Legal News
Page: 84
All state-level charges filed against R. Kelly in Cook County, Illinois, have been dropped, state attorney Kim Foxx announced at a press conference Monday (Jan. 30). Kelly is scheduled to appear in court on the indictments, which include 10 counts of aggravated criminal sexual abuse, on Tuesday morning.
In making the announcement, Foxx reiterated Kelly’s convictions in federal court in New York and Illinois to explain the prosecutors’ decision. “Due to the extensive sentences that these convictions hold, our office has decided not to continue to expend our limited resources and court time with the indictments that we previously charged Mr. Kelly [with],” she said.
In the New York federal case, Kelly was found guilty in September 2021 on all nine counts, including racketeering and sex trafficking; he was sentenced to 30 years in prison the following June. In September, he was convicted on three counts of child pornography in the Illinois federal case but acquitted of a conspiracy to obstruct justice charge that stemmed from an accusation that he’d fixed his state child pornography trial in 2008. Though he has not yet been sentenced in that case, he faces between 10 and 90 years in prison, according to Foxx.
Foxx — who previously revealed her own history as a victim of sexual abuse — grew visibly emotional during her time at the podium as she admitted that for the four victims in the state case, the outcome “may be disappointing. But I want to acknowledge that when we brought these charges forward, we brought them because we believed the allegations to be credible. And we believed that they deserved to have the opportunity to have the allegations heard.
“These women, both those who are named in our indictments and the women in New York and in the Northern District of Illinois, are to be commended for their bravery and their relentless pursuit of justice, no matter how long it took,” she continued.
Despite Foxx’s weighty and considered comments Monday, the announcement isn’t particularly surprising in light of Kelly’s dual convictions in federal court. After the disgraced singer was found guilty in the New York case, criminal defense attorney Isabelle A. Kirshner told Billboard that local jurisdictions in Illinois as well as Minnesota — where he still faces state charges — may choose to drop some of all of the charges in order to preserve resources.
Based on the New York sentence alone, Kelly won’t be eligible for release until he is around 80 years old.
[Trigger warning: this article contains descriptions of domestic violence, as well as sexual and physical abuse.]
Marilyn Manson is the subject of a new lawsuit alleging sexual misconduct. The suit by the woman — identified anonymously as “Jane Doe” in the filing — alleges that the singer, now 54, groomed and sexually assaulted the then-underage girl during the early portion of his career.
Manson (born Brian Warner) is named as a defendant in the suit filed in Nassau County Supreme Court in Long Island, New York, alongside former labels Interscope and Nothing Records in a filing that includes accusations of sexual battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress against the singer, and negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress against the labels.
The suit says Doe, then 16, first met Manson in 1995 after a show in Dallas when she waited outside his tour bus and the singer invited her and “one of the other younger girls” onto his tour bus where he allegedly asked for their ages and school grades while jotting down their phone numbers and addresses.
A spokesperson for Manson and the singer’s lawyer had not returned a request for comment on the Doe lawsuit at press time, and a spokesperson for Interscope/Universal Music Group had not yet responded to a request for comment.
“While on the tour bus, Defendant Warner performed various acts of criminal sexual conduct upon Plaintiff, who was a virgin at the time, including but not limited to forced copulation and vaginal penetration,” the lawsuit claims. At the time, the age of consent in Texas was (and still is) 17 and the suit notes that one of Manson’s band members watched “Defendant Warner sexually assault Plaintiff… Plaintiff was in pain, scared, upset, humiliated and confused. After he was done, Defendant Warner laughed at her. … Then Defendant Warner demanded Plaintiff to ‘get the f–k off of my bus’ and threatened Plaintiff that, if she told anyone, he would kill her and her family.”
More than a dozen women have accused Manson of sexual, emotional and physical assault, including actress Evan Rachel Wood, who was the subject of the two-part HBO documentary Phoenix Rising last year that delved into her claims of the abuse she claims she allegedly suffered at the rocker’s hand during an on-and-off relationship that began when she was 18.
Manson and one of his accusers, actress Esme Bianco, recently reached a settlement to end her sexual assault lawsuit, and earlier in the month a judge dismissed another sexual abuse suit from model Ashley Morgan Smithline over her failure to find a new lawyer. Last May, an L.A. Superior Court judge dismissed a suit against Manson filed by a former personal assistant alleging sexual assault, sexual battery, sexual harassment and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Manson has denied the allegations.
The new Jane Doe lawsuit alleges that a member of Manson’s crew gave her a 1-800 number and a password so she could meet up with the singer again, noting that the teen began using drugs and alcohol soon after the alleged sexual assault, and continued to do so for years after. The suit also alleges that Manson would call and chat online with the teen while asking her for explicit photos of her and her friends.
In the same year they met, Doe claims that Manson convinced the teen to meet him in New Orleans, where he “groomed” her by complimenting her artwork before he became more “aggressive and again sexually assaulted Plaintiff, including kissing, biting her breast, oral copulation, and penetration,” the complaint alleges. “After the second assault, Defendant Warner acted in a kinder manner nicer to Plaintiff and told her that he wanted to see her again.” As with Texas, the age of consent in Louisiana at the time was, and is, 17.
Doe said she continued to be in touch with Manson and his band, and when she was 18 moved to Los Angeles and began dating then-Nine Inch Nails drummer Chris Vrenna. (Billboard has reached out to Vrenna for comment.) In 1999, she allegedly attended a Manson show in New Orleans, describing a typical backstage scene that included “the availability of large amounts of drugs for her and others to use.” The suit claims that the woman then spent the next month on the road with Manson, taking drugs and spending time with the disgraced singer during which he would “groom, harass and sexually abuse” her.
The suit goes on to describe Manson’s increasing psychological control over Doe, in which he allegedly “purposefully and intentionally laid the groundwork necessary to intimidate and control her … As he did on countless occasions, Defendant Warner exploited this vulnerability to keep Plaintiff under his control. Defendant Warner often made Plaintiff feel alone and isolated by telling her that no one understands her other than him, which included her family. At the time, Plaintiff believed Defendant Warner and was compelled to keep following him.”
The suit claims the alleged controlling and grooming behavior continued — including “coerce[ing] Plaintiff to have sex with him and other band members or his assistant at the same time,” while “providing Plaintiff with drugs.”
In details that bear a resemblance to allegations from a number of the other women who’ve accused Manson of abuse, Doe’s lawsuit claims that the singer employed “hostile and verbally abusive behavior,” as well as racially charged language mixed with the sharing of intimate personal details. The suit also claims that Interscope and Nothing Records “were well-aware of Defendant Warner’s obsession with sexual violence and childhood sexual assault,” and that the labels did not have a “reasonable system or procedure in place to investigate, supervise, or monitor its staff and/or agents, including Defendant Warner, to prevent pre-sexual grooming and sexual harassment, molestation, and assault of fans, including minors and women.”
The suit continues, “As a result of Brian Warner’s sexual abuse and assault, enabled and encouraged by Defendants Interscope and Nothing Records, Plaintiff has suffered severe emotional, physical, and psychological distress, including shame, and guilt, economic loss, economic capacity and emotional loss.”
Doe is seeking damages to be determined at trial and an order “enjoining Defendants from future unlawful business practices including, but not limited to, exposing minors and vulnerable adults to sexual abuse and exploitation.”
Stories about sexual assault allegations can be traumatizing for survivors of sexual assault. If you or anyone you know needs support, you can reach out to the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN). The organization provides free, confidential support to sexual assault victims. Call RAINN’s National Sexual Assault Hotline (800.656.HOPE) or visit the anti-sexual violence organization’s website for more information.
A federal judge ruled Friday that hundreds of artists cannot join forces to sue Universal Music Group to regain control of their masters, saying the case raised big questions about “fairness” but that it was ill-suited for class-action litigation.
The ruling came in a closely-watched case brought by “Missing You” singer John Waite and others over copyright law’s “termination right.” The rule is supposed to let authors take back control of their works, but the lawsuit claims UMG has flatly ignored that requirement when it comes to sounds recordings.
Waite wanted to certify the case as a class action — a make-or-break move that would have allowed hundreds of UMG artists to bring their claims as a single lawsuit, represented by a single set of lawyers.
But in a crucial ruling issued Friday, Judge Lewis Kaplan denied that request, citing the complex and unique questions raised by each individual artist’s relationship with UMG.
“Plaintiffs’ claims raise issues of fairness in copyright law that undoubtedly extended beyond their own grievances,” the judge wrote. “However, the individualized evidence and case-by-case evaluations necessary to resolve those claims make this case unsuitable for adjudication on an aggregate basis.”
Waite and other artists sued UMG in February 2019, claiming the label had effectively refused to honor the termination right. The case was filed as a proposed class action, aiming to eventually represent hundreds of others in a similar situation. A nearly-identical case was filed on the same day by the same attorneys against Sony Music Entertainment, claiming it had adopted a similar stance on terminations.
According to the lawsuits, the labels have long claimed that sound recordings – unlike the underlying musical compositions controlled by music publishers – are effectively never subject to the termination rule. The basic argument is that most recordings are so-called works for hire, meaning the label essentially creates them itself and simply hires artists to contribute to them.
In seeking to pull hundreds of other artists into the lawsuit, lawyers for the artists argued that UMG has made those “fictitious” and “erroneous” arguments “in every instance” that an artist invokes the termination right – meaning they represent the kind of “systematic wrongful conduct” that is best addressed by a huge class action.
But in Friday’s decision, Judge Kaplan disagreed. “The … analysis requires understanding for each artist the circumstances in which the recordings were produced, the creative involvement, if any, of the record label, and the types of resources and payments the record label provided the artist.”
To decide if a record really was produced simply as a work for hire, the judge said tricky questions would need to be answered for each separate artist. Judge Kaplan said the evidence indicated that UMG sometimes only provided “big picture approval authority,” which could help an artist prove their right to terminate. But for other artists, he said the label was “more involved in the creative process.”
“Did the record label agree on the lyrics and music with the artist?” the judge asked. “Did the record label select the producers and sound engineers to work on the sound recordings? What level of substantive artistic feedback, if any, did the record label provide?”
The ruling is not necessarily a death-knell for the lawsuit against UMG, which will now proceed on behalf of Waite and a handful of others. Evan Cohen, the attorney who represents the artists, did not immediately return a request for comment.
The case could still make a big impact, class-or-no-class. Countless other artists have similar arrangements with record labels over highly-lucrative masters, but the legal arguments about when sound recordings are subject to the termination right have thus far only been lightly tested in court. A final ruling in favor of Waite could provide key legal ammo for those other artists, even if they need to bring their own cases.
A representative for UMG did not immediately return a request for comment.
But it will doubtless be a severe logistical hurdle for such cases actually being filed, since they’re expensive to litigate and artists typically lack the same kind of legal resources as the major labels who have denied their termination requests. A class action would have allowed the artists to pool their resources and secure a sweeping decision with only a single set of legal costs.
Friday’s decision will not directly apply to the similar proposed class action against Sony, which has been on pause for months as the two sides attempt to strike a settlement. But the new ruling, issued by a judge in the same federal court district as the Sony case, certainly does not bode well for that case being certified as a class action.
Read the entire decision here:
Music “as we know it” has been prematurely pronounced dead several times over. The cassette tape, MIDI digital synthesizers, Napster, Auto-Tune and streaming were all received with apocalyptic hysteria. The current existential threat is artificial intelligence (AI), a software leviathan with a voracious appetite for copyrighted works, and a prolific capacity for human-free creative processes. Whether AI will kill the humanity of music remains debatable. What is not up for debate is that AI raises many legal issues. While courts have yet to weigh in, the U.S. Copyright Office has issued instructive decisions and made AI-related copyright issues a 2023 priority.
The proliferation of AI in music
AI in music is not new. Alan Turing, the godfather of computer science, created a simple melody-making machine in 1951. Experimental trombonist and composer George Lewis improvised a live quartet with three Apple II computers in 1984. David Bowie experimented with a digital lyric randomizer in the 90s. Hello, World, the first AI composed pop album, was released in 2018.
Today’s AI is more evolved and exponentially more impactful. Indirect enhancements (personalized playlists, music recommendations, etc.) have given way to direct creation tools. For example, Google’s Magenta wrote a new “Nirvana” song by analyzing the melody, chord changes, guitar riffs and lyrics of the band’s past works. ChatGPT receives text instructions to compose lyrics superior to those that IBM Watson wrote for Alex da Kid in 2016. Authentic Artists leases AI-powered artists-for-hire. MUSICinYOU.ai generates tailored compositions from a 300-question personality test. Bandlab’s Songstarter is an “AI-powered idea generator” capable of creating royalty-free music in seconds. Startup Staccato pitches itself as “an AI Lennon to your McCartney” given its ability to bounce ideas off human songwriters.
Only “sufficient human creative input” supports copyright ownership
The Copyright Act protects “works of authorship” – a concept derived from the U.S. Constitution’s Copyright Clause, which empowers Congress to secure “exclusive rights” for “authors.” Courts have held that authors must be human. Consequently, animals (including the famed monkey selfie) and natural forces (a naturally growing garden) cannot be authors of copyrighted works.
While current legal precedent suggests that AI also cannot “author” copyrighted works, the critical issue is what amount of human creative input or intervention suffices to make AI-generated musical works copyrightable (and by whom)?
U.S. courts have yet to answer this question decisively. The Copyright Office has drawn some basic boundary lines. AI-advocate Steven Thaler filed a copyright application for AI-generated artwork. The Board rejected his applications three times, finding that the artwork was not “created with contribution from a human author” and thus failed to meet the human authorship requirement. (Thaler has since sued.)
Conversely, copyright protection was afforded to David Cope’s 1997 work Classical Music Composed by Computer (and, again, to his 2010 album From Darkness, Light). Cope successfully demonstrated that his works only partially used AI and were the result of sufficient human creative input and intervention. More recently, the Copyright Office granted a first-of-its-kind copyright to a comic book created with the assistance of text-to-image AI Midjourney (though the Copyright Office is now reconsidering its decision).
In the absence of bright line rules for ascertaining how much input or intervention by an AI’s user is needed, each work must be individually evaluated. It is a question of degree. Under traditional principles, the more human involvement, and the more AI is used as a tool (and not as the creator), the stronger the case for copyright protection. A song created with the prompt: “create a song that sounds like The Weeknd” will not suffice. But a copyright application which both: (i) demonstrates that a human controlled the AI and (ii) memorializes the specific human input in the creative process is more likely to succeed.
A word of caution: the Copyright Office has made clear that misrepresenting the use of AI in the music generation process is fraudulent. And although the Copyright Office solely relies on facts stated in applications, both it and future litigants are likely to soon deploy AI-detecting software to verify the extent to which AI was used to generate the musical work.
AI “training” looms as the first major battle ground
Generative AI software (like Magenta) is “trained” by feeding it vast quantities of content – text, lyrics, code, audio, written compositions – and then programming it to use that source material to generate new material. In October 2022, the RIAA shot a warning flare by declaring that AI-based extractors and mixers were infringing its members’ rights by using their music to train their AI models. Those that side with the RIAA argue that AI’s mindboggling ingestion of copyrighted music violates the Copyright Act’s exclusive rights to reproduce and create “derivative works” based upon one or more preexisting works. Because generative AI produces output “based upon” preexisting works (input), copyright owners insist that a license is needed.
On the other hand, AI-advocates argue that the use of such data for training falls within copyright law’s “fair use” exception, claiming that the resulting work is transformative, does not create substantially similar works, and has no material impact on the original work’s market. They contend that the training data has been sufficiently transformed by the AI process to yield musical works beyond the copyright protection of the original works.
These competing views are likely to be tested in the class action lawsuit just filed on behalf of a group of artists against Stability AI, DeviantArt, and Midjourney for allegedly infringing “billions of copyrighted images” in creating AI art. (Getty Images recently filed a comparable lawsuit against Stability AI in the U.K.).
Proving infringement with AI-works
How exactly the AI was trained and operates will be issues in copyright infringement litigations. Proving infringement is a two-step process. The plaintiff must demonstrate that copying occurred; and that the copying is unlawful, because the defendant copied too much of the plaintiff’s protected expression and is, therefore, substantially similar.
The first of these inquiries can be proven by direct evidence of copying or circumstantially by establishing access to a specific, allegedly infringed musical work. With art, there is a Spawning AI software called “Have I Been Trained” which allows users to search through the images used to train AI art generators. While no known current analog exists for music, the technology is likely imminent.
The nature of the AI instructions will also be crucial to showing an awareness of the original work and substantial similarity between the AI-generated music and the allegedly infringed music. Prompts that intentionally draw on copyrighted works (i.e., create a work in “the style of _”) undoubtedly bear on the issue of substantial similarity. The marketplace is pivoting in advance of anticipated rulings: Songmastr has, for example, stopped marketing its ability to create songs based on the styles of Beyonce and Taylor Swift.
AI is evolving faster than the courts can evaluate how laws apply to it. The just-filed art litigation may provide some clarity; however, while in the fog, those creating AI-generated music are well-advised to stay cognizant of the legal risks and guide the artificial music making process with a genuine human touch.
James Sammataro is a partner and Nicholas Saady an associate at Pryor Cashman LLP.
When does a soundalike song sound a little too much alike?
Rick Astley is suing Yung Gravy over the rapper’s breakout 2022 hit that heavily borrowed from the singer’s iconic “Never Gonna Give You Up,” alleging that the new track — an interpolation that sounded a whole lot like an outright sample — broke the law by impersonating Astley’s voice.
In a lawsuit filed Thursday (Jan. 26) in Los Angeles court, Astley claims that Gravy’s “Betty (Get Money),” which reached No. 30 on the Hot 100 last year, violated the singer’s so-called right of publicity because it closely mimicked the distinctive voice Astley used in the chart-topping 1987 hit.
“In an effort to capitalize off of the immense popularity and goodwill of Mr. Astley, defendants … conspired to include a deliberate and nearly indistinguishable imitation of Mr. Astley’s voice throughout the song,” Astley’s lawyers wrote. “The public could not tell the difference. The imitation of Mr. Astley’s voice was so successful the public believed it was actually Mr. Astley singing.”
Pulling heavily from a song that boomed in recent years thanks to “Rickroll” internet memes, “Betty” was a major hit for Yung Gravy. But it often drew attention largely for its connections to Astley; the New York Times called it “a real-life rickroll that functioned as a comedy song, a TikTok trend and a nostalgia trip all at once.”
In their new lawsuit, Astley’s lawyers said the singer was “extremely protective over his name, image, and likeness,” meaning the unauthorized use of the soundalike voice had caused him “immense damage.”
Representatives for Gravy (real name Matthew Hauri) and Universal Music Group’s Republic Records (also named in the lawsuit as the label that released “Betty”) did not immediately return a request for comment.
Thursday’s new lawsuit raises big questions about the methods used in the music industry to legally borrow from older songs, an ever more popular tactic in a nostalgia-heavy age.
When they created “Betty,” Gravy and his team allegedly cleared the underlying musical composition to “Give You Up.” That gave them the legal right to recreate music and lyrics from the original in their new track — a process known as “interpolating.”
But the lawsuit says Gravy and his team weren’t able to secure a license to use the actual sound recording of the famous track — the better-known process of “sampling.” That would mean they didn’t have any right to directly copy the exact sounds, including Astley’s voice.
Instead, Astley says they hired Popnick (real name Nick Seeley) to imitate Astley’s “signature voice” on the track. At one point, the lawsuit quotes from an Instagram video in which Popnick said he wanted the song to “sound identical” to Astley voice.
By doing so without permission, the lawsuit claims that Gravy and Popnick violated Astley’s right of publicity — the legal right to control how your name, image or likeness is commercially exploited by others.
“A license to use the original underlying musical composition does not authorize the stealing of the artist’s voice in the original recording,” Astley’s lawyers wrote. “So, instead, they resorted to theft of Mr. Astley’s voice without a license and without agreement.”
Astley’s allegations rely heavily on a 1988 federal court ruling, in which Bette Midler successfully sued the Ford Motor Co. for violating her right of publicity by running a series of commercials featuring a Midler impersonator. In that case, the court sided with Midler even though Ford had obtained a license to the underlying song.
The new lawsuit was filed by Richard Busch, a prominent music litigator best known for winning the blockbuster copyright case over “Blurred Lines.” In a statement to Billboard, Busch said: “Mr. Astley owns his voice. California law is clear since the Bette Midler case more than 30 years ago that nobody has the right to imitate or use it without his permission.”
In addition to violating Astley’s right of publicity, the lawsuit also accuses Gravy of violating federal trademark law by making false statements that made it appear that the singer had endorsed the new song. In an interview with Billboard, Gravy said he had spoken with Astley and that the singer had approved of the new song — that he “fucks with the song.”
“These statements were all false,” Astley wrote in his lawsuit.
With all the many fan theories bouncing around the internet in the weeks since Miley Cyrus released her Billboard Hot 100-topping new single “Flowers,” a particular amount of attention has been paid to its relationship to Bruno Mars‘ own No. 1 hit from a decade earlier, the torch song ballad “When I Was Your Man.”
Countless fans have pointed out the lyrical similarities between the two songs — particularly their respective choruses — with “Flowers” echoing many of Mars’ regretful sentiments from an opposing, unmoved perspective. (For example, Mars laments on “Your Man,” “I should’ve bought you flowers… take you to every party, ’cause all you wanted to dance,” while Cyrus protests on “Flowers,” “I can buy myself flowers… I can take myself dancing.”) Speculation behind the extended reference has centered around the song being a favorite of Liam Hemsworth’s, furthering the idea of the song as a kiss-off to Cyrus’ real-life ex. The buzz over the two songs was even enough to give “Your Man” a nearly 20% bump in weekly streams in the frame following the release of Cyrus’ new single.
With the relationship between the two songs appearing obvious to fans, many have wondered over social media whether Mars or “Your Man” co-writers Andrew Wyatt, Philip Lawrence and Ari Levine deserve writing credits on “Flowers.” To a degree, this sort of thing — offering writing credits to obvious sources of musical inspiration — has become common practice in new songs by popular artists, even if a direct sample is not present and the use of an interpolation is an arguable matter of interpretation. Well-publicized cases of that phenomenon include Olivia Rodrigo adding Paramore’s Hayley Williams and Josh Farro to the credits of her “Good 4 U” due to the song’s musical similarities to their “Misery Business,” and Beyoncé including “Show Me Love” scribes Fred McFarlane and Allen George in the credits to her “Break My Soul” due to some overlapping sonic elements with the Robin S. smash.
The case of “Flowers” and “When I Was Your Man” is a little different, though. Those previously mentioned examples were mostly based around sonic similarities — melodic, rhythmic and textural — which were close enough in nature that a case could have been made that the original’s copyright was infringed upon. However, not only are there no direct samples or obvious interpolations between “Flowers” and “Your Man,” there are no major sonic overlaps either — no obvious shared melodies or rhythms, no major similarities in production textures. When Cyrus sings “I can buy myself flowers,” for instance, she does so in a cadence and melody of her own, without any significant similarity to how Mars sang “I should’ve bought you flowers.”
The only obvious similarities, then, are in the songs’ lyrics — which are not identical, but do share elements and ideas — and merely using some of the same words as an older song is not considered grounds for infringement.
“This is great fodder for fan theories, but lawyers should have nothing to do with it,” says Joseph Fishman, a professor at Vanderbilt Law School in Nashville and an expert in music law. “There are no songwriter credits for the ‘When I Was Your Man’ writers because no license should be necessary.”
Cyrus’ arguable use of Mars’ lyrics as a reference point for her own expression is certainly not without precedent, with the “answer song” serving as a longtime staple of popular music. Famous examples include any number of responses (The Miracles’ “I Got a Job,” The Heartbeats’ “I Found a Job”) to The Silhouettes’ ’50s doo-wop staple “Get a Job,” Lynyrd Skynyrd’s rejoinder to Neil Young’s “Southern Man” in their ’70s southern rock classic “Sweet Home Alabama” (“I hope Neil Young will remember/ Southern man don’t need him around anyhow”) and countless rap diss records dating back to the ongoing “Roxanne Wars” of the mid-’80s, when male rap group U.T.F.O. and female rappers Roxanne Shanté and The Real Roxanne (among others) all traded barbs with new singles. While many of these singles included lyrical references to their predecessors, most did not include additional writing credits for those songs’ performers.
“Lyrically, sure, there’s enough similarity to make listeners think that ‘Flowers’ is deliberately responding to the earlier song,” Fishman offers. “But even if we assume that’s true, so what? Using one song to issue a retort to an earlier song is not, by itself, infringement. John Mayer and Taylor Swift don’t need to cross-license anything when they write songs at each other.”
Does all this mean that there’s no chance of Mars and his co-writers eventually being added as co-writers to the “Flowers” credits? Not necessarily: Whether or not Cyrus is protected legally from legal recourse from the “Your Man” writers, she may ultimately decide to add them anyway as an act of goodwill and out of a desire to avoid further conflict, particularly with all the media attention the similarity between the songs has received. It’s not uncommon for additional songwriting credits to be added to a song after its initial release — as was the case with “Good 4 U” in 2021 — often following a period of negotiations between the concerned parties. But if the names of Mars and his co-writers stay absent in the credits, Cyrus is not likely to have any legal responsibility to give them their “Flowers” there.
Live Nation is not legally responsible for a deadly 2014 shooting backstage at a Young Jeezy concert, a California appeals court says, because such an attack was not the kind of event that the concert giant should have seen coming.
In a ruling issued Tuesday (Jan. 24), the California Court of Appeal refused to revive a wrongful death lawsuit filed by the family of Eric Johnson, Jr., an event promoter who was shot to death during an August 2014 stop at a San Francisco-area venue during Jeezy’s Under the Influence of Music tour.
Johnson’s family claimed that Live Nation had been legally negligent because it didn’t have enough security measures in place to prevent the shooting, but the appeals court ruled that the attack was not “foreseeable” — a key requirement in proving such allegations.
“A violent attack by and between artists and their guests in the backstage area of a performance is not a foreseeable occurrence against which Live Nation should have provided preventative measures of the nature plaintiffs suggest,” Justice Stuart R. Pollak wrote in Tuesday’s opinion.
In its ruling, the appeals court suggested that Live Nation likely had good reason to be worried about incidents involving the crowd, citing reports that fights had broken out at previous events. But the court said those same red flags did not exist for potential violence backstage.
“The reports did not … indicate that any of the artists or their entourages engaged in or posed any danger of violence during the tour,” the judges wrote in the ruling. “The head of security also indicated that in her more than 10 years at the amphitheater, there had not been any violent incidents backstage.”
Attorneys for Johnson’s family did not immediately return requests for comment on Thursday. A representative for Live Nation also did not return a request for comment on the ruling.
The ruling in favor of Live Nation came as the company is facing a similar case over the high-profile stabbing death of Drakeo The Ruler at the Once Upon A Time in L.A. music festival in December 2021. Filed by the late rapper’s family, that case also centers on security measures Live Nation took — or didn’t take — that might have prevented a fatal assault backstage.
Johnson, 38, was shot and killed backstage on Aug. 22, 2014, at the Shoreline Amphitheater in Mountain View, Calif., a venue leased and operated by Live Nation. According to his family’s lawsuit, Johnson had been at the event to “discuss his business arrangements for Young Jeezy to appear at a concert after-party” in nearby San Jose.
According to press reports at the time, Jeezy (real name Jay Jenkins) was taken into police custody in the wake of the shooting and charged with illegal possession of a weapon. But that charge was later dropped and no additional charges were ever filed against the rapper over the incident.
“Mr. Jenkins should not have been arrested and this case should not have been prosecuted,” Jeezy’s attorney told Billboard at the time. “We are pleased it has been dismissed, although frustrated that it took the police and prosecutors months to do the right thing.”
Court records indicate that no murder charges have ever been filed against anyone over Johnson’s killing.
Earlier versions of the civil lawsuit filed by Johnson’s family directly accused Jeezy of committing the shooting, but those claims were later dropped. They were replaced by allegations similar to those made against Live Nation, claiming the rapper’s allegedly negligent conduct was partly to blame for the attack taking place.
On Tuesday, in addition to rejecting the allegations against Live Nation, the California appeals court also dismissed the claims against Jeezy. The court ruled that the family had waited too long to bring the claims, and were thus barred by the statute of limitations.
Jeezy’s attorney declined to comment on the decision.
Read the full ruling here:
A man whose back tattoo was unwittingly photoshopped into a Cardi B album cover is once again asking a federal judge to revive his failed case against the rapper, arguing that the star “engaged in theatrics” on the witness stand and deprived him of a fair trial.
Weeks after Judge Cormac Carney ruled there had been enough evidence to support Cardi’s courtroom victory, Kevin Brophy formally requested a new trial Wednesday, seeking another chance to convince a jury that she “humiliated” him with the risqué cover of her 2016 Gangsta Bitch Music Vol. 1.
Among other things, Brophy took aim at Cardi herself, arguing that the star (real name Belcalis Almánzar) had committed “misconduct” on the witness stand by sparring with Brophy’s attorney, A. Barry Cappello.
“Almanzar repeatedly engaged in theatrics, refused to answer basic questions, impermissibly disclosed privileged and confidential settlement communications, and generally acted with total disregard and disrespect for the jury’s time and formal nature of court proceedings,” Brophy’s lawyers wrote.
Citing supposedly calm behavior when examined by her own lawyers – “a switch in demeanor that puts Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde to shame” – the filing called Cardi’s testimony a “a deliberate strategy to frustrate Plaintiff’s presentation of his case and improperly influence the jury.”
Brophy sued Cardi in 2017 for millions in damages, claiming he was “devastated, humiliated and embarrassed” by the cover of Cardi’s Gangsta Bitch. The image featured the then-rising star taking a swig of a large beer, staring directly into the camera with her legs spread wide, and holding a man’s head while he appears to perform oral sex on her.
The actual man in the image was a model who had consented to the shoot, but a giant tattoo on the man’s back belonged to Brophy. Unbeknownst to Cardi, a freelance graphic designer had typed “back tattoos” into Google Image, found one that fit (Brophy’s), and Photoshopped it onto the model’s body.
Brophy’s lawsuit claimed Cardi and others involved in the cover had violated his so-called right of publicity by using his likeness without his consent, and also violated his right to privacy by casting him in a “false light” that was “highly offensive.” Cardi’s lawyers called the allegations “sheer fantasy” and “vastly overblown,” arguing that nobody would have recognized a relatively unknown man based merely on his back.
During a four-day trial in October, Cardi took the stand to defend herself. When examined by Brophy’s attorney Cappello, things repeatedly got heated between the two – so much so that at one point the Judge Carney cleared the jury, told Cappello he had “totally crossed the line,” and threatened to declare a mistrial.
At the end of the trial, the jury agreed with the superstar’s defenses, clearing Cardi of all Brophy’s claims. Brophy later asked the judge to throw out the verdict for a lack of evidence, but the judge denied that motion in December.
In addition to criticizing Cardi’s testimony, Brophy’s new motion on Wednesday also argued that his lawyers had been denied the chance to properly cross-examine the star, and that the judge had unfairly refused to let jurors hear about Cardi’s earlier defamation trial in Atlanta.
Attorneys for Cardi will have chance to file a formal response in court in the coming weeks. The star’s lawyers did not immediately return a request for comment on Thursday.
Read the entire motion for a new trial here:
The Eastern European country of Belarus has adopted a law that essentially legalizes piracy of music and other forms of copyrighted entertainment, which could make it a hotbed for piracy well beyond its borders.
Under the law, which President Alexander Lukashenko approved in early January, copyrighted music, films and other audiovisual content originating from “unfriendly countries” can be used in Belarus without permission from rights holders.
The law doesn’t provide a list of “unfriendly countries.” But based on the Belarusian government’s previous statements, the legislation primarily targets Western nations, which slapped sanctions on Belarus following mass repressions of people for protesting the rigged presidential vote in 2020 and, more recently, because of Belarus’ support of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Belarus has never been a major music market — it does not show up in the IFPI’s ranking of the 62 biggest markets — and the major global labels had traditionally run operations there from their Russian offices. Since the labels pulled out of Russia after the February 2022 invasion of Ukraine, they have also cut ties with Belarus. The country, which sits between Russia to the east and Ukraine to the south, backed Russian President Vladimir Putin’s Ukraine invasion last year by allowing Russia to launch part of its attack from Belarusian territory.
Despite its small stature in the music industry, analysts say that under the government’s piracy-permitting law Belarus could play an outsized role in spurring more global piracy.
“As Belarus is a very small music market — a rounding error in the global market — there will be little direct impact in terms of music revenues for western rights holders,” says Mark Mulligan, music analyst at MIDiA Research.
“What might be impactful though is whether piracy networks start to operate from Belarus, distributing globally but operating under the protection of Belarussian law.”
The music industry is already dealing with a spate of piracy networks based in Russia and surrounding countries that are distributing pirated content to other markets, sometimes on other continents. Among the best-known operations are the stream-ripping websites FLVTO.biz and 2conv.com, run by Tofig Kurbanov, who reportedly lives in southern Russia.
More than two dozen record labels and the RIAA have pursued Kurbanov in the U.S. for copyright damages. Last February, a U.S. district judge in Alexandria, Va., approved an $82.9 million judgement against the Russian for circumventing YouTube’s anti-piracy measures and infringing copyrights of audio recordings. The court found that Kurbanov’s operation drew more than 300 million users from around the world to his sites in a single year. (Kurbanov says he plans to appeal.)
And in Brazil, Paulo Rosa, IFPI affiliate Pro Música’s president, told Billboard in 2021 that most of the fake streams being peddled to consumers in the South American country originate from hacker operations in Russia.
The Belarusian piracy law could nevertheless set an example for neighboring Russia, which for months has been considering a similar move to legalize copyrighted content from certain Western countries. Since the early 2000s, Russia has often followed the example of Belarus in strengthening authoritarian rule.
Belarussian President Alexander Lukashenko speaks during a press conference on December 19, 2022.
Contributor/GI
Before the war with Ukraine, Russia had the 13th-largest music market in 2020 with revenues of $328 million, a 58% bump from 2019; it was the fastest-growing market in the world in 2019 and 2020, according to the IFPI.
While Russia’s relations with the West are at their lowest point since Cold War, and many Western companies have left the country, the legalization of piracy would likely further isolate Russia — and could “set back the Russian music industry by decades,” one person at a global music company tells Billboard.
In recent years, Russia had made a substantial effort to shed its reputation as a place where piracy ran rampant. VK, the Russian analog of Facebook, which for years allowed users to share unlicensed music tracks on the platform, eventually cleaned up its act and signed license agreements with global majors a few years ago.
Now that the majors have left Russia, dozens of pirated albums have already been reappearing on VK, including recent releases from Taylor Swift (Midnights, on Universal Music Group’s Republic Records) and Red Hot Chili Peppers (Return of the Dream Canteen, on Warner Music Group’s Warner Records).
The legalization of piracy would certainly make it harder for Western streaming services to start operating in Russia again, says Mulligan. While Russia is still “earlier in its streaming development,” he says, “longer term it could become a significant market and at that stage Western rightsholders would want to ensure that their music is being paid for when it is being consumed at scale.”
New laws legalizing piracy would fly in the face of treaty commitments made by both Belarus and Russia. Both countries are signatories to the Berne Convention and other World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)-administered treaties.
“Suspending IP protection as Belarus is presently considering would violate its obligations under these WIPO treaties and would seriously dampen Belarus’ opportunities to become integrated into the global trade community and to secure [Most Favored Nation] status, or to further integrate with the [European Union], thus minimizing its economic opportunities in the long term,” says Neil Turkewitz, president of Turkewitz Consulting Group.
Also, “any actions legalizing piracy would destroy any chance of investment in local creative industries and would hurt local artists and their fans the most,” the IFPI tells Billboard in a statement. “Such actions would be in clear breach of international copyright law and trade agreements.”
Bad Bunny has reached a tentative settlement in a lawsuit that accused the Puerto Rican superstar and his collaborators of “unauthorized incorporation” of three DJ Playero songs into his 2020 track “Safaera,” according to legal documents obtained by Billboard.
The “settlement in principle” was reached Jan. 17 after both parties — in this case, Bunny and the Florida-based company AOM Music — participated in a mediation. After notice of the settlement was filed with the court, a federal judge in California suspended future hearings in the case.
The court document notes that the process will “take some time since the settlement is complex and will require the review and approval of multiple corporate and individual parties.” The parties are required to submit a joint report on the status of the settlement if a dismissal of the case hasn’t been filed by Feb. 17.
Filed by AOM Music, also known as BM Records, on Sept. 27, 2021, the lawsuit claimed that Bad Bunny “stole” samples from reggaeton pioneer DJ Playero’s “Besa Tu Cuerpo,” “Chocha Con Bicho” and “Sigan Bailando” for “Safaera,” a global hit that was included on the superstar’s history-making album YHLQMDLG. “No license or authorization was obtained,” the suit alleged.
After the complaint was filed, DJ Playero took to Instagram with a statement clarifying he knew nothing of the lawsuit and had nothing but respect for all the artists involved. “I am proud that I was part of opening the doors to these artists who are known worldwide today,” he wrote, “a song that sounds on the radio and in the world with part of a track of mine is a beautiful feeling that no one can imagine.”
Produced by Tainy, DJ Orma and Subelo Neo, the nearly five-minute “Safaera” — which features Jowell & Randy and Ñengo Flow — is a mashup of old school perreo and reggaetón beats and samples and interpolates various classic hits, including the signature six-note hook to Missy Elliott’s “Get Ur Freak On.”
When it was released in early 2020, “Safaera” was temporarily pulled from Spotify due to a claim that a fragment of the song had not cleared the corresponding rights. In a back-and-forth last year, rapper Missy Elliott weighed in on Twitter after successfully getting her royalties for the song.
Elliott’s response came after Jowell (of Jowell & Randy) claimed his royalties had dropped to 1% after the rapper was properly compensated. “Sadly you mislead all these people to make them think I have 99%,” Elliott wrote at the time. “Now I don’t talk business on line because that’s messy but now we are here I have 25% and there is 6 other samples & 15 other writers on this one song.”
Read the full settlement notice below: