Legal News
Page: 78
Lana Del Rey has reached a settlement to end a lawsuit claiming her music video for “Summertime Sadness” featured 17 seconds of material lifted directly from a copyrighted short film, weeks after a federal judge refused to dismiss the case.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
Lucas Bolaño sued Del Ray (real name Elizabeth Grant) and Universal Music Group last year, accusing them of “blatant disregard” of his rights. He claimed the 2012 video not only copied the footage from his short film “Sky,” but even stole audio of a voice saying “Remember, I will always love you, bye.”
But in a filing in California federal court on Tuesday, lawyers for both sides said they had reached an agreement for Bolaño to drop his case. Specific terms of the settlement were not disclosed, and neither side immediately returned requests for comment.
The settlement came just a month after a federal judge refused to dismiss the lawsuit against Del Rey. The star’s lawyers had argued that Bolaño waited far too long to sue, but in a May 16 ruling, Judge Stephen Wilson sent the case to a jury trial — a risky proposition even for any defendant.
Bolaño sued in July 2022, claiming the first 17 seconds of the “Summertime Sadness” music video was copied directly from his film, with “only marginal differences” like cropping and color saturation: “These minor alterations do not make Defendants’ copying any less apparent or egregious.”
His lawyers claimed the video, which had more than 350 million views on YouTube when he filed his case, had “generated millions of dollars in royalties” for Del Rey and UMG. “Unfortunately, Plaintiffs have not seen a dime of these ill-gotten proceeds and have never even been credited for their work,” they wrote.
In April, attorneys for Del Rey asked a federal judge to toss the case out. They didn’t argue about whether or not the clip appeared in the music video, but said simply that Bolaño had waited years too long to sue. In particular, they pointed to a 2015 YouTube comment on his short film, in which a user said “this was used in Summertime Sadness!”
“The undisputed facts demonstrate that plaintiffs had actual knowledge of the music video and Del Rey’s use of their works no later than 2015,” the star’s lawyers wrote. “Ignoring clear, indisputable, and specific notice, plaintiffs waited an additional seven years to bring this suit.”
But Bolaño argued that he never saw that comment and didn’t notice Del Rey’s video until 2021. And last month, a Judge Wilson said a jury might believe that argument: “These arguments are more properly resolved before the jury.”
Lawyers for the RIAA are aiming to shut down a popular Discord server centered on artificial intelligence and voice models, the latest effort by music companies to rein in the disruptive new technology.
In an action filed last week in D.C. federal court, attorneys for RIAA obtained a subpoena demanding that Discord reveal the identities of users on “AI Hub,” a message board with 145,000 members that calls itself “a community dedicated to making AI voices and songs.”
In a letter to Discord presenting the company with the subpoena, the RIAA said those users had “infringed … copyrighted sound recordings” and that the tech company was required to hand over names, physical addresses, payment info, IP addresses and other identifying details.
The group’s lawyers also sent Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedown notices to Discord, first in late May and then again next week. The group demanded that Discord disable access to the server, remove or disable the infringing material, and inform the server’s users “of the illegality of their conduct.”
“This server [is] dedicated to infringing our members’ copyrighted sound recordings by offering, selling, linking to, hosting, streaming, and/or distributing files containing our members’ sound recordings without authorization,” the RIAA’s lawyers wrote in their June letter to Discord, which was obtained by Billboard. “We are asking for your immediate assistance in stopping this unauthorized activity.”
The subpoena against Discord was obtained under the DMCA’s Section 512(h), which enables rights holders like the RIAA’s members to unmask the identities of anonymous online infringers in certain circumstances.
Discord can fight back by seeking to “quash” the subpoena; Twitter won such a challenge last year, when a federal judge ruled that the First Amendment rights of a user trumped the need for an unmasking order. It could also refuse to honor the takedown, but that would put the site itself at risk of litigation.
As of Thursday evening (June 22), the main AI Hub server remained up on Discord; it was unclear if individual content or sub-channels had been removed. A spokesperson for the company did not return a request for comment.
In a statement to Billboard, an RIAA spokesperson confirmed that the group had taken the action against AI Hub. “When those who seek to profit from AI train their systems on unauthorized content, it undermines the entire music ecosystem – harming creators, fans, and responsible developers alike. This action seeks to help ensure that lawless systems that exploit the life’s work of artists without consent cannot and do not become the future of AI.”
The RIAA’s actions are just the latest sign that the explosive growth of AI technologies over the past year has sparked serious concerns in the music industry.
One big fear is that copyrighted songs are being used en masse to “train” AI models, all without any compensation going to the songwriters or artists that created them. In April, Universal Music Group demanded that Spotify and other streaming services prevent AI companies from doing so on their platforms, warning that it “will not hesitate to take steps to protect our rights.”
Another fear is the proliferation of so-called deepfake versions of popular music, like the AI-generated fake Drake and The Weeknd track that went viral in April. That song was quickly pulled down, but its uncanny vocals and mass popularity sparked concerns about future celebrity rip offs.
For RIAA, AI Hub likely triggered both of those worries. The server features numerous “voice models” that mimic the voices of specific real singers, including Michael Jackson and Frank Sinatra. And in the wake of the RIAA’s actions, users on the Discord server speculated Thursday that the takedowns were filed because users had disclosed that some of the models had been trained on copyrighted songs.
“We have had certain threats from record labels to takedown models, mainly because some posters decided to share datasets full of copyrighted music publicly,” one AI Hub admin wrote. “If you want to avoid unnecessary takedowns[,] most importantly, do NOT share the full dataset if you have copyrighted material in the dataset. The voice model itself is fine, but don’t share the dataset.”
Kesha and Dr. Luke have reached a settlement to end his long-running lawsuit accusing the pop star of defaming him by accusing him of rape, just a week after a New York court issued a key ruling that would have made it harder for Dr. Luke to win the case.
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
Reached just weeks before the case had been set to go to trial, the agreement will resolve nearly a decade of litigation between the two former creative partners. The producer claimed Kesha legally defamed him in 2014 when she made a “false and shocking” allegation: that he allegedly drugged and raped her after a 2005 party.
In a joint press release on social media featuring statements from both sides, Kesha said that “only god knows what happened that night.”
“As I have always said, I cannot recount everything that happened,” the star wrote. “I am looking forward to closing the door on this chapter of my life and beginning a new one. I wish nothing but peace to all parties involved.”
In his own statement, Dr. Luke said he was “absolutely certain that nothing happened” that night in 2005: “I never drugged or assaulted her and would never do that to anyone. For the sake of my family, I have vigorously fought to clear my name for nearly 10 years. It is time for me to put this difficult matter behind me and move on with my life. I wish Kesha well.”
The abrupt settlement came just 10 days after New York’s top appeals court handed a key victory to Kesha in the case. The court ruled that Dr. Luke was a “public figure,” a finding that would make his case far harder to prove; it also said that Kesha could recoup her legal bills if she ultimately won.
Dr. Luke, whose full name is Lukasz Gottwald, filed his lawsuit against Kesha in 2014, claiming she had legally defamed him with a “false and shocking” allegation that he drugged and raped her after a 2005 party. He claimed she did so as leverage to secure a more lucrative deal. Kesha long denied those accusations, arguing that the defamation case was an effort to silence the voice of a victim.
The pair spent years in bitter litigation over those claims, with numerous procedural delays and appeals slowing down the process. But after more than eight years of litigation, a trial in Dr. Luke’s lawsuit had finally been scheduled to start on July 19.
Beyond Thursday’s statements, no details about the settlement were immediately released by the parties or made available in public court records.
Read Kesha and Dr. Luke’s statements below:
A Manhattan judge on Tuesday (June 20) sentenced rapper and podcaster Taxstone 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 Irving Plaza.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
Taxstone, whose real name is Daryl Campbell, was convicted in March of shooting and killing 33-year-old Ronald “Banga” McPhatter and seriously injuring three others – a crime that prosecutors said stemmed from Taxstone’s longstanding feud with rapper Troy Ave, whose real name Roland Collins.
“Daryl Campbell used a firearm to target his rival, which led to loss of a life and serious injuries to innocent bystanders,” District Attorney Bragg said in a statement Tuesday. “Gun violence cannot be used as a way to address conflict. The toll of guns continues to be staggeringly high and it is horrific that a night out at a concert ended tragically.”
Campbell’s lawyer, Kenneth Montgomery, told Billboard in a brief statement that his client would be appealing the conviction: “Justice wasn’t served,” Montgomery said.
Prosecutors say that Campbell, best known for his Tax Season podcast, confronted Collins in the green room at Irving Plaza on May 25, 2016, shortly before Collins was set to open for T.I. He allegedly shot McPhatter in the chest, fatally wounding him, before shooting Collins in both legs during a struggle for the gun. A man and a woman were also allegedly hit, seriously wounding both.
According to prosecutors, the incident came after years of escalating feuding on social media and podcasts. “When I see you walking up with six dudes, bang-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba,” Campbell said of Collins. Collins responded with a diss track: “Twitter fingers, how many times ya gonna tweet me? I’m always on the flier, guess you too scared to meet me.”
Campbell was eventually arrested on federal guns charges in January 2017, after federal prosecutors said his DNA was found on a handgun that was used in the shooting. After he pleaded guilty to those charges, he was arrested by New York authorities in July 2017 and charged with the shooting itself.
In March, a New York jury found him guilty of manslaughter in the first degree, two counts of assault in the first degree, one count of assault in the second degree and two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.
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: Twitter is facing a lawsuit from dozens of music publishers over copyright infringement; Bad Bunny, Daddy Yankee and other reggaeton stars fight back against a massive lawsuit; unsealed documents offer key details on the gun charges against Boosie BadAzz; and much more.
Want to get The Legal Beat newsletter in your email inbox every Tuesday? Subscribe here for free.
THE BIG STORY: Twitter’s $250 Million Music Problem
In last week’s least surprising development, the music publishers sued Twitter. After years of warnings from National Music Publishers’ Association — David Israelite called Elon Musk’s website his “top legal focus” earlier this year — dozens of the group’s members filed a sweeping copyright lawsuit in federal court.
Surprise or not, the case is a big deal. The publishers claim that Twitter has infringed over 1,700 different songs from writers like Taylor Swift and Beyoncé — a claim that, if proven, could put the social media giant on the hook for as much as $255 million in damages.
Damages aren’t likely the end goal for the publishers. Licensing deals outside the realm of plain ole music streaming, ranging from social media sites like Instagram to gaming platforms like Roblox to fitness services like Peloton, have become an increasingly large slice of the revenue pie for publishers and songwriters in recent years. But many of those deals only came as settlements to lawsuits — just ask Roblox and Peloton. Twitter, the publishers say, is one of the last holdouts refusing to sign such a deal.
To read more about the lawsuit, including the actual complaint itself, go read our entire story here.
If it doesn’t end in a quick settlement, the case will also be a fascinating look at the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, a federal law that limits how websites like Twitter can be sued over copyright infringement by their users — and one that has long frustrated content owners. The DMCA provides sites like Twitter with immunity from litigation over material uploaded by their users, so long as they promptly remove infringing content and ban repeated violators from the platform. The new lawsuit claims Twitter failed to do either of those things, meaning the site has legally forfeited the DMCA’s protections.
In that sense, the lawsuit against Twitter is something of spiritual sequel to a series of cases filed against internet service providers like Cox, which pioneered the argument that providers had waived the DMCA’s safe harbor by failing to crack down on subscribers who repeatedly infringed. After a federal judge ruled that Cox had lost the DMCA’s protections, a jury later ordered the company to pay $1 billion in damages to the three major music companies. Yes, billion, with a “B.”
Will those same arguments work against Twitter? Stay tuned.
Other top stories this week…
MASSIVE REGGAETON CASE – Bad Bunny, Daddy Yankee, Karol G and dozens of other artists asked a federal judge to toss out a sprawling copyright lawsuit that claims hundreds of reggaeton tracks infringed a single 1989 song. In their motion to end the case, Daddy Yankee and many other stars argued that the accusers are “effectively claiming ownership of an entire genre of music.” Bad Bunny, in his own filing, said the case aims to “stake monopolistic control over the reggaeton genre.”
BOOSIE BADAZZ GUN CHARGE – Newly-unsealed charging documents against rapper Boosie Badazz revealed that his recent federal gun charge came after San Diego police tracked his Instagram account and even used a helicopter to locate him in an allegedly gang-affiliated neighborhood.
BAD SERVICE? A judge ruled that Sony Music Entertainment could serve a copyright lawsuit on a TikTok rapper by sending him a message through his DMs. The ruling detailed how the label’s lawyers had spent months unsuccessfully trying to do so in-person — including showing up to his mom’s house on Mother’s Day “in hopes that he would be there to celebrate with her.”
50 CENT ENDS BOOZE BATTLE – The rapper reached a settlement with Rémy Martin to resolve a lawsuit that claimed his Branson brand of cognac copied the design of the company’s bottles. The confidential deal will end litigation that 50 Cent’s company had called “meritless” and designed to “destroy a competitor.”
Daddy Yankee, Karol G and dozens of other artists are asking a federal judge to toss out a sprawling copyright lawsuit that claims “Despacito” and hundreds of other reggaeton tracks infringed a single 1989 song, arguing the accusers are “effectively claiming ownership of an entire genre of music.”
The case, filed by Jamaican duo Cleveland “Clevie” Browne and Wycliffe “Steely” Johnson, claims that their 1989 song “Fish Market” has been sampled or interpolated into more than 1,800 songs in the years since it was released — and that each one amounts to an act of copyright infringement.
But in a motion filed Thursday (June 15), attorneys for the accused infringers finally struck back — arguing that after “30 years of inaction,” Clevie & Steely were unfairly trying to monopolize a whole style of popular music.
“Plaintiffs [are] effectively claiming ownership of an entire genre of music by claiming exclusive rights to the rhythm and other unprotectable musical elements common to all ‘reggaeton’-style songs,” wrote lawyers from Pryor Cashman, the same law firm that just won Ed Sheeran’s big trial with similar arguments.
First filed in 2021, the enormous lawsuit names more than 150 defendants, including “Despacito” stars Daddy Yankee, Luis Fonsi and Justin Bieber as well as Bad Bunny, Anitta, Pitbull, Karol G, Ricky Martin, El Chombo and many other artists, plus units of all three major music companies. The case claims that “Fish Market,” and several other songs that directly copied it, formed the basis for the “dembow” rhythm that’s been used in countless reggaeton songs in the years since.
But in Thursday’s response, lawyers from Pryor Cashman (who represent 89 of those defendants) said the size of the case had made it a procedural disaster — a confusing mess in which nobody knows exactly what they’re accused of doing wrong. Without those specific allegations, they said Clevie & Steely had failed to satisfy “the fundamental elements of a copyright infringement claim.”
“The [complaint] is a ‘shotgun pleading’ filled with conclusory allegations that lump defendants together, making it impossible for Defendants to determine what each is alleged to have done, what works are at issue and what in those works is allegedly infringing,” the attorneys wrote.
The lawyers for Daddy Yankee and the other defendants also sharply criticized the length of time that elapsed before bringing the case. The U.S. Supreme Court has said that copyright cases can usually be filed even decades later, but Thursday’s filing said that Clevie & Steely’s case pushed that system to its breaking point.
“Plaintiffs neither filed any action nor registered any copyrights until 2020 — at least thirty years after the creation of the works,” the lawyers for the accused artists wrote. “These failures constitute misleading inaction, during which an entire genre of reggaeton music developed, which plaintiffs now claim to own.”
An attorney for Clevie & Steely did not immediately return a request for comment on Friday.
Despite being filed in 2021, the case over “Fish Market” is still in the earliest stages, thanks in no small part to the procedural complexity of a lawsuit involving scores of defendants and hundreds of songs. If Thursday’s motion is denied, the case will proceed into discovery, where both sides will exchange evidence, and head toward an eventual trial. But such a resolution could still be years away.
The suspect in a mass shooting at a Colorado Springs gay nightclub is expected to strike a plea deal to state murder and hate charges that would ensure at least a life sentence for the attack that killed five people and wounded 17, several survivors told The Associated Press.
Word of a possible legal resolution of last year’s Club Q massacre follows a series of jailhouse phone calls from the suspect to the AP expressing remorse and the intention to face the consequences at the next scheduled court hearing this month.
“I have to take responsibility for what happened,” 23-year-old Anderson Lee Aldrich said in their first public comments about the case.
Federal and state authorities and defense attorneys declined to comment on a possible plea deal. But Colorado law requires victims to be notified of such deals, and several people who lost loved ones or were wounded in the attack told the AP that state prosecutors have given them advance word that Aldrich will plead guilty to charges that would ensure the maximum state sentence of life behind bars.
Prosecutors also recently asked survivors to prepare for the June 26 hearing by writing victim-impact statements and steeling themselves emotionally for the possible release of the Club Q surveillance video of the attack.
“Someone’s gone that can never be brought back through the justice system,” said Wyatt Kent, who was celebrating his 23rd birthday in Club Q when Aldrich opened fire, gunning down Kent’s partner, Daniel Aston, who was working behind the bar. “We are all still missing a lot, a partner, a son, a daughter, a best friend.”
Jonathan Pullen, the suspect’s step-grandfather who plans to watch the upcoming hearing on a livestream, said Aldrich “has to realize what happened on that terrible night. It’s truly beginning to dawn on him.”
Aldrich faces more than 300 state counts, including murder and hate crimes. And the U.S. Justice Department is considering filing federal hate crime charges, according to a senior law enforcement official familiar with the matter who spoke to AP on condition of anonymity to discuss the ongoing case. It’s unclear whether the anticipated resolution to the state prosecution will also resolve the ongoing FBI investigation.
Some survivors who listened to the suspect’s recorded comments to the AP lambasted them as a calculated attempt to avoid the federal death penalty, noting they stopped short of discussing a motive, put much of the blame on drugs and characterized the crime in passive, generalities such as “I just can’t believe what happened” and “I wish I could turn back time.” Such language, they said, belied by the maps, diagrams, online rants and other evidence that showed months of plotting and premeditation.
“No one has sympathy for him,” said Michael Anderson, who was bartending at Club Q when the shooting broke out and ducked as several patrons were gunned down around him. “This community has to live with what happened, with collective trauma, with PTSD, trying to grieve the loss of our friends, to move past emotional wounds and move past what we heard, saw and smelled.”
Terror erupted just before midnight on Nov. 19 when the suspect walked into Club Q, a longtime sanctuary for the LGBTQ community in this mostly conservative city of 480,000, and fired an AR-15-style semiautomatic rifle indiscriminately. Disbelief gave way to screaming and confusion as the music continued to play. Partygoers dove across a bloody dance floor for cover. Friends frantically tried to protect each other and plugged wounds with napkins.
The killing only stopped after a Navy petty officer grabbed the barrel of the suspect’s rifle, burning his hand because it was so hot. An Army veteran joined in to help subdue and beat Aldrich until police arrived, finding the shooter had emptied one high-capacity magazine and was armed with several more.
Aldrich, who since their arrest has identified as nonbinary and uses the pronouns they and them, allegedly visited Club Q at least six times in the years before the attack. District Attorney Michael Allen told a judge that the suspect’s mother made Aldrich go to the club “against his will and sort of forced that culture on him.”
Allen also has said the suspect administered a website that posted a “neo-Nazi white supremacist” shooting training video. Online gaming friends said Aldrich expressed hatred for the police, LGBTQ people and minorities and used anti-Black and anti-gay slurs. And a police detective testified that Aldrich sent an online message with a photo of a rifle scope trained on a gay pride parade.
Defense attorneys in previous hearings have not disputed Aldrich’s role in the shooting but have pushed back against allegations it was motivated by hate, arguing the suspect was drugged up on cocaine and medication the night of the attack.
“I don’t know if this is common knowledge but I was on a very large plethora of drugs,” Aldrich told the AP. “I had been up for days. I was abusing steroids. … I’ve finally been able to get off that crap I was on.”
Aldrich didn’t answer directly when asked whether the attack was motivated by hate, saying only that’s “completely off base.”
Even a former friend of Aldrich found their remarks to be disingenuous. “I’m really glad he’s trying to take accountability but it’s like the ‘why’ is being shoved under the rug,” said Xavier Kraus, who lived across the hall from Aldrich at a Colorado Springs apartment complex.
The AP sent Aldrich a handwritten letter several months ago asking them to discuss a 2021 kidnapping arrest following a standoff with a SWAT team, a prosecution that had been dismissed and sealed despite video evidence of Aldrich’s crimes. In that case, just months before the Club Q shooting, they threatened to become “the next mass killer” and stockpiled guns, ammo, body armor and a homemade bomb. The incident was livestreamed on Facebook and prompted the evacuation of 10 nearby homes as authorities discovered a tub with more than 100 pounds of explosive materials.
The alleged shooter, who lived with their grandparents at the time and was upset about their plans to move to Florida, threatened to kill the couple and “go out in a blaze,” authorities said. “You guys die today and I’m taking you with me,” they quoted the suspect as saying. “I’m loaded and ready.”
The charges were dismissed even after relatives wrote a judge warning that Aldrich was “certain” to commit murder if freed. District Attorney Allen, facing heavy criticism, later attributed the dismissal of the case to Aldrich’s family members refusing to cooperate and repeatedly dodging out-of-state subpoenas.
In response to AP’s letter, Aldrich first phoned a reporter in March and asked to be paid for an interview, a request that was declined. They called back late last month, days after prosecutors wrote in a court filing that there was “near-unanimous sentiment” among the victims for “the most expedient determination of case-related issues.”
In a series of six calls, each limited by an automated jail phone system to 15 minutes, the suspect said: “Nothing’s ever going to bring back their loved ones. People are going to have to live with injury that can’t be repaired.”
Asked why it happened, they said, “I don’t know. That’s why I think it’s so hard to comprehend that it did happen. … I’m either going to get the death penalty federally or I will go to prison for life, that’s a given.”
While the AP normally would not provide a platform to someone alleged to have committed such a crime, editors judged that the suspect’s stated intent to accept responsibility and expression of remorse were newsworthy and should be reported.
Former Club Q bartender Anderson was among survivors who told prosecutors they wanted a fast resolution of the criminal case.
“My fear is that if this takes years, that prevents the processing and moving on and finding peace beyond this case,” he said. “I would love this wrapped up as quickly as possible under the guarantee that justice is served.”
Lawyers for Sony Music Entertainment have spent months trying to find a TikTok rapper who the label is suing for copyright infringement, even going to his mom’s house on Mother’s Day “in hopes that he would be there to celebrate with her.” Now, a judge now says they can just slide into his DMs.
In an order issued Wednesday, Judge Mark T. Pittman ruled that Sony had exhausted all reasonable routes to locate Trefuego — the artist behind a popular TikTok song called “90mh,” which Sony claims features a “flagrant” unlicensed sample from an earlier song.
Faced with that situation, the judge said Sony’s lawyers could instead reach out to his Instagram, Twitter, TikTok and Soundcloud accounts, which have remained active since Sony filed its lawsuit.
“Plaintiffs have shown that serving process via these social media platforms will be reasonably effective in giving Trefuego notice of this suit,” Judge Pittman wrote.
Sony has been pursuing Trefuego in some form since January 2021, when the company notified him that his “90mh” — a track that’s been featured in 155,000 videos on TikTok and streamed 100 million times on Spotify — was built on an illegal sample from Japanese composer Toshifumi Hinata. After filing takedown requests in August 2022 to get the song pulled, Sony finally launched a lawsuit in December.
Wednesday’s ruling highlights the extraordinary lengths that litigants like Sony must sometimes go to “serve” filings on opponents — a key procedural requirement in any lawsuit.
The same problem recently confronted lawyers repping Kanye West, who desperately wanted to drop the embattled rapper as a client but couldn’t find him to do so. And NBA legend Shaquille O’Neal spent months avoiding a lawsuit over his endorsement of failed cryptocurrency exchange FTX — only to finally be located and served at a Heat-Celtics game last month.
In his decision on Sony’s case, Judge Pittman said the company’s lawyers had made “extensive efforts” and “gone to great lengths” to find Trefuego. They made “seven separate attempts” to serve him with the lawsuit, the judge said, including hiring a private investigator and scouring his social media pages.
In one particularly notable effort, Sony’s reps went “to his mother’s house on Mother’s Day in hopes that he would be there to celebrate with her” but still came up empty: “Sadly, he was not there, and his own mother claimed she did not know who he was,” the judge wrote.
A typical alternative to in-person service would be to print a notice of the lawsuit in the local papers — the same thing that Kanye’s estranged lawyers wanted to do in his case. But in Wednesday’s decision, Judge Pittman said that “modern problems require modern solutions.”
“This court has concerns as to whether SoundCloud and TikTok rapper extraordinaire Trefuego is a regular reader of the Fort Worth Star Telegram or that he regularly visits the information tab of Fort Worth’s city website,” the judge wrote.
Judge Pittman ruled that Sony could instead use “certain social media accounts” that “most certainly belong to the young bard.” Trefuego’s Instagram, Twitter, TikTok and SoundCloud pages all “appear to be substantially active,” the judge said, and indicate that he is a “frequent user” of those platforms.
Ahead of the decision, Sony had offered one other digital alternative: to email the rapper’s manager, with whom Sony had correspondence over the unlicensed sample before it resorted to litigation. But the judge rejected that route, noting that “all lines of communication have ceased” with the manager since the filing of the case.
“Given his own mother’s willingness to deny her relationship to him, it is not unlikely that his manager would also willingly delete emails or continue to ignore them,” the judge wrote. “Because communications through this line have proven futile already, the Court will not grant service through this already explored dead-end avenue.”
LONDON — Amid increasing concern among artists, songwriters, record labels and publishers over the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on the music industry, European regulators are finalizing sweeping new laws that will help determine what AI companies can and cannot do with copyrighted music works.
On Wednesday (June 14), Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) voted overwhelmingly in favor of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act with 499 votes for, 28 against and 93 abstentions. The draft legislation, which was first proposed in April 2021 and covers a wide range of AI applications, including its use in the music industry, will now go before the European Parliament, European Commission and the European Council for review and possible amendments ahead of its planned adoption by the end of the year.
For music rightsholders, the European Union’s (EU) AI Act is the world’s first legal framework for regulating AI technology in the record business and comes as other countries, including the United States, China and the United Kingdom, explore their own paths to policing the rapidly evolving AI sector.
The EU proposals state that generative AI systems will be forced to disclose any content that they produce which is AI-generated — helping distinguish deep-fake content from the real thing — and provide detailed publicly available summaries of any copyright-protected music or data that they have used for training purposes.
“The AI Act will set the tone worldwide in the development and governance of artificial intelligence,” MEP and co-rapporteur Dragos Tudorache said following Wednesday’s vote. The EU legislation would ensure that AI technology “evolves and is used in accordance with the European values of democracy, fundamental rights, and the rule of law,” he added.
The EU’s AI Act arrives as the music business is urgently trying to respond to recent advances in the technology. The issue came to a head in April with the release of “Heart on My Sleeve,” the now-infamous song uploaded to TikTok that is said to have been created using AI to imitate vocals from Drake and The Weeknd. The song was quickly pulled from streaming services following a request from Universal Music Group, which represents both artists, but not before it had racked up hundreds of thousands of streams.
A few days before “Heart on My Sleeve” become a short-lived viral hit, UMG wrote to streaming services, including Spotify and Apple Music, asking them to stop AI companies from accessing the label’s copyrighted songs “without obtaining the required consents” to “train” their machines. The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has also warned against AI companies violating copyrights by using existing music to generate new tunes.
If the EU’s AI Act passes in its present draft form, it will strengthen supplementary protections against the unlawful use of music in training AI systems. Existing European laws dealing with text and data-mining copyright exceptions mean that rightsholders will still technically need to opt out of those exceptions if they want to ensure their music is not used by AI companies that are either operating or accessible in the European Union.
The AI Act would not undo or change any of the copyright protections currently provided under EU law, including the Copyright Directive, which came into force in 2019 and effectively ended safe harbor provisions for digital platforms in Europe.
That means that if an AI company were to use copyright-protected songs for training purposes — and publicly declare the material it had used as required by the AI Act — it would still be subject to infringement claims for any AI-generated content it then tried to commercially release, including infringement of the copyright, legal, personality and data rights of artists and rightsholders.
“What cannot, is not, and will not be tolerated anywhere is infringement of songwriters’ and composers’ rights,” said John Phelan, director general of international music publishing trade association ICMP, in a statement. The AI Act, he says, will ensure “special attention for intellectual property rights” but further improvements to the legislation “are there to be won.”
50 Cent has reached a settlement with Rémy Martin to end a lawsuit that claimed his Branson brand of cognac copied the design of the company’s bottles.
E. Rémy Martin & Co. sued in 2021, claiming the liquor brand owned by the rapper (real name Curtis Jackson) had infringed patent and trade dress rights by mimicking Rémy’s XO bottle. 50 Cent’s company, Sire Spirits, called the case “meritless” and accused the bigger rival of trying to “destroy a competitor.”
But in a filing on Monday, the two sides said they had squashed their beef — reaching a “confidential” settlement agreement on June 1 that would fully resolve the litigation. The specific terms of the deal, like whether any money was exchanged or products would be changed, were not made public.
On Wednesday, a spokesman for Rémy confirmed to Billboard the agreement would end the case, but declined to offer more details: “Rémy appreciates and respects Mr. Jackson’s entry into the Cognac market and the parties share a common vision for the future of this exceptional and precious spirit. The parties are gratified that this matter could be resolved amicably.”
An attorney for Sire Spirits did not immediately return a request for comment.
50 Cent launched Branson in 2018, selling the cognac in a circular bottle with gem-like facets that was designed by the rapper himself. But in August 2021, Rémy Martin sued on the grounds that the bottle was “nearly indistinguishable” from the “toroidal” shape of its own famous bottle.
“Defendants have willfully and blatantly designed their bottle to unfairly capitalize on the goodwill and reputation that Plaintiff’s bottle has achieved and to unabashedly profit from its bad faith infringement,” the company’s lawyers wrote in their complaint.
Rémy Martin accused the Branson bottle of infringing both design patents and trade dress — a form of trademark that covers the well-known shape or packaging of a product, like a Coca-Cola bottle or blue Tiffany’s box. The lawsuit claimed the bottle was “a blatant attempt” to make consumers think of Rémy Martin.
In October, 50 Cent and Sire fired back, blasting the rival for trying to “eliminate” an upstart competitor and “monopolize the Cognac market.” The company said Rémy Martin’s case was so weak that it should be dismissed at the outset.
“This action is a naked effort to use meritless litigation to financially destroy a competitor,” Sire’s attorneys wrote at the time. “Rémy Martin must be stopped, and the claims against Sire Spirits should not be allowed to survive.”
But in a pair of rulings last year, U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein refused to dismiss the case against 50 Cent’s company. “This is not a case in which the claimed and accused designs are so plainly dissimilar that it is implausible that an ordinary observer would confuse them,” the judge wrote at the time.
Those decisions sent the case deeper into litigation and headed toward an eventual trial. But the case has largely been on ice for months as the two sides worked toward the settlement that was reached earlier this month.