Legal News
Page: 77
A Los Angeles judge says Lady Gaga is not obligated to pay out on a $500,000 “no questions asked” reward for the return of her stolen French bulldogs — at least not to a woman who was criminally charged over the violent 2021 incident.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
In a ruling Monday (July 10) reported by TMZ, Judge Holly J. Fujie dismissed a breach of contract lawsuit filed by Jennifer McBride, who pleaded no contest in December to receiving stolen property in connection with the gunpoint robbery in which Gaga’s dog walker Ryan Fischer was shot and nearly killed.
McBride had argued that Gaga’s offer of a reward was “unilateral” — meaning she had to pay up no matter the circumstances. But in Monday’s decision, Judge Fujie reportedly agreed with arguments from Gaga’s attorneys: That a criminal like McBridge could not “profit from her participation in a crime.”
Neither side immediately returned requests for comment on Monday.
McBride is one of five people charged over the Feb. 24, 2021, gunpoint dog-napping of Gaga’s bulldogs, Koji and Gustav. Prosecutors say the singer was not specifically targeted, and that the group was merely trying to steal French bulldogs, which can be worth thousands of dollars.
James Howard Jackson, the man who shot Fischer during the robbery, took a plea deal in December and was sentenced to 21 years in prison.
Days after the attack, it was McBride who returned the dogs to police, claiming she’d found the animals tied to a pole and asking about the reward. While police initially told the media that McBride appeared to be “uninvolved and unassociated” with the crime, she was later connected to the robbery and charged with one count of receiving stolen property and one count of being an accessory after the fact. In December, she pleaded no contest to the property charge and was sentenced to two years of probation.
But just two months later, McBride was back in court again — filing a civil lawsuit claiming she deserves the credit for returning the superstar’s bulldogs. The case argued Gaga made a binding “unilateral” offer to pay the reward in return for the safe return of the dogs, and that McBride had taken her up on the proposal by flipping on the men who actually committed the robbery.
“Plaintiff accepted defendants’ unilateral offer by contacting defendants, and delivering Lady Gaga’s bulldogs to defendants at the Los Angeles Police Department,” McBride’s lawyer, K.T. Tran, wrote in the lawsuit. “Plaintiff has fully performed her obligation under the unilateral contract.”
But Gaga’s attorneys quickly moved to end the case, arguing last month that it would be absurd to allow McBride to “profit from her participation in a crime” and “rewarded for her role in the conspiracy.”
“The law does not allow a person to commit a crime and then profit from it,” Gaga’s lawyers at the firm Gibson Dunn wrote in their filings. “This principle applies with extra force in this case because the theft of Defendant’s dogs was facilitated by a violent gun crime that left one man nearly dead.”
DaBaby has been dropped from a copyright lawsuit accusing him and Dua Lipa of ripping off their smash hit “Levitating” from decades-old songs.
In an order Monday (July 10), a Manhattan federal judge granted a request by lawyers for L. Russell Brown and Sandy Linzer to voluntarily dismiss the rapper from their case, which claims Lipa’s massive hit infringed their 1979 song “Wiggle and Giggle All Night” and their 1980 song “Don Diablo.”
The accusers did not explain why they were dropping their case against DaBaby (real name Jonathan Lyndale Kirk), who featured on a popular remix of Lipa’s song. But they made clear that the case would continue against Lipa herself and music companies involved in the song: “For the avoidance of doubt, plaintiffs maintain and do not hereby dismiss their claims against any other defendant in this matter.”
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
An attorney for Brown and Linzer declined to comment on why they had dismissed DaBaby from the case. An attorney for DaBaby did not return a request for comment.
Brown and Linzer’s case, filed in March 2022, was one of two federal copyright lawsuits filed in quick succession over “Levitating” — a massive hit that spent 77 weeks on the Hot 100 and was named the No. 1 Hot 100 song of 2021. The case claimed the melody that starts just a few seconds into “Levitating,” when Lipa sings “If you wanna run away with me,” was a “duplicate” of a similar passage featured in the two earlier songs.
The other “Levitating” case, filed just days earlier by a reggae band named Artikal Sound System, claimed Lipa had lifted her song’s core hook from their little-known 2015 song “Live Your Life.” But the band dropped that lawsuit last month, just days after a federal judge cast serious doubt on whether Artikal could prove that Lipa ever even heard their song.
Though Brown and Linzer’s case will continue against Lipa, they could be facing a similar ruling soon.
Last summer, Lipa’s lawyers made the same arguments as they made in the Artikal case, saying the two accusers could not prove that she had ever had “access” to the earlier songs — a make-or-break requirement for any copyright lawsuit. Brown and Linzer’s attorneys have countered that their songs had millions of listens on internet platforms, giving the “Levitating” writers ample opportunity to hear them.
A ruling on that question is pending.
TikTok and a group of five content creators who are suing the state of Montana over its first-in-the-nation law to ban the video sharing app are now asking a federal judge to block implementation of the law while the case moves through the courts and before it takes effect in January.
The separate requests for preliminary injunctions were filed Wednesday in federal court in Missoula. The cases challenging the law were filed in May and have since been consolidated by U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy.
Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen had the bill drafted over concerns — shared by the FBI and U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken — that the app, owned by the Chinese company ByteDance, could be used to allow the Chinese government to access information on U.S. citizens or push pro-Beijing misinformation that could influence the public. TikTok has said none of this has ever happened.
The motions for injunctions make the same arguments as the cases against the state — that the ban is an unconstitutional violation of free speech rights and that the state has no authority to regulate foreign affairs.
Attorneys on both sides have agreed to a schedule that calls for the state to respond to the motions by mid-August and for the plaintiffs to file their replies by mid-September, court records state.
The company and the Montana content creators argue a preliminary injunction should be granted because the plaintiffs are likely to succeed in their challenges to the law and if the ban took effect it would cause irreparable harm by depriving them of the ability to express themselves and communicate with others.
TikTok has safeguards to moderate content and protect minors, and would not share information with China, the company has argued. But critics have pointed to China’s 2017 national intelligence law that compels companies to cooperate with the country’s governments for state intelligence work.
“TikTok users don’t use the app – the app uses them and turns them into a spying apparatus for the Chinese Communist Party,” Emily Flower, a spokeswoman for the Attorney General’s Office, said in a statement that also noted recent reporting that TikTok is paying for the lawsuit filed by the content creators. “TikTok’s ‘support’ is bought and paid for – Montanans recognize the threat that the app poses to their privacy and national security.”
More than half of U.S. states, including Montana, and the federal government have banned TikTok from government-owned devices.
Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte signed the bill into law in May, saying Montana was taking “the most decisive action of any state to protect Montanans’ private data and sensitive personal information from being harvested by the Chinese Communist Party.”
As of June 1, Gianforte also prohibited the use of any social media apps tied to foreign adversaries on state equipment and for state businesses. Among the apps he listed are WeChat, whose parent company is headquartered in China; and Telegram Messenger, which was founded in Russia.
Kanye West is facing another lawsuit about unsafe conditions at his Donda Academy, including that the bizarre allegation that the school lacked windows because the embattled rapper “did not like glass.”
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
In a lawsuit filed Thursday (July 6) in Los Angeles, former Donda Academy gym teacher Isaiah Meadows says he was unfairly fired after he raised concerns about inconsistent pay and serious health and safety issues — allegedly including overflowing sceptic tanks and dangerous electrical fires.
The new case came just three months after a group of other former Donda employees filed a similar case against West (who legally changed his name to Ye) and his private school, alleging they had been terminated after complaining about shoddy pay and bad conditions.
Like the previous case, the new lawsuit paints a strange picture of life inside West’s school and the Yeezy Christian Academy that preceded it. In one accusation, Meadows says students were left “exposed to the elements” because the rapper refused to allow glass to be placed in the building’s window frames.
“In the middle of the main classroom, a skylight was left without glass inevitably allowing rain to fall directly inside, where water would soak into the floor, which would lead to a moldy smell for the next few days,” Meadows’ lawyers wrote. “The skylight was intentionally without glass because WEST expressed that he did not like glass.”
He also claims that the school had “serious wiring issues,” leading to an incident in which an electrical fire was sparked “near the student eating area where wire was laid atop the ground, exposed.” Plumbing was allegedly also a problem, including a sceptic tank that would “overflow every other day, causing a terrible smell.”
In a statement announcing the new case, attorney Ron Zambrano called the conditions at Donda Academy “absolutely egregious” and said he and his client “plan to hold them accountable.”
“The unlawful and retaliatory behavior by Mr. West and the school directors have now been documented multiple times by other former employees who never even worked together but all experienced the same horrendous treatment and witnessed the same serious health, safety and education code violations, while all were subjected to the same fate,” Zambrano said.
In technical terms, the lawsuit accuses West, Donda Academy and others of breach of contract and of violation of several California labor laws, including wage rules, wrongful termination, and improper classification.
Donda Academy did not immediately return a request for comment on the lawsuit. A representative for West individually could not immediately be located for comment.
Much like the new claims about glassless windows, the earlier case against Donda included its own allegations about conditions at the school. The former teachers claimed that students were allowed to only eat sushi; that all students were required to wear black; and, oddest of all, that students were also not allowed on the second floor because West was “reportedly afraid of stairs.”
That case, filed by the same attorneys on behalf of former teachers Cecilia Hailey, Chekarey Byers and Timanii Meeks, is still pending.
Rapper, producer and entrepreneur Sean “Diddy” Combs is asking the New York Supreme Court to enforce a 2021 agreement that requires spirits seller Diageo to treat his DeLeon tequila brand “at least as favorably” as its other tequila brands.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
Combs signed an agreement with Diageo — which owns more than 200 brands including Guinness beer and Tanqueray gin — after what he says were years of neglect for DeLeon, a brand he established with the London company in 2013.
Combs’ lawsuit against Diageo was filed in May. But many details, including the 2021 agreement, were redacted at the time. On Wednesday, those details were released after Judge Joel Cohen ruled that Diageo could keep only limited portions confidential.
Combs says Diageo’s treatment of DeLeon worsened after it bought two competing tequila brands: Don Julio in 2014 and Casamigos in 2017. Combs, who is Black, says Diageo positioned his tequila as an inferior “urban” brand and limited its distribution.
Diageo has denied Combs’ accusations. In late June, it asked the court to compel arbitration or dismiss the suit. It has also in the process of terminating a partnership between Combs and Ciroc vodka, a brand he had promoted since 2007.
The newly public documents detail what Combs says was Diageo’s repeated disinvestment in DeLeon. As of last year, DeLeon was distributed in 3% of possible outlets, for example, while Don Julio was in 36%. DeLeon has been listed as “out of stock” in major markets at least ten times in the past year, the lawsuit says.
In 2021, Combs said he was informed that all of Diageo’s agave plants were allocated to other brands, forcing DeLeon to scramble to find suppliers in the more expensive spot market. Combs says Diageo also made unilateral decisions that harmed the brand, including discontinuing popular 375-millileter “half bottles” and launching a redesigned bottle with no marketing support.
Combs claims Diageo’s decisions were often tinged with racism. He says he was adamant that DeLeon not offer flavored versions until customers had more time to learn about the brand. But Diageo went ahead and developed a watermelon flavor, even though Combs had previously warned the company to be careful about the racist history and negative connotations with watermelon in brands aimed at Black consumers.
Combs says internal Diageo documents also proposed downplaying Ciroc’s connection to Combs with the goal of rolling back its “image of being an African-American brand.”
In its own court filings, Diageo accuses Combs of resorting to “false and reckless” allegations in an effort to extract monetary damages. Diageo also says sales of DeLeon have doubled since the 2021 agreement.
Colombian urban artist Ryan Castro has sued King Records, the indie label belonging to fellow Colombian artist Kevin Roldán for breach of contract of his management and label agreements in two separate complaints. The lawsuits — filed in Medellín, Colombia, in April and May, respectively — both name King Records, which is Roldán’s label.
A third suit, arguing breach of contract in terms of publishing agreements, is expected to be filed in the coming weeks, according to Castro’s attorney and manager, Leo Arango.
The lawsuits come as Castro is hitting new career highs. On July 7, he’s slated to release a new single, “Chimba de reggaetón” with Mexican star Peso Pluma (to be distributed by Sony Latin), while earlier this year he released both the “Corazón Roto” remix with Brray and Jhayco and “Ojitos Rojos” with Blessd. Additionally, he was named a Billboard “Latin Artist on the Rise” in June 2022.
The complaints mark the latest developments in the short relationship between Castro and Roldán, which started off on a positive note back in July 2020, when Castro signed management, recording and publishing contracts with Roldán’s company, King Records.
However, by 2021, the suit claims that Castro was requesting, and not receiving, financial statements from the label. In November 2021, in an effort to mend things between the two artists, says the suit, the two signed a separate agreement to create a new company, Awoo King Records. Under that agreement, the lawsuit alleges, Castro would have a 50% interest in the company and a majority share in revenue. However, Roldán would still control the finances of the company for the first year.
Castro’s career flourished thanks to hit singles like “Mujeriego,” which was distributed by Sony Music Latin. However, the suit alleges that Awoo King Records was still not providing proper accounting to Castro, who says he was still owed monies from King Records. The complaint further alleges that in August 2022, Castro’s attorneys realized that funds from Awoo King Records had been taken out of the company without Castro’s knowledge or authorization, draining some of the money needed to support his career.
After Roldán allegedly refused to give Castro the reins of the company, Castro sued. In his complaint, he claims he is owed money from digital distribution agreements and royalties and that the alleged financial improprieties have hurt his career.
A tribunal in Medellín is expected to hear the first of the two filed complaints in the coming weeks.
Arango says the legal issues aren’t impeding Castro’s ability to work or record, however. Aside from preparing the release of his single with Peso Pluma, he says Castro is also working on an album, likely due at the end of the year.
Roldán’s attorney, Pold Alexander, declined to comment for the story.
The rapper Casanova has been sentenced to more than 15 years in prison on federal racketeering conspiracy and drug charges related to his involvement in what prosecutors called “a vicious street gang.”
A New York federal judge on Tuesday (June 27) sentenced the artist (real name Caswell Senior) to 188 months in prison after he pleaded guilty last year to one charge under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), as well as a charge of conspiracy to distribute over 100 kilograms of marijuana.
Casanova, a Brooklyn rapper once signed to Jay-Z’s Roc Nation, was one of 18 men charged in 2020 for their alleged roles in the Untouchable Gorilla Stone Nation gang, which prosecutors said “committed terrible acts of violence” across the New York City region.
“Caswell Senior is not just a notorious recording artist, but he is also a high-profile leader of a vicious street gang and a magnet for gang violence,” U.S. Attorney Damian Williams said in a statement after the sentencing, adding that Casanova’s stature had helped the gang recruit and expand nationwide. “Gang life is not worth it and will lead to many years in prison.”
Prior to the criminal charges, Casanova had been an up-and-coming artist, peaking at No. 3 on Billboard’s Next Big Sound chart in 2019 after the release of his album Behind These Scars. Chatting with Billboard at the time, Casanova said he was hopeful for the future, but knew that his past could return to haunt him: “People will always blame you for your past. I’m ok with that; I just have to fight harder. I have to do more to get recognized.”
In December 2020, he was one of 18 defendants named in the sweeping RICO case over Untouchable Gorilla Stone Nation, which prosecutors said operated a violent narcotics operation across the NYC metro area, including the murder of a teenage boy in Poughkeepsie. The allegations even included “brazen fraud” for exploiting benefits programs providing assistance in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
In May 2022, Casanova pleaded guilty to the RICO conspiracy charge and the drug charge. Among other things, he admitted to participating in a July 2020 shootout at a crowded Miami house party in which he personally shot a man, leaving the victim seriously injured.
Ahead of Tuesday’s sentencing, federal prosecutors requested a prison term ranging from 188 to 235 months, calling Casanova “a high-profile gang leader” who had “amplified the message of the gang” through his music, helping to recruit “a generation of new members.”
“He did not simply pretend to be violent in his music or on social media,” the government wrote. “Unfortunately, he walked the walk. Senior’s offense conduct is not about a few song lyrics or how he marketed his music. Rather, he carried out an array of violent activity and significant narcotics trafficking that benefited some of the gang’s most violent and impactful members.”
Casanova’s attorneys argued that he should receive a sentence well below those guidelines. They said he was “not involved in the gang’s daily activities” and had begun “to distance himself” from the group as his music career took off, including having “denounced gang life” in some public statements.
“The fact is that Mr. Senior stayed in this gang as it furthered his rap career,” Casanova’s lawyers wrote. “As he gained moderate success and then a recording contract with Roc Nation, he increasingly separated himself from the gang’s activities despite remaining a member.”
In a statement to Billboard on Wednesday, Casanova’s lawyer, James Kousouros, said he and his client were “gratified that the court acknowledged the productive messages that Mr. Senior had been giving against gang life over the past several years and sentenced him to the lowest end of the guidelines.”
Lawyers for alcohol giant Diageo are demanding that a judge toss out a lawsuit from Sean “Diddy” Combs that accuses the company of racism, calling it “false and reckless” and driven by an effort to “extract additional billions” from the company.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
Combs sued in May, claiming Diageo breached his partnership deal for DeLeon Tequila by failing to properly support the brand. But he went a lot further than that, also leveling accusations of racism and claiming Diageo had treated his product line “worse than others because he is Black.”
In the company’s first response to the lawsuit on Tuesday (June 27), Diageo’s lawyers didn’t exactly hold back, either. They called the Diddy’s 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.”
In a statement on Tuesday, a spokeswoman for Diageo echoed the message of the company’s legal filing — and said Diageo had permanently cut ties with the rapper.
“Mr. Combs’ bad-faith actions have clearly breached his contracts and left us no choice but to move to dismiss his baseless complaint and end our business relationship,” the company wrote. “Mr. Combs has repeatedly undermined our partnerships and threatened to publicly defame Diageo if we did not meet his unreasonable financial demands.”
In his lawsuit, filed on May 31, attorneys for Diddy’s Combs Wines and Spirits claimed that Diageo had “typecast” his DeLeon 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.”
But in Tuesday’s response, Diageo said those bombastic allegations were just a distraction from a run-of-the-mill business dispute that should have been handled under a binding arbitration agreement that both sides signed. They asked the judge to either dismiss the case or order that it be resolved through that private arbitration process.
“Without its inflammatory rhetoric and false accusations, the complaint is nothing but a garden-variety, and eminently arbitrable, suit alleging breach of contract,” Diageo wrote.
And when it comes to that “garden variety” business dispute, Diageo says it was Combs who was clearly in the wrong. The company claims he was “an unreliable and untrustworthy business partner” who failed to provide sufficient support to help DeLeon thrive, while Diageo supplied over $100 million for the project.
“Unwilling or unable to provide funding for the mutual benefit of the parties and the DeLeón brand, in mid-2020 Combs began to issue threats to damage the brand and defame Diageo and its executives and employees by publicly claiming that DeLeón’s failure to thrive was due to a racial animus against him,” Diageo’s lawyers wrote.
In a statement to Billboard on Tuesday, Combs’ attorney John C. Hueston sharply criticized Diageo’s claims that it was terminating its partnership with the star, saying it was akin to “firing a whistleblower who calls out racism.”
“Over the years, he has repeatedly raised concerns as senior executives uttered racially insensitive comments and made biased decisions based on that point of view,” Hueston said. “Diageo even acknowledged the problem by agreeing in his contract to treat DeLeon the same way it treated their other tequila brands. He brought the lawsuit to force them to live up to that contract, and instead they respond by trying to get rid of him. This lawsuit and Mr. Combs are not going away.”
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: Dr. Luke and Kesha end their long-running lawsuit with a settlement just weeks before trial; the RIAA takes legal action against a popular message board centered on artificial intelligence-driven voice mimicry; Kanye West aims to dismiss a lawsuit accusing him of illegally sampling a legendary hip hop group; and much more.
Want to get The Legal Beat newsletter in your email inbox every Tuesday? Subscribe here for free.
THE BIG STORY: Dr. Luke v. Kesha Ends With Settlement
After nearly a decade of bitter litigation between Kesha and Dr. Luke, in which she accused him of rape and he accused her of defaming him by doing so, the lawsuit will end not with a blockbuster trial, but with joint statements wishing each other well.
Just weeks before the case had been set to go to trial, the two sides announced that they had reached a settlement to resolve the long fight, which kicked off in 2014 after Kesha accused her former producer of drugging and raping her after a 2005 party.
The start of the lawsuit pre-dated the #MeToo movement, but it foreshadowed many of the themes that would characterize much of the litigation arising from that cultural reckoning. Dr. Luke claimed her “vengeful” allegations had been designed to “extort” him into releasing her from her record deal; Kesha claimed he was using the court system to silence and bully a victim who spoke out.
It’s not hard to speculate why Dr. Luke settled rather than test his defamation claims before a jury. Ten days before the deal was reached, New York’s top appeals court finally weighed in on key issues that had long delayed the case, and the result wasn’t good for the producer. The court not only said he was a “public figure” – a designation that makes it extremely hard to win libel cases in American courts – but also that Kesha could potentially recoup her legal bills if she won at trial.
But with or without a courthouse showdown, Dr. Luke appears to have gotten some of what he wanted. In their joint statement, Kesha said that “only god knows what happened that night” and that she “cannot recount everything that happened.” In the same joint statement, Dr. Luke was unequivocal: “I never drugged or assaulted her and would never do that to anyone.”
Go read the full statements, and the long backstory of the case, in our story on the big settlement.
Other top stories this week…
FLORIDA DRAG LAW BLOCKED – A federal judge barred Florida from enforcing its recently enacted restrictions on drag performances, ruling that the law likely violates the First Amendment. Proponents of the statute, including presidential hopeful Gov. Ron DeSantis, claimed it was needed to protect children from “lewd” performances, but the judge said the vague new rules were “dangerously susceptible to standardless, overbroad enforcement which could sweep up substantial protected speech.”
RIAA’S AI CRACKDOWN – Lawyers for the industry group moved to shut down a popular Discord server centered on artificial intelligence and voice models called “AI Hub,” obtaining a federal court subpoena to reveal the identities of its users and sending takedown request demanding that Discord shut down the entire channel. The RIAA’s actions are the latest effort by music companies to rein in the disruptive new technology.
NO SCOTUS FOR GENIUS – The U.S. Supreme Court said that it would not take up a lawsuit claiming Google stole millions of song lyrics from Genius, the popular music database that lets users add and annotate lyrics. Genius claimed Google free-rode on the site’s work, but multiple lower courts had ruled that the site couldn’t sue over copyrighted lyrics it didn’t actually own.
SUMMERTIME SETTLEMENT – Lana Del Rey reached a settlement to end a copyright lawsuit claiming her 2012 music video for “Summertime Sadness” featured 17 seconds of material lifted directly from a short film by a director named Lucas Bolaño. The agreement came weeks after a federal judge denied a motion to dismiss the case filed by Del Rey’s lawyers, who argued that the case was filed well after the statute of limitations.
TROY AVE SHOOTER SENTENCED – Hip-hop podcaster Taxstone was sentenced to 35 years in prison following his conviction earlier this year on manslaughter charges over his 2016 fatal shooting of rapper Troy Ave’s bodyguard during a T.I. concert at a New York City venue. His attorneys told Billboard they would appeal: “Justice wasn’t served.”
BOOSIE RELEASED ON GUN CHARGE – Rapper Boosie Badazz was ordered released on bond on his federal gun charge, after a judge rejected a request by prosecutors to keep him behind bars even longer. The charge follows a May 6 traffic stop in which the feds say the New Orleans rapper was found with a handgun — an alleged violation of a federal law prohibiting former felons from possessing firearms.
KANYE RIPS SAMPLING LAWSUIT – With Kanye West facing a lawsuit for allegedly using an uncleared sample from the pioneering rap group Boogie Down Productions, his lawyers made an unusual argument: That BDP founder KRS-One had “emphatically” stated in a 2006 documentary that “my entire catalogue is open to the public” and “you will not get sued if you sample.”
The U.S. Supreme Court said Monday that it would not take up a lawsuit claiming Google stole millions of song lyrics from the music database Genius.
Genius — a popular platform that lets users add and annotate lyrics — had asked the justice to revive allegations that Google improperly used the site’s carefully-transcribed content for its search results. The company argued that a ruling dismissing the case last year had been “unjust” and “absurd.”
But in an order dated Monday, the court denied Genius’s petition to hear the case, cementing Google’s victory. As is typical, the court did not issue a written ruling explaining the denial. Such petitions are always a long shot, as the Supreme Court takes less than 2% of the 7000 cases it receives each year.
Genius sued the tech giant in 2019, claiming Google had stolen the site’s carefully-transcribed content for its own “information boxes” that appear alongside search results — essentially free-riding on the “time, labor, systems and resources” that go into creating such a service. In a splashy twist, Genius said it had used a secret code buried within lyrics that spelled out REDHANDED to prove Google’s wrongdoing.
Though it sounds like a copyright case, Genius didn’t actually accuse Google of stealing any intellectual property. That’s because it doesn’t own any; songwriters and publishers own the rights to lyrics, and both Google and Genius pay for the same licenses to display them. Instead, Genius argued it had spent time and money transcribing and compiling “authoritative” versions of lyrics, and that Google had breached the site’s terms of service by “exploiting” them without permission.
In March 2022, that distinction proved fatal for Genius. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed the case, ruling that only the actual copyright owners — songwriters or publishers — could have filed such a case, not a site that merely transcribed the lyrics. In technical terms, the court said the case was “preempted” by federal copyright law, meaning that the accusations from Genius were so similar to a copyright claim that they could only have been filed that way.
In taking the case to the Supreme Court, Genius argued the ruling would be a disaster for websites that spend time and money to aggregate user-generated content online. Such companies should be allowed to protect that effort against clear copycats, the company said, even if they don’t hold the copyright. “Big-tech companies like Google don’t need any assists from an overly broad view of copyright preemption,” the company wrote.
But last month, the U.S. Solicitor General advised the Supreme Court to steer clear of the case. It said Genius’s lawsuit was a “poor vehicle” for reviewing the issues in the case, and that the lower court did not appear to have done anything particularly novel when it dismissed the case against Google. Such recommendations are usually very influential on whether the justices decide to tackle a particular case.