Legal News
Page: 62
Lizzo has issued her first response to a bombshell lawsuit from three tour dancers who claim that they were subjected to sexual harassment and weight-shaming, calling them “false allegations” and “sensationalized stories.”
In a statement posted Thursday morning to her Twitter account, the star said the allegations in the lawsuit – that she and her company created a hostile work environment that also included religious and racial discrimination – were as “unbelievable as they sound and too outrageous to not be addressed.”
“I am not the villain that people and the media have portrayed me to be these last few days,” Lizzo wrote. “I am very open with my sexuality and expressing myself but I cannot accept or allow people to use that openness to make me out to be something I am not.”
The star paid particular attention to a claim in the lawsuit that she had “called attention” to a dancer’s weight gain – an especially loaded allegation against an artist who has made body positivity a central aspect of her personal brand.
“There is nothing I take more seriously than the respect we deserve as women in the world,” Lizzo wrote. “I know what it feels like to be body shamed on a daily basis and would absolutely never criticize or terminate an employee because of their weight.
The lawsuit, filed on Tuesday in Los Angeles by dancers Arianna Davis, Crystal Williams and Noelle Rodriguez, accuses Lizzo (real name Melissa Jefferson) and her Big Grrrl Big Touring Inc. of a wide range of legal wrongdoing and included dozens of pages of detailed factual allegations.
In one particularly vivid allegation, the lawsuit claims that Lizzo pushed the dancers to attend a sex show in Amsterdam’s famed Red Light District and then pressured them to engage with the performers, including “eating bananas protruding from the performers’ vaginas.” After Lizzo herself led a chant “goading” Davis to touch one performer’s breasts, the lawsuit says, Davis eventually did so.
The dancers also detailed alleged outbursts by Lizzo, including an “excruciating re-audition” in April after she accused the dancers of “drinking alcohol before shows”; one dancer claims the ordeal continued for so long that she wet herself because she feared she would be fired if she left the stage. The case also claims Lizzo repeatedly told dancers “none of their jobs were safe” and raised “thinly veiled concerns” about a dancer’s weight gain.
In her statement on Thursday, Lizzo did not address the lawsuit’s individual accusations, but said they were “sensationalized stories are coming from former employees who have already publicly admitted that they were told their behavior on tour was inappropriate and unprofessional.” And she broadly defended herself against what she called an attack on her “ethic, morals and respectfulness.”
“As an artist I have always been very passionate about what I do. I take my music and my performances seriously because at the end of the day I only want to put out the best art that represents me and my fans,” Lizzo said. “With passion comes hard work and high standards. Sometimes I have to make hard decisions but it’s never my intention to make anyone feel uncomfortable or like they aren’t valued as an important part of the team.”
Read Lizzo’s entire statement here.
Ask a lawyer: “Do you have too many clients?” The answer will only ever be, “I’d like more.” But not all lawyer-client relationships are created equal. Entertainment lawyers are not like lawyers who handle class action lawsuits and represent thousands of clients with little contact, or personal injury lawyers where you hope that you never have to help the particular client again. We are in a high touch, fast-paced, relationship-based, paper-intensive business.
Billboard raised some great questions and points last month in its widely-discussed report, “Music Lawyers Have a Problem: Too Many Clients, Too Many Deals & Too Much Paperwork.” It’s true: the digital era has removed substantial barriers of entry to recording and distribution of music. Now combine that with the ease and speed of music to market, songs written and recorded, sometimes by as many as ten or more credited writers and producers, and deals that are as varied and creative as the music they’re meant to protect. You’re left with ever-growing piles of music business paperwork.
This “Lawyer Problem” can and will be fixed by a combination of music industry education and training and the deployment of deal-making platforms and tools, aided by AI, that modernize and improve the whole dealmaking process. These are the fundamental beliefs that led me — and co-founder Steven Ship — to build Creative Intell, an education and deal-drafting platform now in private beta.
This doesn’t mean that every artist and their team members need to go to law school. But let’s face it: if you bring your car to a mechanic and can’t describe the problem, you aren’t setting yourself – or the mechanic – up for success. Attorneys spend an enormous amount of time on education, walking clients through basic deal points and nuances. In an age when deals are getting more and more bespoke, it behooves artists and their camps to master the broad dynamics and key terms of basic dealmaking. A striking number of industry professionals in positions where they should know better still don’t understand basic royalty accountings or recoupment; each one of these cases costs the client billable hours and/or a law firm a lot of time.
Administrative process may not sound like the sexiest topic. But given the high volume of deals being done, an enormous amount of time is wasted on tasks as simple as downloading documents, saving the file to the correct folder and naming the document, redlining, checking precedent from prior deals, and looking for variations to include in a revised draft. If you’re a lawyer or a manager, how many emails do you send or receive asking “Where are we with this?” Talk to any working attorney in the music business, and they will acknowledge that these are substantial, contributing factors to the drag on deals.
And you’d be amazed what happens once a deal is signed. How much time is spent on taking contracting metadata and having it entered into royalty systems? Why are producer agreements sent to record labels as PDFs that need to be manually entered into royalty systems? The same goes for song split data for publishers and PROs. Minutes that add up to hours and days can be saved throughout the entire contracting process. Notably, none of the tools utilized by music industry attorneys are actually built for making contracts or their other needs. As platforms where all of the above can be executed, organized and archived in one place emerge and become industry standard, transformative speed and efficiency will result.
And of course, it wouldn’t be a “future of work” piece if we didn’t touch on the potential of AI. Generative tech offers enormous promise in the dealmaking and contracting spaces. Google “legal tech” and “AI” and you’ll see waves of funding and new, still-experimental utility–and yes, plenty of missteps in these early days. But given the right focus and experienced oversight, well-trained engines are capable of generating bespoke language for some of the most common deals in the music business where clients can ask questions, and be provided with immediate, accurate contextual education. These sorts of next-generation platforms should lower the barrier to entry for all music industry stakeholders including artists, songwriters, producers, managers, etc. in a whole different way: creating much greater access to credible, needed legal direction and knowledge to handle the world of music industry deals.
None of this will put lawyers out of business. Rather, as the various elements laid out in this piece begin to come to market, attorneys will be freed to fix higher level issues such as song splits disputes that hold up income for years which require relationships to fix and stamina to resolve. They’ll have more time to develop relationships with more “buyers” and “sellers” to provide added value. And they’ll finally get ahead of paperwork to plan for their clients’ futures. In this world, lawyers may still be unable to help themselves from always wanting more clients. But those clients will receive better, faster service.
David Fritz is partner, Boyarski Fritz LLP, and co-founder, along with Steven Ship, of Creative Intell, a deal-making platform currently in private beta.
One of Jimmie Allen‘s sexual assault accusers has a message for the embattled country star: You can’t sue me for handing over your cell phone – which she calls “evidence of a crime” – to the police.
The new court filing came from a woman who claims that Allen assaulted her in a Las Vegas hotel room and secretly recorded it. In her June lawsuit, she said she took the phone as evidence and handed it over to police. But in a countersuit last month, Allen claimed she essentially stole his property by doing so.
On Tuesday, Allen’s accuser (known as Jane Doe 2) asked a federal judge to dismiss that accusation – calling his claims about theft “nothing more than harassment of a victim and abuse of the judicial process.”
“Now, in addition to being a victim of sexual abuse and illegal video voyeurism, Plaintiff is faced with Defendant’s attempt to harass and intimidate her,” Doe 2’s lawyers wrote. “Allowing a defendant to sue a crime victim for reporting a crime and turning over evidence of that crime to the police is directly contrary to public policy.”
A representative for Allen did not immediately return a request for comment.
Allen, a once-rising country music star, has faced a swift industry backlash after being hit with two separate sexual assault lawsuits. The first case, filed on May 11, claims he “manipulated and used his power” to repeatedly harass and assault an unnamed “Jane Doe” on his management team.
The second case, filed on June 9 by Doe 2, claims that while she “willingly joined Allen in the bedroom” of a Las Vegas hotel, he later ejaculated inside her against her explicit wishes – and filmed the entire sexual encounter without her knowledge. Doe 2 says she took the phone with her when she left and, after Allen refused to share the password so she could delete the recordings, that she passed it along to the Las Vegas Police Department.
Last month, Allen responded to both lawsuits by denying all the allegations against him. In the case of Doe 2, he admitted to having “unprotected sex” with her, but said he “did not ejaculate during the encounter.” He also admitted to recording the incident but, crucially, said he had secured her explicit permission to do so.
He also countersued with allegations of his own, accusing Doe 2 of “conversion” — a civil tort similar to theft that involves someone taking property that doesn’t belong to them: “By taking his camera phone without permission, Jane Doe 2 wrongfully exerted a distinct act of dominion over Allen’s personal property,” his lawyers wrote at the time.
In her response on Tuesday, Doe 2’s lawyer say that taking the phone was not a form of civil wrongdoing, but merely “her exercise of rights as a victim of crime.” She cited previous cases that excused such seizures, like one in which a babysitter was sued for taking photos of child abuse.
“Plaintiff turned evidence of alleged illegal conduct, i.e., the recording of Plaintiff in a state of undress and of sexual acts without her consent, over to the police to investigate,” Doe 2’s lawyers wrote. “The law does not condemn victims for doing so.”
Dua Lipa and Warner Music Group are facing another copyright lawsuit over “Levitating,” this time from a music producer who says he never granted the star permission to use his “talk box” recording in remixed versions of the smash hit song.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
In a lawsuit filed Monday (July 31) in federal court, Bosko Kante says he created a so-called talk box track for use in Lipa’s original version of the song, but that the creators of “Levitating” had no right to use it in subsequent remixes, like the even-more-popular version featuring DaBaby.
“Plaintiff made numerous attempts to resolve this matter short of litigation, but such efforts were unsuccessful, due to Defendants’ unwillingness to cooperate or accept responsibility for this blatant infringement of Plaintiff’s copyrights,” Kante’s lawyers wrote.
Kante calls himself one of the world’s top artists on the talk box — a decades-old device that allows musicians to apply speech sounds onto the sounds of an instrument. After contributing talk box performances for Kanye West and Big Boi, Kante launched a company called ElectroSpit in 2014 to sell a proprietary digital version of the device.
In this week’s lawsuit, Kante says that he was approached in 2014 by Stephen Kozmeniuk, one of producers of “Levitating,” about creating a talk box performance that would be incorporated into Lipa’s song. He says he later did so, and eventually reached an oral agreement that the track could be used in “Levitating.”
But Kante says that the deal expressly didn’t cover any further remixes beyond the original release — meaning Lipa and Warner Music didn’t have the right to use it on the DaBaby remix, nor on another version by The Blessed Madonna featuring Madonna and Missy Elliott.
“All three remixes sampled and incorporated a greater amount of plaintiff’s work than that used in the original version,” Kante’s lawyers wrote. “Defendants did not seek or receive any authorization or permission to use the composition or sound recording of plaintiff’s work from plaintiff.”
A rep for Dua Lipa did not immediately return a request for comment on Tuesday.
The new case is the third copyright lawsuit filed against Lipa over “Levitating,” which spent 77 weeks on the Billboard Hot 100 chart after debuting in 2020.
In March 2022, a Florida reggae band called Artikal Sound System claimed Lipa stole the song’s core hook from their lesser-known 2017 tune “Live Your Life.” Days later, songwriters L. Russell Brown and Sandy Linzer accused Lipa of borrowing the melody to her track from their 1979 song “Wiggle and Giggle All Night” and their 1980 song “Don Diablo.”
But in June, Artikal Sound System dropped their case just days after a federal judge ruled that there was no sign that anyone involved in creating “Levitating” had had “access” to the earlier song — a key requirement in any copyright lawsuit.
The case filed by Brown and Linzer is still alive but is facing a similar pending argument from Lipa’s lawyers, who say the pop star “never heard” the two songs she allegedly copied.
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: Taylor Swift beats a copyright case that her lawyers say “never should have been filed”; Lizzo faces a sexual harassment lawsuit from former tour dancers; a Cardi B concertgoer files a police report after the star throws a microphone at a Las Vegas show; and much more.
Want to get The Legal Beat newsletter in your email inbox every Tuesday? Subscribe here for free.
THE BIG STORY: Taylor Swift Beats Copyright Lawsuit
“This person might as well sue anyone who’s ever written a diary or made a scrap book.”
That’s what Aaron Moss, a veteran music litigator at the firm Greenberg Glusker, told me last August, when Teresa La Dart first sued Taylor Swift for copyright infringement. The case claimed that Swift’s companion book for her album Lover had borrowed several key elements from La Dart’s self-published book of poetry, also called Lover.
The problem? That La Dart was essentially suing Swift over stock book design elements, including the use of “pastel pinks and blues,” as well as an image of the author “photographed in a downward pose.” She also alleged that Swift copied the book’s “format,” namely “a recollection of past years memorialized in a combination of written and pictorial components.”
That kind of stuff isn’t covered by copyrights – and experts said the case against Swift probably bordered on frivolous: “This lawsuit should be thrown out on a motion to dismiss, if the plaintiff’s lawyer doesn’t think better of it and voluntarily withdraw the complaint first,” Moss said at the time.
One year later, those predictions have come true. Go read our entire story on the end of the lawsuit against Swift, including the arguments from Taylor’s lawyers about how the case “never should have been filed.”
Other top stories…
HARASSMENT CASE AGAINST LIZZO – The star and her Big Grrrl Big Touring Inc. were hit with allegations from three former dancers who claimed they were subjected to sexual harassment and a hostile work environment, including being pressured to touch nude dancers during a live sex show. They also claimed Lizzo “called attention” to a dancer’s weight gain – a particularly loaded allegation against an artist who has made body positivity a central aspect of her personal brand.
ACTIVISION ISN’T PLAYING GAMES – Video game giant Activision filed a lawsuit against a prominent TikTok music critic named Anthony Fantano, accusing him of running a “scheme” to demand “extortionate” settlements over a heavily-memed video he created. Activision says Fantanto intentionally uploaded the audio from his “enough slices” video into TikTok’s free sound library, but now is unfairly threatening to sue the company and others for using it: “A textbook example of how intellectual property law can be misused.”
CARDI’S VEGAS MICROPHONE TOSS – A concertgoer filed a police report after Cardi B was captured on video at a Las Vegas event throwing her microphone at a fan who splashed her with a drink. Though police did not mention Cardi by name, the report (alleging battery) was filed by an individual who claimed to have been “struck by an item that was thrown from the stage” at the venue where the star was performing.
ASTROWORLD REPORT RELEASED – The Houston Police Department released the 1,200-page+ police report on the deadly 2021 crowd crush disaster at Astroworld, offering a full accounting of the chaos that left 10 people dead and hundreds injured. The report features transcripts of calls to 911, summaries of police interviews, and reams of text messages from that night: “I know they’ll try to fight through it but I would want it on the record that I didn’t advise this to continue,” said one festival official. “Someone’s going to end up dead.”
MATTY HEALY MALAYSIA KISS FALLOUT – The 1975 and lead singer Matty Healy could be facing legal action after he kissed a male bandmate on stage at a concert in Malaysia and sharply criticized the country’s anti-LGBTQ+ policies. The stunt – criticized by some local gay rights activists as counterproductive – resulted in the Malaysian government canceling the rest of the three-day Good Vibes Festival, citing Healy’s “controversial conduct and remarks.”
LAST CALL FOR PRE-1972 SONGS – More than nine years after members of the 1960s rock band The Turtles filed a series of groundbreaking lawsuits over the legal protections for so-called pre-1972 sound recordings, a federal judge dismissed their final case — a lawsuit against Pandora that he called the band’s “last case standing.”
JOHN SUMMIT ENDS NAME CONTROVERSY – DJ John Summit vowed to change the name of his new record label (Off The Grid) and apologized after a brief – but very public — legal dispute with a smaller company that had been using the name for dance music events for the better part of a decade.
Subscribe to The Legal Beat here for free.
A concertgoer has filed a police report after Cardi B was captured on video at a Las Vegas event throwing her microphone at a fan who splashed her with a drink. The Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department confirmed to Billboard on Monday (July 31) that an individual filed a police report Sunday alleging battery, claiming […]
Just moments before rap superstar Travis Scott took the stage at the deadly 2021 Astroworld festival, a contract worker had been so worried about what might happen after seeing people getting crushed that he texted an event organizer saying, “Someone’s going to end up dead,” according to a police report released Friday.
The texts by security contract worker Reece Wheeler were some of many examples in the nearly 1,300-page report in which festival workers highlighted problems and warned of possible deadly consequences. The report includes transcripts of concertgoers’ 911 calls and summaries of police interviews, including one with Scott conducted just days after the event.
The crowd surge at the Nov. 5, 2021, outdoor festival in Houston killed 10 attendees who ranged in age from 9 to 27. The official cause of death was compression asphyxia, which an expert likened to being crushed by a car. About 50,000 people attended the festival.
“Pull tons over the rail unconscious. There’s panic in people eyes. This could get worse quickly,” Reece Wheeler texted Shawna Boardman, one of the private security directors, at 9 p.m. Wheeler then texted, “I know they’ll try to fight through it but I would want it on the record that I didn’t advise this to continue. Someone’s going to end up dead.”
Scott’s concert began at 9:02 p.m. In their review of video from the concert’s livestream, police investigators said that at 9:13 p.m., they heard the faint sound of someone saying, “Stop the show.” The same request could also be heard at 9:16 p.m. and 9:22 p.m.
In an Aug. 19, 2022, police interview, Boardman’s attorneys told investigators that Boardman “saw things were not as bad as Reece Wheeler stated” and decided not to pass along Wheeler’s concerns to anyone else.
A grand jury declined to indict anyone who was investigated over the event, including Scott, Boardman and four other people.
During a police interview conducted two days after the concert, Scott told investigators that although he did see one person near the stage getting medical attention, overall the crowd seemed to be enjoying the show and he did not see any signs of serious problems.
“We asked if he at any point heard the crowd telling him to stop the show. He stated that if he had heard something like that he would have done something,” police said in their summary of Scott’s interview.
Hip-hop artist Drake, who performed with Scott at the concert, told police that it was difficult to see from the stage what was going on in the crowd and that he didn’t hear concertgoers’ pleas to stop the show.
Drake found out about the tragedy later that night from his manager, while learning more on social media, police said in their summary.
Marty Wallgren, who worked for a security consulting firm hired by the festival, told police that when he went backstage and tried to tell representatives for Scott and Drake that the concert needed to end because people had been hurt and might have died, he was told “Drake still has three more songs,” according to an interview summary.
Daniel Johary, a college student who got trapped in the crush of concertgoers and later used his skills working as an EMT in Israel to help an injured woman, told investigators hundreds of people had chanted for Scott to stop the music and that the chants could be heard “from everywhere.”
“He stated staff members in the area gave thumbs-up and did not care,” according to the police report.
Richard Rickeada, a retired Houston police officer who was working for a private security company at the festival, told investigators that from 8 a.m. the day of the concert, things were “pretty much in chaos,” according to a police summary of his interview. His concerns and questions about whether the concert should be held were “met with a lot of shrugged shoulders,” he said.
About 23 minutes into the concert, cameraman Gregory Hoffman radioed into the show’s production trailer to warn that “people were dying.” Hoffman was operating a large crane that held a television camera before it was overrun with concertgoers who needed medical help, police said.
The production team radioed Hoffman to ask when they could get the crane back in operation.
Salvatore Livia, who was hired to direct the live show, told police that following Hoffman’s dire warning, people in the production trailer understood that something was not right, but “they were disconnected to the reality of (what) was happening out there,” according to a police summary of Livia’s interview.
Concertgoer Christopher Gates, then 22, told police that by the second or third song in Scott’s performance, he came across about five people on the ground who he believed were already dead.
Their bodies were “lifeless, pale, and their lips were blue/purple,” according to the police report. Random people in the crowd — not medics — provided CPR.
The police report was released about a month after the grand jury in Houston declined to indict Scott on any criminal charges in connection with the deadly concert. Police Chief Troy Finner had said the report was being made public so that people could “read the entire investigation” and come to their own conclusions about the case. During a news conference after the grand jury’s decision, Finner declined to say what the overall conclusion of his agency’s investigation was or whether police should have stopped the concert sooner.
The report’s release also came the same day that Scott released his new album, “Utopia.”
More than 500 lawsuits were filed over the deaths and injuries at the concert, including many against concert promoter Live Nation and Scott. Some have since been settled.
The Houston Police Department released its final report on the 2021 crowd crush tragedy at Travis Scott‘s Astroworld festival on Friday (July 28). The more than 1,200-page document details the Houston PD’s investigation into the tragedy, which left 10 people dead and hundreds more physically injured. The report arrives just a month after a Houston […]
More than nine years after members of the 1960s rock band The Turtles filed a series of groundbreaking lawsuits over the legal protections for so-called pre-1972 sound recordings, a federal judge has now dismissed their final case — a lawsuit against Pandora that he called the band’s “last case standing.”
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
In a decision issued Wednesday, Judge Philip Gutierrez ruled that the Sirius XM-owned Pandora had not violated California state law by streaming the band’s songs, like the iconic 1967 cut “Happy Together,” without permission and without paying sound recording royalties.
In doing so, the judge recounted the decade-long story of how the two founders of the Turtles (legally Flo & Eddie, Inc.) filed such cases against music services in courts around the country — and how they had lost in every one of them.
“This case is one of many lawsuits brought by Flo & Eddie, seeking to hold internet and satellite radio services liable for the unauthorized public performance and reproduction of its sound recordings that were fixed prior to February 15, 1972,” the judge wrote. “Flo & Eddie’s action against Pandora is the last case standing.”
The Turtles first sued SiriusXM and Pandora in 2014, claiming that both companies had been illegally refusing to paying royalties for pre-1972 songs. That was a legal gray area at the time, since songs prior to that year had not been covered by federal sound recording copyrights. But the Turtles claimed pre-1972s could still be covered by state-level laws aimed at preventing misappropriation.
Initially, the band won a key ruling in California federal court, finding that California state law contained a so-called public performance right that would require services like Sirius and Pandora to start paying up. But then, slowly but surely, courts around the country — first the top court in New York, then the Florida Supreme Court, then a federal appeals court in California — ruled no such right existed.
“One after another, federal circuit courts and state Supreme Courts answered with a resounding ‘no’,” Judge Gutierrez wrote in Wednesday’s ruling.
In some ways, Wednesday’s ruling is anti-climactic. The larger issues raised by the Turtle’s pioneering lawsuits — whether the owners of a vast swath of American recorded music were entitled to a new revenue stream from services like SiriusXM and Pandora — were largely rendered moot by the passage of the federal Music Modernization Act in 2018. Among other major changes, that law required such royalties to be paid for pre-1972 records, ending the state-level ambiguity that drove the Turtles to sue.
But Judge Gutierrez had previously ruled that the MMA’s new requirements did not apply to pending lawsuits, meaning that the band still could have won a ruling forcing Pandora to hand over unpaid royalties from the years before the MMA’s enactment.
Barring a successful appeal, Wednesday’s ruling foreclosed that possibility: “The court grants Pandora’s motion for summary judgment. This order closes the case.”
In seeking to revive their lawsuit against Pandora, the Turtles argued that, even if no public performance right existed under California state law, the streamer had still violated their so-called reproduction right by illegally copying their music to make it available on the service. But those “repackaged” claims had also been rejected by the other courts, Judge Gutierrez wrote.
“Even if the Court would like to independently consider these claims, its ‘hands are tied,’” the judge wrote. “In the absence of an exclusive right to publicly perform its pre-1972 sound recordings, Flo & Eddie has no viable copyright claim against Pandora.”
A Mississippi woman has dropped her copyright lawsuit claiming that Taylor Swift stole aspects of a self-published book of poetry when she created a companion book for her album Lover, months after the star’s lawyers called it a case that “never should have been filed.”
Teresa La Dart sued Swift last year, claiming that “a number of creative elements” from her 2010 book (also called Lover) were copied into Swift’s book. But in a motion filed Thursday in Tennessee federal court, La Dart’s lawyer said she would permanently drop the case.
The sudden voluntary dismissal — which appears to be unilateral and not the product of any kind of settlement — came after Swift’s lawyers harshly criticized the lawsuit in their last filing. Demanding that case be dismissed, they said it was “legally and factually baseless” and “never should have been filed.”
Those arguments echoed what legal experts told Billboard were serious flaws in La Dart’s case. Lawyers said that she was essentially suing Swift over stock elements that could not be monopolized by any one author: “This person might as well sue anyone who’s ever written a diary or made a scrap book.”
Faced with such strong counter-arguments, dropping the case might have made monetary sense for La Dart. If she had continued to litigate the case and had ultimately lost, the judge may have ordered her to repay Swift’s legal bills — a sum that could have totaled tens of thousands of dollars.
La Dart sued Swift in August over the star’s Lover book — an extra bundled with the special edition of her Lover album that the New York Times called a “must-read companion” for Swifties. Released in four different versions, Swift’s book included a total of 120 pages of personal diary entries, accompanied by photos selected by the singer.
The lawsuit claimed that Swift had borrowed a number of visual elements from La Dart, including “pastel pinks and blues” and an image of the author “photographed in a downward pose.” She also claimed a copyright to the book’s overall format, including “a recollection of past years memorialized in a combination of written and pictorial components” and “interspersed photographs and writings.”
Just one problem: In their response in February, Swift’s lawyers said those elements were nothing more than commonplace features of almost any book, meaning they fall well short of being unique enough to qualify for copyright protection.
“This is a lawsuit that never should have been filed,” attorney Doug Baldridge wrote for the superstar. “These allegedly-infringing elements, each a generic design format, are not subject to copyright protection. Thus, defendants could not possibly have infringed plaintiff’s copyright.”
That motion to dismiss the case remained pending when La Dart dropped the case on Thursday. Baldridge did not return a request for comment on Thursday.
La Dart’s attorney William S. Parks did not immediately return a request for comment. But after Swift’s response in February, he defended bringing the case: “Miss La Dart has questions that will hopefully and eventually be answered regarding her perceived similarities between the two works,” Parks said at the time. “Unfortunately, she felt it necessary to bring this suit in order to possibly obtain such answers. We will see how the judge decides at this point.”