Legal News
Page: 72
A federal judge has approved a $25 million settlement struck by vinyl producer Mobile Fidelity to resolve accusations that the company’s pricey “all analog” records were secretly created using digital methods, overruling objections from some customers that the settlement was “tainted by the stink of collusion.”
Though the deal would allow tens of thousands of MoFi customers to secure full refunds, some consumers argued that the deal was unfair — claiming it had been reached through a “reverse auction” in which MoFi bargained with “ineffectual” plaintiff’s lawyers to find the cheapest settlement possible.
But in a ruling Tuesday (May 9), U.S. District Judge James L. Robart rejected those claims and preliminarily approved the settlement deal. He said the agreement would likely fairly compensate any MoFi buyers who had been misled, and that there was no concrete evidence of impropriety in how it had been reached.
“The undisputed facts demonstrate that proposed settlement is not the product of a reverse auction or otherwise the result of collusion,” the judge wrote, saying it appeared to have been reached via “arm’s length negotiations” between attorneys for MoFi and the plaintiffs.
Among other things, the challengers had argued that the settlement’s payouts were insufficient based on how much they might have won at trial. But Judge Robart said those arguments ignored key factual details about how MoFi’s records were produced — and that such claims were at times “nonsensical.”
In a statement to Billboard, MoFi lead counsel Joseph J. Madonia said: “We appreciate the court’s ruling, which supports all of our claims that there was no reverse auction or collusion. As always MoFi continues its commitment to provide the best-sounding records possible.”
Attorneys for the consumers who challenged the settlement did not immediately return a request for comment.
The scandal at MoFi first erupted last summer, after Phoenix-area record store owner Mike Esposito posted a pair of videos to YouTube alleging that the company’s “all-analog” and “triple analog” records were in fact partially created using so-called direct stream digital technology. In one of the videos, MoFi’s engineers appeared to confirm that some digital tech had in fact been used in production.
As reported by The Washington Post, the digital revelations created “something of an existential crisis” in the analog-obsessed vinyl community. In a statement in late July, MoFi apologized for using “vague language” and for “taking for granted the goodwill and trust” of its customers: “We recognize our conduct has resulted in both anger and confusion in the marketplace. Moving forward, we are adopting a policy of 100% transparency regarding the provenance of our audio products.”
But the apology wasn’t enough to avoid litigation. In early August, a pair MoFi customers named Stephen J. Tuttle and Dustin Collman filed a proposed class action in Washington federal court, claiming the company’s analog branding had been “deceptive and misleading” and had duped them into paying premium prices. Four more cases were later filed in other federal courts by other groups of buyers.
In January, MoFi decided to settle the case. Calling the deal “a fair compromise,” the company agreed to let consumers either secure a full refund or keep their albums and instead take a 5% cash refund or a 10% refund in credit. The agreement would cover all customers nationwide, and the total money that could be paid out was “expected to be over $25 million.”
But some of the consumers who filed those other lawsuits quickly threw up red flags about the deal. They said the settlement was insufficient, struck without their input by bad lawyers who simply wanted a payout: “Despite this clear abdication of their duties to class members, counsel … are now trying to ram an inadequate, collusive settlement through this court.”
In Wednesday’s ruling, however, Judge Robart said those allegations had little basis. He pointed out there was “no evidence” that MoFi had “shopped” the case in search of a settlement — and that the plaintiffs’ lawyers had actually capped their own fees lower than necessary.
“This is one of the lower proposed fee awards this court has encountered in a class action settlement,” the judge wrote.
Following this week’s ruling, the settlement must still be granted final approval; during the process, the aggrieved MoFi buyers will still have additional chances to object to the terms of the deal or to opt out of it entirely. A hearing on final approval is tentatively set for October.
In a statement to Billboard, Duncan C. Turner — lead counsel for the customers that settled with MoFi — praised the judge’s decision: “There was never any substance to the intervenors’ made-up collusion story. The settlement terms are sound and fair, so we will be turning our attention to executing the notice program and getting the class members their compensation.”
Months after a high-profile mistrial, T.I. is headed back to federal court Wednesday for a second trial in his lawsuit claiming that toymaker MGA stole the design of its “OMG” dolls from the OMG Girlz – a defunct teen pop trio created by his wife Tameka “Tiny” Harris.
The intellectual property case initially went to trial in January, but Judge James V. Selna granted a sudden mistrial after jurors heard inadmissible racially-charged testimony, including a claim that MGA “steals from African Americans.”
The battle began in 2021, with T.I. (real name Clifford Harris) and Tiny claiming that MGA had committed both “cultural appropriation and outright theft of the intellectual property” by stealing the look of a group of “young multicultural women.”
Their complaint against MGA included side-by-side images, aiming to show how each OMG doll was directly based on a particular member of the OMG Girlz, a group that included Tiny’s daughter Zonnique Pullins.
“This cultural appropriation is legally actionable where, as here, it has resulted in MGA’s unlawful copying and dilution of the OMG Girlz brand, and misappropriation of their name and likeness,” lawyers for T.I. and Tiny wrote.
MGA, for its part, says it has done nothing wrong – that the dolls were more often branded as L.O.L. Surprise! O.M.G., and that consumers would not confuse the toys for the “short-lived” band.
The case went before a federal jury in January, seeing five days of testimony. But on the fifth day of the trial, jurors heard videotaped deposition testimony from a woman named Moneice Campbell, a former MGA customer who said she would no longer purchase the company’s products because MGA “steals from African Americans and their ideas and profit off of it.”
Earlier in the case, Judge Selna had already expressly prohibited such testimony from the trial. After MGA’s lawyers demanded an immediate mistrial, the judge agreed to grant one.
“There is no way to unring the bell of the jury’s hearing Ms. Campbell’s emotionally charged accusations that MGA has been ‘stealing’ from the African-American community,” the MGA attorneys wrote. “Her improper testimony cannot be challenged, rebutted or cured without drawing further attention to it.”
The new trial began with jury selection on Tuesday and will see opening statements on Wednesday.
A Delaware judge has dismissed a shareholder lawsuit against financial technology company Block Inc. over its 2021 acquisition of majority ownership in Tidal, the music streaming service partly owned by rapper Jay-Z.
A pension fund shareholder alleged that Block founder and CEO Jack Dorsey and the company’s board of directors breached their fiduciary duties in agreeing to pay roughly $300 million to take control of Tidal as it was failing financially and the target of an ongoing criminal investigation.
Chancellor Kathaleen St. Judge McCormick ruled Tuesday that the pension fund had failed to demand that Block’s board pursue legal action itself before filing a derivative lawsuit on behalf of the company. Under Delaware law, shareholders must make such a demand or demonstrate that doing so would be futile because a majority of directors were self-interested, lacked independence or faced a substantial likelihood of liability.
McCormick noted that the demand requirement is a manifestation of Delaware’s business judgment rule, under which courts defer to the decision-making of corporate directors unless there is an indication they acted in bad faith. That deference remains even if a corporate decision turns out to be unwise.
“It seemed, by all accounts, a terrible business decision,” the judge said of Block’s acquisition of Tidal. “Under Delaware law, however, a board comprised of a majority of disinterested and independent directors is free to make a terrible business decision without any meaningful threat of liability, so long as the directors approve the action in good faith.”
Tidal, which presented itself as an artist-friendly alternative to other music streaming services, was formed when a group of recording artists led by Jay-Z, whose real name is Shawn Carter, acquired Norwegian streaming service Aspiro in 2015 for $56 million. Rebranded as Tidal, it struggled to attract subscribers, logging multimillion-dollar losses for 10 consecutive quarters by mid-2020. It also churned through five different CEOs by 2020, when Carter personally extended a $50 million loan to the struggling outfit. Meanwhile, Tidal became the target of a criminal investigation in Norway for artificially inflating its streaming numbers.
Nevertheless, Dorsey, who is also the co-founder and former CEO of Twitter, began thinking of acquiring Tidal after summering with his friend Carter in the Hamptons in 2020, according to court documents. By videoconference from the Hamptons, he raised the issue during a Block board meeting. The directors agreed to form a transaction committee while Dorsey drafted and submitted a nonbinding letter of intent to purchase Tidal for $554.8 million.
A management report to the transaction committee in October 2020 raised several red flags. They included Tidal’s difficulties in attracting subscribers in a market dominated by Spotify, with most of the remaining market share captured by Apple and Amazon. The report also noted the Norwegian criminal probe and a federal lawsuit by performing artists who said Tidal was withholding royalties they were owed. A week later, the committee was presented with another report discussing Tidal’s history of quarterly losses, expiration of artist contracts, and $127 million in accrued liabilities. A slide presentation noted that Dorsey was the only person advocating strongly for the deal, which had received “substantial push back” from Block’s senior executives.
The committee nevertheless instructed management to continue pursuing the deal. In early 2021, after Tidal missed its financial forecasts for 2020 and Block’s management reduced its valuation of Tidal to $350 million, Dorsey proposed buying 88% of the company for $309 million. The deal closed on April 30, with Block paying $237.3 million after adjustments for an 86.23% stake.
“It is reasonably conceivable that Dorsey used corporate coffers to bolster his relationship with Carter,” wrote McCormick. The judge also noted that the defendants conceded that Carter, who joined Block’s board as part of the deal, could not be considered impartial.
McCormick concluded, however, that the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate bad faith by members of the transaction committee in approving the deal.
“Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to make a reasonable person question the business wisdom of the Tidal acquisition, but plaintiff has failed to plead that the committee defendants acted in bad faith and thus faced a substantial likelihood of liability for that decision,” she wrote.
On Monday (May 8), President Joe Biden announced his intent to nominate Deborah Robinson as the next Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (IPEC). The role was formed in 2008 as part of the Executive Office of the President and advises the president on U.S. intellectual property strategy.
Robinson most recently served as the head of intellectual property enforcement at Paramount Global (formerly ViacomCBS), but before that, she worked at the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) for five years, protecting music rights. She also spent seven years as an assistant district attorney for Philadelphia.
Along with her strong history of employment in the entertainment business, Robinson serves as co-chair of the diversity committee of the IP section of the New York State Bar Association and as a Board Member of Aequitas, a non-profit focused on access and quality of justice in cases of human trafficking and gender-based violence.
Robinson would replace Vishal Amin, who was confirmed as IPEC under President Donald Trump and left the post in 2021. Since then, the position has been vacant, something pointed out by Congressman Adam Schiff and Mark Cohen — a distinguished senior fellow and director of Asia IP Project, Berkeley Center for Law and Technology — in a recent meeting for the Congressional subcommittee on courts, intellectual property, and the internet.
“RIAA applauds President Biden’s nomination of Deborah Robinson to serve as Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator,” said RIAA chairman/CEO Mitch Glazier in a statement. “Deborah is deeply qualified to serve our nation as IPEC and will bring unmatched policy depth and appreciation for the economic and cultural importance of strong IP enforcement to this vital role. Deborah will be an extremely welcome and effective addition to the Executive Office of the President, filling a position that has been vacant for the past three years and leading an exceptional team. We thank President Biden for selecting such an outstanding nominee to advance smart, pro-growth IP policies and enforcement practices around the world.”
“We welcome the nomination of Deborah Robinson to serve as the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (IPEC),” added NMPA president/CEO David Israelite. “Ms. Robinson brings incredible experience and insight to the role which serves an important function to spotlight and safeguard creator’s work across the globe. In addition to an extensive career as a prosecutor, she has held senior positions specifically in the field of music and copyright enforcement. We look forward to engaging with Ms. Robinson and supporting her important work once confirmed.”
A Los Angeles judge on Tuesday (May 9) dismissed much of Marilyn Manson’s defamation lawsuit against his ex-fiance, Evan Rachel Wood, ruling that many of his claims were barred under a California law aimed at protecting free speech.
Manson (real name Brian Warner) sued Wood last year, claiming her 2021 accusations of sexual abuse against him had been false and that she had “secretly recruited, coordinated, and pressured” other women to make similar allegations against him to destroy his career.
But Judge Teresa A. Beaudet ruled Tuesday that Manson had not sufficiently shown that he would ultimately be able to prove many of those accusations against Wood, including that she had been “pressuring multiple women to make false accusations,” as well as the allegation that she had forged a letter from the FBI.
The ruling came under California’s so-called anti-SLAPP statute — a law that aims to make it easier for judges to quickly dismiss cases that threaten free speech. Wood’s lawyers claimed Manson’s case was exactly that: a prominent musician using a lawsuit to try to silence someone who was speaking out publicly about years of alleged abuse.
Anti-SLAPP laws work by putting more burden than usual on defamation plaintiffs like Manson, forcing them to clearly show at the outset that their case is legitimate. In Tuesday’s decision, Judge Beaudet said Manson had failed to do so.
“The court does not find that plaintiff has demonstrated a probability of prevailing on his [intentional infliction of emotional distress] claim based on the FBI Letter,” the judge wrote, referring to one of Manson’s specific legal claims.
Importantly, the decision did not dismiss Manson’s case entirely, and several claims remain pending against Wood. Those claims will continue into discovery and toward an eventual trial. But the ruling was still a major victory for Wood.
In a statement to Billboard following the decision, Wood’s attorney, Michael Kump, said: “We are very pleased with the court’s ruling, which affirms and protects Evan’s exercise of her fundamental First Amendment rights. As the court correctly found, plaintiff failed to show that his claims against her have even minimal merit.”
Wood is one of several women to accuse Manson of serious sexual wrongdoing over the past two years. Manson has denied all of the allegations, and many of the lawsuits filed against him have since been dropped, dismissed or settled.
Manson filed the current lawsuit against Wood in March 2022, accusing her and a woman named Illma Gore of launching an “organized attack” that had derailed his career. His lawyer said the women had carried out “a campaign of malicious and unjustified attacks.”
But Wood quickly fought back, moving to strike Manson’s case under the anti-SLAPP law: “For years, plaintiff Brian Warner raped and tortured defendant Evan Rachel Wood and threatened retaliation if she told anyone about it,” her attorneys wrote. “Warner has now made good on those threats by filing the present lawsuit.”
Tuesday’s ruling came despite a bombshell recantation by Ashley Morgan Smithline, another woman who has accused Manson of wrongdoing. In a February filing submitted by Manson’s lawyers, Smithline said she had “succumbed to pressure” from Wood to make “untrue” accusations against Manson.
But Wood strongly denied those allegations, and Judge Beaudet ultimately refused to consider Smithline’s statements entirely, saying they had been filed far past a key deadline for submitting evidence. That means the statements about Wood’s “pressure” played no role in Tuesday’s decision.
In a statement to Billboard, Manson’s lawyer, Howard King, said the ruling was “disappointing but not unexpected.”
“The court telegraphed this outcome when it refused to consider the bombshell sworn declaration of former plaintiff Ashley Smithline, which detailed how women were systematically pressured by Evan Rachel Wood and Illma Gore to make false claims about Brian Warner,” King said.
“The failure to admit this critical evidence, along with the court’s decision to not consider Ms. Gore’s iPad, the contents of which demonstrated how she and Ms. Wood crafted a forged FBI letter, will be the subject of an immediate appeal to the California Court of Appeal,” King added.
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: Ed Sheeran wins his trial over whether “Thinking Out Loud” infringed Marvin Gaye’s iconic “Let’s Get It On”; Tory Lanez is denied a new trial over the shooting of Megan Thee Stallion; Adidas faces a class action over its Kanye West partnership; and much more.
Want to get The Legal Beat newsletter in your email inbox every Tuesday? Subscribe here for free.
THE BIG STORY: Ed Sheeran & The Copyright Road Ahead
That sound you hear? It’s not Ed Sheeran strumming his guitar from the witness stand, or the tinny audio from a supposedly “smoking gun” YouTube video. It’s the music business letting out a giant sigh of relief.
After one of the biggest music trials in years, Sheeran won a jury verdict last week that his “Thinking Out Loud” didn’t infringe the copyright of Marvin Gaye’s famed “Let’s Get It On,” clearing the singer of wrongdoing and avoiding the potential for millions in damages.
A verdict against the singer would have reverberated throughout the industry, much like the infamous 2015 verdict against Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams over their megahit “Blurred Lines.” Like in that earlier case, many music pros and copyright lawyers believed that Sheeran and Gaye’s songs shared only common musical “building blocks” that everyone is entitled to use. They worried that a verdict against Sheeran could have blurred the line between legal similarities and illegal copying.
For years, the verdict on “Blurred Lines” led the industry to be hyper-cautious about songs that sounded remotely similar. Musicology reports and insurance policies became far more common, and songwriting credits were liberally doled out at the first sign of trouble — by Mark Ronson and Bruno Mars for their smash hit “Uptown Funk,” by Sam Smith for his Grammy-winning “Stay With Me” and by Olivia Rodrigo for her chart-topping “Good 4 U,” among many others. When cases were filed in court, many defendants chose to quickly settle, rather than face an unpredictable jury.
The legal reality, though, is that courts have slowly been back-tracking from “Blurred Lines” for a while now — first with an appellate court decision in 2020 on Led Zeppelin’s “Stairway To Heaven,” then with a similar ruling last year on Katy Perry’s “Dark Horse.” Both of those rulings provided clear case law that simple elements of music creation, standing alone, cannot be monopolized by any one songwriter. Over just the first few months of 2023, song-theft cases against Donald Glover (over his Childish Gambino chart-topper “This Is America”) and Nickelback (over the band’s 2005 hit “Rockstar”) have both been dismissed at the earliest stage of litigation.
Far from throwing the industry back into confusion, Sheeran’s victory last week seems to be the latest incremental step in a march toward a post-“Blurred Lines” world. Jury verdicts don’t change case law, but they can serve as a powerful disincentive to the next round of potential copyright accusers, who might be less willing to head to court if they see that artists are willing to successfully fight back rather than quickly settle when faced with an allegation.
For Sheeran, that seems to be precisely the effect he’s aiming for.
“By stopping this practice, we can also properly support genuine music copyright claims so that legitimate claims are rightly heard and resolved,” Sheeran said on the courthouse steps, minutes after the verdict was read aloud in court. “We need songwriters and the wider musical community to come together to bring back common sense. These claims need to be stopped so that the creative process can carry on, and we can all just go back to making music.”
Other top stories…
NO NEW TRIAL FOR TORY – A Los Angeles judge refused to grant Tory Lanez a new trial after he was convicted last year of shooting Megan Thee Stallion in the foot, setting the stage for the rapper to be sentenced to as much as two decades in prison. His lawyers called the trial a “miscarriage of justice,” but such requests are very rarely granted.
CLASS-ACTION KANYE – Adidas was hit with a class action lawsuit claiming the sportswear giant knew about Kanye West‘s problematic “personal behavior” years prior to ending its partnership with the disgraced rapper but failed to warn investors about it. West himself was not named in the case.
SPINRILLA SHUTTERED – Hip-hop mixtape site Spinrilla and founder Jeffery Copeland agreed to shut down the site and pay $50 million to Universal Music, Warner Music, Sony Music and others to end a years-long copyright infringement lawsuit over the unauthorized use of thousands of songs by Bob Marley, Beyonce, Kendrick Lamar and more.
A Los Angeles judge is refusing to grant Tory Lanez a new trial after he was convicted last year of shooting Megan Thee Stallion in the foot, setting the stage for the rapper to be sentenced to as much as two decades in prison.
Attorneys for Lanez (real name Daystar Peterson) had called the case a “miscarriage of justice,” arguing that Judge David Herriford made numerous errors during a star-studded, two-week December trial that resulted in a guilty verdict. But prosecutors later called those claims “vague and unsupported” and urged the judge to uphold the jury’s decision.
At a hearing on Tuesday (May 9) in Los Angeles Superior Court, Judge Herriford sided with prosecutors and denied Lanez’s motion, according to a person with knowledge of the proceedings. Neither prosecutors nor Lanez’s legal team immediately returned requests for comment.
The ruling is not particularly surprising. Such requests for a judge to overturn a jury verdict are rarely granted, reserved for major revelations about procedural errors or withheld evidence. Similar arguments could still be successfully raised in a future appeal.
Tuesday’s decision clears the way for Lanez’s sentencing, in which he potentially faces up to 22 years in prison. It had originally been scheduled for January but was repeatedly delayed due to his request for a new trial. Sentencing is now expected within the next month but could be delayed again.
Lanez was convicted on Dec. 23 on three felony charges over the mid-2020 incident, during which the rapper allegedly shot Stallion (born Megan Pete) in the foot during an argument after a pool party in the Hollywood Hills.
The shooting happened in the early-morning hours of July 12, 2020, when a driver was shuttling Lanez, Stallion and her assistant and friend Kelsey Harris from a party at Kylie Jenner’s house. According to prosecutors, Megan got out of the vehicle during an argument and began walking away when Lanez shouted “Dance, bitch!” and proceeded to shoot at her feet.
Following the incident, Stallion initially told police officers that she had cut her foot stepping on broken glass, but days later alleged that she had been shot. Lanez was eventually charged with the shooting in October 2022.
During the blockbuster trial, Lanez’s lawyers made their best effort to sow doubt over who had pulled the trigger, painting a scenario in which Harris could have been the shooter. But a key defense witness offered only confusing eyewitness testimony, and prosecutors pointed to an earlier interview in which Harris pinned the blame squarely on Lanez. Stallion herself offered powerful testimony that Lanez had been the one to shoot her; neither Lanez nor the driver took the witness stand.
In a motion for a new trial filed in March, Lanez attorneys Jose Baez and Matthew Barhoma argued that Judge Herriford made numerous errors during the course of the trial. Among others, they said he should not have allowed jurors to see an Instagram post that appeared to undermine the rapper’s central defense that Harris actually pulled the trigger. In it, Lanez appeared to personally post a comment that such a suggestion was “not true.”
“The court erred on numerous questions of law in allowing the People to introduce this post, depriving defendant of a fair trial,” Lanez’s lawyers wrote. “The only acceptable remedy for this miscarriage of justice is a new trial.”
Lanez’s lawyers made numerous other arguments, too. They said that key DNA evidence had been mischaracterized and improperly admitted; that Lanez had been denied his right to counsel because his longtime attorney withdrew at the eleventh hour; and that prosecutors had run afoul of a new California law that bans the use of creative expression in criminal trials.
But prosecutors argued back last month that the request for a new trial was groundless. The Instagram comment was a “relatively insignificant piece of evidence,” they argued, among an “overwhelming” amount of testimony and other evidence showing that Lanez had been the one to shoot Stallion.
“The defendant’s brief is replete with colorful rhetoric and conclusory statements, but it lacks substance,” prosecutors wrote. “Despite being nearly 80 pages long, the defendant has failed to cite a single instance of error in the trial court.”
Following Tuesday’s decision, Lanez can still file an appeal of the verdict at a state appellate court. But such a challenge will face an uphill climb: In 2022, California appeals courts overturned a defendant’s guilty verdict in just 19% of cases.
RuPaul’s Drag Race and We’re Here star Shangela has denied allegations in a civil suit filed by a former production assistant on the latter series claiming that the drag star (born Darius Jeremy “DJ” Pierce) drugged and raped him after a 2020 wrap party.
“I can’t begin to explain how hurt and disgusted I am by these totally untrue allegations. They are personally offensive and perpetuate damaging stereotypes that are harmful not only to me, but also to my entire community,” Pierce said in a statement to Billboard on Friday (May 5).
The statement came in reaction to a civil suit filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on Wednesday in which Daniel McGarrigle, a We’re Here production assistant, claimed that Pierce sexually assaulted him in February 2020 after a wrap party for the fifth episode of the HBO reality series featuring several Drag Race contestants, according to The Hollywood Reporter.
“An external investigation into this embittered individual’s claims previously concluded that they were completely without merit,” Pierce continued in the statement. The performer added of the new filing, “No one should be fooled: It has no basis in fact or in law, and it will not succeed.”
Pierce added, “As a hardworking and outspoken drag entertainer for more than a decade, I know that I am far from alone in battling ignorance, bigotry and prejudice, all of which played a role in the filing of this complaint. That is why I will fight this entirely meritless lawsuit and not allow it to destroy me and those I love, or harm the causes we all stand for.”
According to THR, McGarrigle alleges in the suit that during party at a Ruston, La., restaurant/bar, Pierce was “heavily flirtatious” with him and bought him several drinks before allegedly suggesting that McGarrigle accompany him to his hotel to help get ready for an early flight. The suit then claims that McGarrigle vomited in the toilet after arriving in Pierce’s room, at which point the performer reportedly offered to get him water and let him lie down until he felt better.
The production assistant claims in the lawsuit he woke up later that evening to a cold liquid that “burned his eyes and nose” being poured on him that was described as a kind of “poppers” (aka amyl nitrite) before Pierce allegedly pulled down his pants and “overpowered” him.
In a separate statement shared with Billboard from producers Buckingham Television and HBO, the representatives for the series said, “Buckingham Television, the production company for We’re Here, received a complaint late summer 2021 regarding an incident that was alleged to have occurred in early 2020. Buckingham and HBO take the safety and well-being of personnel on our shows very seriously, and Buckingham immediately launched an investigation. The investigation concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support these allegations.”
The suit claims that the alleged rape was an act of gender violence, and that McGarrigle suffered damages as a result, including “past and future medical expenses, past and future lost earnings and earning capacity, pain, suffering, emotional distress, mental anguish and embarrassment.” The legal action is seeking unspecified damages from Pierce and Buckingham.
A Manhattan federal jury on Thursday (May 4) cleared Ed Sheeran of allegations that his “Thinking Out Loud” infringed the copyright of Marvin Gaye’s famed “Let’s Get It On,” allowing the star to avoid millions in potential damages.
After a closely-watched trial before a packed courtroom, the seven-person jury issued a verdict that determined Sheeran had proved he didn’t infringe upon the copyright of the soul classic. Following the verdict, he briefly put his hands over his face in relief and hugged his lawyer, according to the Associated Press. As jurors left the courtroom, Sheeran quietly mouthed the words “thank you” in their direction. He then spoke for about 10 minutes with the plaintiffs, including the daughter of Ed Townsend, who co-created the 1973 soul classic with Gaye. They hugged and smiled with each other.
If he’d been found liable, Sheeran would have been facing millions in potential damages and could have been forced to change the credits on his song. After a jury verdict in 2015 that found Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams‘ megahit “Blurred Lines” had infringed Gaye’s “Got To Give It Up,” the two stars were ultimately ordered to pay a $5 million judgment, plus ongoing royalties from their song.
The verdict came nearly seven years after Sheeran was first sued by the heirs of Ed Townsend, Gaye’s longtime producer who co-wrote “Let’s Get It On,” over “Thinking Out Loud” — a commercial and critical success that hit No. 2 on the Hot 100 before winning the Grammy Award for song of the year. (Gaye’s actual heirs, who won the verdict over “Blurred Lines” are not involved in the case.)
In their suit, Kathryn Townsend Griffin and other heirs of Ed Townsend said Sheeran had “knowingly and intentionally infringed” the earlier tune, stealing the “heart” from one of the most “instantly recognizable songs in R&B history.”
The trial, taking place at the U.S. federal courthouse in Lower Manhattan, kicked off Tuesday with opening statements from both sides. Benjamin Crump, representing Griffin, told the jury to use their “common sense” to see that the pop star had stolen the “magic” from the earlier song. But Sheeran’s attorney, Ilene Farkas, said Griffin had not right to monopolize the “exceedingly common musical building blocks” featured in both songs. “Plaintiffs do not own them, because nobody does,” Farkas said. “All songwriters draw from this same basic toolkit.”
Later that same day, jurors then heard testimony from Sheeran himself, who strongly denied the allegations and insisted that he be allowed — over complaints from opposing attorneys — to offer additional context to defend his actions: “I feel like you don’t want me to answer because what I’m going to say is going to make quite a lot of sense,” Sheeran said.
One key piece of evidence during the trial was a video clip from a 2014 concert, in which Sheeran seamlessly switches from “Thinking” to “Lets” and back again, drawing huge cheers from the crowd. Crump called it a “smoking gun” against the star: “That concert video is a confession.”
But Sheeran and his lawyers said the video simply underscored the fact that he had done nothing wrong by using a basic set of chords that appear in many songs: “Quite frankly, if I’d done what you’re accusing me of, I’d be an idiot to stand up in front of 20,000 people and do that,” the singer said from the witness stand.
Later in the week, jurors heard testimony from Amy Wadge, who co-wrote “Thinking” with Sheeran (but isn’t named as a defendant), and Jake Gosling, who produced the song (also not named as a defendant). And both sides called their own musicologists — Lawrence Ferrara for Sheeran and Alexander Stewart for the Townsends — who offered dueling expert testimony about whether the similarities between the two tracks met the legal requirements for copyright infringement.
The Associated Press contributed reporting.
A federal judge in Georgia ordered the hip-hop mixtape site Spinrilla and its founder Jeffery Copeland to pay Universal Music, Warner Music, Sony Music and others $50 million for copyright infringement related to the streaming and downloading of thousands of songs by Bob Marley, Beyonce, Kendrick Lamar and more, according to a settlement agreement filed Wednesday.
As part of the agreement, Copeland is also permanently forbidden from operating Spinrilla or any other website, platform or similar projects anywhere in the world.
The settlement this week stems from a six-year-old lawsuit filed by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) on behalf of UMG, Sony Music Entertainment, Warner Bros. Records, Atlantic Recording Corporation and LaFace Records, alleging that Spinrilla and Copeland allowed users to stream and download unlicensed content.
Copeland founded Spinrilla in early 2013 as an app for approved users to listen to and discover “independent and emerging hip-hop artists.” When the music industry filed its lawsuit, Spinrilla had 19 million users, including 14,000 who could upload content to the platform, and around 1.4 million songs available on the platform.
Over the course of the case, the RIAA said it identified more than 4,000 songs by Rihanna, Michael Jackson, Kanye West and others that were infringed, and in late 2020, U.S. District Judge Amy Totenberg found Spinrilla liable for copyright infringement.
UMG, WMG, Sony Music Entertainment and Spinrilla did not respond to requests for comment.
As part of the agreement, Spinrilla will transfer the domain name for its service to the music industry companies, which they have agreed not to use.