageo demanded that the case be sent to private arbitration, citing a provision in Diddy’s partnership contract that they said required such disputes be handled out of court. The company argued that, if Diddy’s “inflammatory rhetoric” about racism was removed, the case was nothing more than a “garden variety” business dispute that must be arbitrated. But in September, the judge overseeing the case rejected that argument, meaning the case would have moved forward in state court, with the trial open to the public.