Legal News
Page: 85
A federal judge on Wednesday (Jan. 25) declared a mistrial in the high-profile courtroom battle pitting T.I. and wife Tameka “Tiny” Harris against toymaker MGA over a line of dolls, ending the proceedings after jurors heard inadmissible testimony claiming the company “steals from African Americans.”
A day after attorneys for MGA argued that the “inflammatory” testimony about cultural appropriation had ruined their chances of a fair trial, Judge James V. Selna agreed, granting a mistrial. That means the case will need to be re-tried in front of a new jury at some point in the future.
Following the mistrial, MGA told Billboard that “diversity has always been a key value” at the company: “We are disappointed that the trial was cut short, but look forward to vindicating our rights in the next trial.” An attorney for T.I. and Tiny did not immediately return a request for comment.
The ruling marks an abrupt end for the closely-watched intellectual property trial, in which T.I. and Tiny were trying to persuade a jury that MGA’s line of “OMG” dolls stole their look and name from the OMG Girlz, a defunct teen pop trio created by Tiny and starring her daughter Zonnique Pullins.
In their 2021 complaint, T.I. and Tiny alleged that MGA had committed both “cultural appropriation and outright theft of the intellectual property,” stealing the look of a group of “young multicultural women.” The lawsuit included side-by-side images, aiming to show how each doll was directly based on a particular member of the OMG Girlz, who disbanded in 2015.
On the fifth day of the trial, jurors heard videotaped deposition testimony from a woman named Moneice Campbell, a former MGA customer. According to court documents, Campbell testified that she would no longer purchase the company’s products because MGA “steals from African Americans and their ideas and profit off of it.” She also said that “hundreds” of social media users had agreed with the accusations, citing the fact that “people often steal from the black community and make money off of it.”
Earlier in the case, Judge Selna had already expressly prohibited such testimony from the trial. In one such order, he ruled that statements about “cultural appropriation” were “immaterial and impertinent” to the actual legal issues at play in the case and could not be made in front of jurors.
In a written motion filed after Tuesday’s courtroom proceedings had concluded, MGA’s lawyers demanded an immediate mistrial, arguing that the impact of the inadmissible testimony on the fairness of the case “cannot be understated.”
“There is no way to unring the bell of the jury’s hearing Ms. Campbell’s emotionally charged accusations that MGA has been ‘stealing’ from the African-American community,” the MGA attorneys wrote. “Her improper testimony cannot be challenged, rebutted or cured without drawing further attention to it.”
A federal judge says Kanye West’s lawyers need to keep trying to reach their client a little bit longer before the judge will allow the attorneys to take an unusual step: printing newspaper ads announcing they’ve dropped the embattled rapper.
In an order issued Tuesday, Judge Analisa Torres denied – for now – a request by attorneys from the law firm Greenberg Traurig to take such extraordinary measures to formally cut ties with West (who has legally changed his name to Ye). The firm says it has “exhausted all methods” of contacting the rapper, but the judge is not yet convinced.
“The court finds that GT has not provided sufficient facts to support its conclusion that personal service is impracticable,” Judge Torres wrote. “GT’s latest attempts… do not indicate diligent efforts at attempting to locate Ye.”
Greenberg, one of many law firms to cut ties with Ye in the wake of his antisemitic statements last year, has been trying for months to legally notify the rapper that its lawyers will no longer be representing him in a copyright lawsuit album over a song off Donda 2. Judge Torres already approved their withdrawal, but federal litigation rules and legal ethics require lawyers to personally serve clients with formal notice that they’ve been dropped as a client.
It’s this process that Greenberg says Kanye is evading.
In a Jan. 13 request, they argued that the star was engaged in “deliberate avoidance and obstruction,” including ditching his previous representatives and changing his phone number. Faced with that obstinance, Greenberg lawyers asked earlier this month to let them notify him by mail – or to simply print the notice in public newspapers.
“Given Ye’s public status, publication of the withdrawal order will likely garner significant media attention, resulting in broader publication and provide an even greater likelihood of apprising Ye of the Order,” the Greenberg lawyers wrote in making the unusual request.
But in Tuesday’s order, Judge Torres said she would need to see more proof that Greenberg had truly run out of options. She suggested that the firm could show that it had used databases to search for a new address, or even “hiring private investigators” to locate the star.
The judge gave the firm a Feb. 15 deadline to either successfully serve notice on Kanye – or offer more detailed proof to support the newspaper plan. Kanye’s former lawyer at Greenberg did not immediately return a request for comment. A press representative for West could not immediately be located for comment.
Prosecutors in Kansas City, Missouri dismissed misdemeanor assault charges against Tool drummer Danny Carey on Monday (Jan. 23) in an incident that took place at the city’s airport in Dec. 2021. According to Fox 4, a spokesperson for the court did not give a reason for the dismissal of the charges, telling the outlet that the case was a “closed confidential matter” as of this week.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
Carey was arrested for misdemeanor assault at the Kansas City International Airport on Dec. 12, 2021 after allegedly getting into an altercation. Airport law enforcement received notice that evening of a “disturbance between two males at an airport terminal,” which resulted in Carey being arrested for misdemeanor assault and transported to a nearby Kansas City Police Dept. station.
The other man, whose name was not released at the time, was not taken into custody. Fox 4 reported that according to a ticket issued by officers, Carey intentionally inflicted injury when he allegedly yelled a homophobic slur at the unnamed victim while jabbing him in the chest with two fingers. TMZ video from the evening showed Carey being handcuffed at the airport and talking to officers outside the terminal, where he could be heard asking, “Who did I assault?”
At press time a spokesperson for Tool had not returned a request for comment from Billboard on the dismissal of the charges; a spokesperson for the Kansas City Prosecutor’s office had also not returned a request for comment at press time.
According to reports at the time, the Kansas-bred drummer performed in the stands with the school band during the University of Kansas’ basketball game against the University of Missouri the day before his arrest.
Actress Esme Bianco and Marilyn Manson have reached a settlement to end her sexual assault lawsuit against the rocker, one of several such cases accusing Manson of abuse.
In a filing made Tuesday in Los Angeles federal court, attorneys for both sides alerted the judge that they had “reached an agreement in principle” to “resolve” the case. Terms of the settlement were not disclosed.
Jay D. Ellwanger, lawyer for Bianco, confirmed to Billboard that the actress had “agreed to resolve her claims against Brian Warner and Marilyn Manson Records, Inc. in order to move on with her life and career.” An attorney for Manson, whose real name is Brian Warner, did not immediately return a request for comment.
Bianco was one of several women to accuse Manson of sexual abuse or other wrongdoing over the past two years.
Evan Rachel Wood, who began publicly dating Manson in 2007 when she was 19 and he was 39, accused him in a February 2021 Instagram post of “grooming me when I was a teenager” before he “horrifically abused me for years.” Those allegations were followed by separate lawsuits from model Ashley Morgan Smithline, former assistant Ashley Walters, and an unnamed Jane Doe accuser.
Bianco added her own lawsuit in April 2021, claiming Warner had, among other shocking allegations, “used drugs, force and threats of force to coerce sexual acts” and had “locked Ms. Bianco in the bedroom, tied her to a prayer kneeler and beat her with a whip that Mr. Warner said was utilized by the Nazis.”
Manson strongly denied the allegations, filing a motion to dismiss the case in which he accused Bianco of “cynically and dishonestly seeking to monetize and exploit the #MeToo movement.” He’s gone so far as to file a defamation lawsuit against Wood, claiming she had “secretly recruited, coordinated, and pressured prospective accusers to emerge simultaneously” with false allegations against the rocker. Wood denies the allegations and the case is pending.
Bianco’s lawsuit is the second against Manson to end in recent weeks. On Jan. 3, a federal judge dismissed Smithline’s case, citing the fact that she failed to retain a new lawyer after splitting with her old legal team last fall.
The Justice Department and eight states sued Google on Tuesday, alleging that its dominance in digital advertising harms competition as well as consumers and advertisers — including the U.S. government.
The government alleges that Google’s plan to assert dominance has been to “neutralize or eliminate” rivals through acquisitions and to force advertisers to use its products by making it difficult to use competitors’ products.
The antitrust suit was filed in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia. Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a press conference Tuesday that Google’s dominance in the ad market means fewer publishers are able to offer their products without charging subscription or other fees, because they can’t rely on competition in the advertising market to keep ad prices low.
As a result of Google’s dominance, he said, “website creators earn less and advertisers pay more.”
The department’s suit accuses Google of unlawfully monopolizing the way ads are served online by excluding competitors. This includes its 2008 acquisition of DoubleClick, a dominant ad server, and subsequent rollout of technology that locks in the split-second bidding process for ads that get served on Web pages.
Google’s ad manager lets large publishers who have significant direct sales manage their advertisements. The ad exchange, meanwhile, is a real-time marketplace to buy and sell online display ads.
The lawsuit demands that Google break off three different businesses from its core business of search, YouTube and other products such as Gmail: the buying and selling of ads and ownership of the exchange where that business is transacted.
Garland said that “for 15 years, Google has pursued a course of anti-competitive conduct” that has halted the rise of rival technologies and manipulated the mechanics of online ad auctions to force advertisers and publishers to use its tools.
In so doing, he added, “Google has engaged in exclusionary conduct” that has “severely weakened,” if not destroyed competition in the ad tech industry.
Alphabet Inc., Google’s parent company, said in a statement that the suit “doubles down on a flawed argument that would slow innovation, raise advertising fees, and make it harder for thousands of small businesses and publishers to grow.”
Dina Srinivasan, a Yale University fellow and adtech expert, said the lawsuit is “huge” because it aligns the entire nation — state and federal governments — in a bipartisan legal offensive against Google.
This is the latest legal action taken against Google by either the Justice Department or local state governments. In October 2020, for instance, the Trump administration and eleven state attorneys general sued Google for violating antitrust laws, alleging anticompetitive practices in the search and search advertising markets.
The lawsuit in essence aligns the Biden administration and new states with the 35 states and District of Colombia that sued Google in December 2020 over the exact same issues.
The states taking part in the suit include California, Virginia, Connecticut, Colorado, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Tennessee.
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: A judge says Roc Nation CEO Desiree Perez must sit for a deposition in Megan Thee Stallion’s war with her record company, a member of Journey sues his longtime bandmate over allegations of lavish spending, Flo Rida wins an $82 million verdict against a beverage company, and much more.
THE BIG STORY: To Depose Or Not To Depose
When should a top executive be hauled into a deposition to answer questions in a lawsuit? It’s a difficult question. Make it too hard and you could insulate powerful people from the legal process; make it too easy and attorneys could use it as a form of gamesmanship in cases of questionable merit. Imagine if Lucian Grainge could be deposed every time someone sued Universal Music?
Courts typically resolve the problem with something called the apex doctrine, which says that busy “apex” officials only need to testify when they have unique info that can’t be derived from other less burdensome sources. Spotify cited the doctrine last year in an (unsuccessful) effort to block the deposition of CEO Daniel Ek in a copyright lawsuit over Eminem’s music.
That same tricky situation cropped up last week in Megan Thee Stallion’s ongoing legal war with her estranged record label, 1501 Certified Entertainment. Industry bigwig Desiree Perez is the CEO of Jay-Z’s Roc Nation — the prototypical kind of executive who can sometimes avoid depositions. But she’s also Megan’s actual manager, and 1501 Certified said she was “one of the most critical” witnesses in the case.
In seeking to avoid the sit-down, Megan’s legal team argued that 1501 was “harassing” Perez by seeking to depose her. But in a ruling last week, the judge overseeing the case didn’t buy it.
To get the full story, go read Billboard’s entire article here.
Other top stories this week…
TOP RAPPER BATTLES EX-MANAGER – Billboard took a deep-dive this week into an ugly lawsuit pitting Latin trap star Anuel AA against his former manager Frabian Eli – two “lifelong friends” who are now accusing each other of serious legal wrongdoing. The latest flashpoint is an emergency hearing this week over whether Eli can sell a $4.8 million Florida mansion that Anuel claims was purchased with stolen money.
DON’T STOP LITIGATING – The civil war inside the iconic rock band Journey continues. Keyboardist Jonathan Cain filed a lawsuit against bandmate Neal Schon for allegedly spending over $1 million on the band’s shared American Express card, including $400,000 in a single month last year — itself a response to a case filed by Schon last year.
PUBLISHER POO-POOS PARODY Music publisher BMG launched a copyright lawsuit against toymaker MGA Entertainment for promoting a brand of “unicorn poop” toys by releasing a song called “My Poops” — a scatological parody set to the tune of the Black Eyed Peas’ “My Humps.” Is that a legal fair use or just an unlicensed commercial? We’re going to find out.
FLO RIDA WINS BIG OVER ENERGY DRINKS – A jury awarded $82 million in damages to Flo Rida in his legal battle with energy drink maker Celsius, siding with the rapper’s allegations that the company reneged on the terms of an endorsement deal. His lawyers told me: “He was due these shares, he worked for them, and he wasn’t going to just let it go.”
Lawyers for Latin trap star Anuel AA are heading to a Miami courthouse Tuesday to ask a judge to block his former manager Frabian Eli from selling a $4.8 million Florida mansion — the latest bizarre twist in a nasty legal battle between the “lifelong friends.”
After years of partnership amid rising stardom, the two have suddenly found themselves in an ugly divorce. Eli (full name Frabian Eli Carrion) sued in September, claiming Anuel breached their contracts by abruptly firing him last summer and owes him millions in unpaid fees. The star rapper (real name Emmanuel Gazmey Santiago) fired back with a countersuit in November, accusing Eli of stealing millions in order to “fund his own extravagant lifestyle.”
In the upcoming showdown Tuesday, the lawsuit’s messiness is on full display.
Anuel is seeking an “emergency injunction” that would bar Eli from selling a 6,000-square-foot home in Doral, Fla., worth an alleged $4.8 million — a property the star calls “one of the many illicit purchases made by Carrion using funds from the company’s bank accounts.” Without the order, they claim Eli will sell the house in an effort to avoid paying back the money he stole.
Eli, meanwhile, says the injunction demand is baseless and the latest example of his former friend choosing to “lash out” rather than pay him his fair share of their success: “Nothing more than an attempt to divert the court, and the public monitoring this case, away from the undisputed facts of the case.”
‘Unilaterally Terminated‘
Anuel and Eli worked together for years, starting well before the Puerto Rican rapper released his 2018 debut, Real Hasta la Muerte, and won the 2019 new artist of the year award at the Billboard Latin Music Awards. Eli then managed Anuel through three subsequent albums that all topped Billboard’s Top Latin Albums chart, and the pair also started and operated their own record label.
But just nine months after Eli gushed about his “childhood friend” to Billboard, on Sept. 4 the manager filed a lawsuit against Anuel in Florida state court, alleging he had been “unilaterally terminated” from their shared company, despite a seven-year contract that hadn’t been set to expire until 2026. The deal allegedly entitled Eli to 10% of Anuel’s gross earnings.
In his complaint, Eli said he had been surprised by the move because he had worked tirelessly to advance the star’s career, including during Anuel’s months-long stint in prison after pleading guilty to a gun possession charge.
“That prison sentence did not stop the manager from continuing to believe in the artist and to work towards the continuation of his career, while working for the artist twenty-four hours a day seven days a week, without receiving any pay,” Eli’s lawyers wrote at the time. “Together, the manager and the artist have enjoyed enormous success in the music industry, which due to the manager’s handling of the artist’s affairs, has parlayed into a number of other successes in life.”
Read Eli’s entire lawsuit here.
‘Maliciously Exploited‘
In November, Anuel told his side of the story – and he went a lot further than simply rebutting Eli’s allegations. In his own counter-suit, the star said Eli had been terminated because he had “maliciously exploited” their friendship to “defraud” him out of millions of dollars.
Among other allegations of wrongdoing, Anuel claimed his manager had secretly taken excess money from music agreements with Sony’s The Orchard and with Kobalt; that he had stolen money set aside for tax payments; and that he had secretly made huge personal purchases with company money, like $191,000 toward a Lamborghini, more than $1 million toward jewelry, and an undisclosed sum for renting private jets for his family.
The lawsuit also claimed Eli had taken “kickbacks” in return accepting bad business deals on Anuel’s behalf. For instance, it claimed that when Eli had arranged the purchase of a Miami condo for Anuel’s parents, he had “conspired” with the realtor to pay “a higher than necessary price” in return for a personal payment from the agent.
“In complete and utter contravention of his contractual and fiduciary duties; all reasonable sense of morality; and his years long friendship with artist, which led artist to place his full trust in Carrion, Carrion … bilked counter-plaintiffs out of millions of dollars for which they are rightfully entitled,” Anuel’s lawyers wrote at the time.
Read Anuel’s entire counter-suit here.
‘Losing Out On Millions‘
With the lawsuit and counter-suit both still in the earliest stages of litigation, Anuel threw another bomb in early December — demanding the emergency court order restraining Eli from selling the $4.8 million house in Doral. He claimed that more than $1 million in payments for the Doral house had come from company bank accounts.
In the filing, Anuel’s lawyers warned that Eli was already in “a precarious financial position” and that the property was the only asset they could find under his name. Without a court order requiring him to retain it until the lawsuit was over, the lawyers said there might be no other way for Anuel to recover the allegedly stolen money.
“Counter-plaintiffs risk being successful on its claims, and nonetheless losing out on millions of dollars because [Eli] was permitted to dispose of the property – the sole asset currently in his name – and no longer possessed sufficient assets to cover the value of harm he deliberately and calculatedly took,” they wrote in the Dec. 2 motion.
Eli’s attorneys fired back two weeks later, arguing there was no grounds for an extraordinary order like an injunction freezing the sale of a home. Anuel’s core allegations against Eli, they said, were “simply ludicrous” and “non-sensical” — meaning that he would eventually owe money to their client, not vice-versa.
“This case is really about an artist … that rose to stardom based in part on the work done by the manager, who has now chosen to lash out against the manager with falsities in response to a lawsuit which had to be filed due to the artist’s own irrational actions,” Eli’s attorneys wrote. “Instead of litigating this case on provable facts, with evidence, Anuel is trying to use a ‘kitchen sink approach’ to muddy the waters and cause as much harm as he can.”
Read the entire emergency motion and response here.
A Houston judge ruled late Thursday (Jan. 19) that Megan Thee Stallion’s manager, Roc Nation CEO Desiree Perez, must sit for a deposition in the star’s ongoing war with her record company, rejecting Megan’s arguments that the label was “harassing” Perez by seeking to depose her.
For months, the two sides sparred over whether the Roc Nation big wig must answer questions from lawyers for 1501 Certified Entertainment amid Megan’s litigious split with the Houston-based label. The company’s lawyers called Perez “one of the most critical” witnesses in the case; Megan’s lawyers said 1501 was simply trying to “harass” a busy executive who had little pertinent info to share.
In a ruling made public on Thursday afternoon, Judge Robert Schaffer sided with 1501 — denying a motion from Megan’s lawyers seeking a so-called protective order that would have shielded Perez from the deposition. Though he ruled on detailed arguments from both sides, the judge included no written opinion explaining his rationale for the decision.
It’s unclear when such a sit-down between 1501’s lawyers and Perez will take place. A representative for Megan and for Roc Nation did not immediately return a request for comment on Friday.
The star rapper (real name Megan Pete) has been fighting with 1501 for more than two years, claiming the company duped the young artist into signing an “unconscionable” record deal in 2018 that was well-below industry standards. She says that when she signed a new management deal with Jay-Z’s Roc Nation in 2019, she got “real lawyers” who helped her see that the deal was “crazy.”
That core dispute has mushroomed into additional litigation, with both sides accusing the other of various forms of wrongdoing and claiming millions in damages. A judge ruled in December that the case will need to be decided by a jury trial; a date has not yet been set.
With both sides preparing to make their case, 1501 sought to have Perez sit for a deposition — meaning she would meet with the company’s lawyers and answer questions about Megan’s case under oath. But the rapper’s lawyers quickly threw a challenge flag in November, seeking the protective order that would have shielded Perez from what they called “gamesmanship” by 1501.
Megan’s lawyers pointed to what’s known as the apex doctrine, which limits when high-ranking executives can be forced to give a deposition. (That’s the same rule that Spotify cited last year when it tried to shield CEO Daniel Ek from questioning in a copyright lawsuit.) Under the apex doctrine, busy top officials only need to testify when they have unique info that can’t be derived from other less burdensome sources.
The label quickly fired back in December, arguing that Perez was instead a key “fact witness” who had been “directly, personally, and substantially involved in the underlying facts of the lawsuit.” They claimed she’d had direct conversations about whether Megan’s 2021 release Something for Thee Hotties counted as an “album” under her deal — a central dispute in the case. And they said Perez had personally negotiated one of Megan’s record contracts at issue in the lawsuit.
Attorneys for 1501 declined to comment on the decision on Friday.
Journey keyboardist Jonathan Cain is suing longtime bandmate Neal Schon for allegedly spending over $1 million on the band’s shared American Express card, including $400,000 in a single month last year.
The new allegations came months after Schon sparked the legal battle by filing his own lawsuit accusing Cain of blocking access to “critical” financial records linked to the Amex account.
In a countersuit filed last week in California state court, Cain said it was Schon’s own actions that had led to those restrictions on his access to the Amex account, including “misusing” the card to deal with his own “financial problems as a result of an extravagant lifestyle.”
“Schon’s use of the [shared] AMEX card for personal expenses created serious liquidity problems for the band, as the AMEX balance had to be paid every month, and there were insufficient revenues to pay for other expenses as Schon saddled Journey with over $1 million of his personal expenses,” Cain’s lawyers wrote in the new complaint, filed Jan. 13.
Cain’s countersuit included a number of specific allegations about Schon’s spending habits. Once given access to the band Amex, Cain says Schon promptly spent over $100,000 in January 2022. Then in March, he allegedly spent a whopping $400,000 in charges at Bergdorf Goodman department store in New York City and other retailers.
At the end of a recent tour, Cain says Schon demanded suites at a Hawaiian hotel that cost north of $5,000 per night, then stayed a week longer than necessary and racked up more than $100,000 more in charges on the card.
Schon’s attorney did not immediately return a request for comment on the new allegations.
Members of Journey have been sparring in court for years. Back in 2020, Schon and Cain teamed up to file a lawsuit against former drummer Steven Smith and former bassist Ross Valory over the band’s name. And in September, former lead singer Steve Perry took legal action to stop Schon and Cain from registering federal trademarks on the names of many of the band’s biggest hits. But in both of those cases, which have since settled, Schon and Cain were on the same team.
In October, Schon and Cain finally found themselves on opposite sides of the courtroom. In his complaint, Schon said Cain had unfairly blocked access to the Amex account, “interfering” with the band’s activities and delaying payments to crew members and vendors. “This action is brought to turn the lights on, so to speak,” Schon’s lawyers wrote at the time.
But in the new countersuit, Cain told his side of the story, arguing that it was Schon’s reckless spending that was interfering with the band’s activities.
“Schon’s charges placed considerable pressure on Journey and its ability to cover normal tour expenses,” his lawyers wrote. “Schon was spending Journey’s money, and Cain is the one who was and is ultimately liable for the AMEX Account and Schon’s charges on the AMEX Card.”
In technical terms, Cain is accusing Schon of breaching his fiduciary duty to the band’s shared corporate entity, called Nomota LLC, and of unjustly enriching himself at Cain’s expense.
Music publisher BMG is suing a toymaker for promoting a brand of “unicorn poop” toys by releasing a song called “My Poops” – a scatological parody set to the tune of Black Eyed Peas’ “My Humps.”
In a lawsuit filed Thursday in Manhattan federal court, the publisher accused toymaker MGA Entertainment of infringing the copyright to the band’s smash 2005 hit, which reached No. 3 on the Hot 100 and spent 36 total weeks on the chart.
Released to promote MGA’s Poopsie Slime Surprise toys – unicorns that release sparkling “unicorn poop” slime – the song at issue features similar musical elements to the original, but with joke lyrics like “Whatcha gonna do with all that poop, all that poop.”
In addition to copying key musical elements, BMG says MGA’s song features a lead vocalist who “sounds very similar” to Black Eyed Peas lead singer Fergie.
“Music, especially a hit song such as ‘My Humps,’ adds great value when incorporated into a product or used in a video advertisement, because it increases consumer recognizability, consumer engagement and attention to the product,” BMG wrote in its lawsuit. “The infringing work is so substantially similar to ‘My Humps’ that it is obvious that the infringing work was intentionally copied.”
MGA’s song was released as a music video on YouTube, but BMG claims the copycat song was also incorporated into actual products. A sticker on the Poopsie Slime Surprise packages directed users to the video, the publisher says, and the actual dolls will play a snippet of the song when a “heart-shaped bellybutton” is pressed.
“Defendant has been selling the Dancing Unicorn Toys incorporating the Infringing Work all over the world and has received substantial revenue,” BMG’s lawyers wrote. “The Poopsie Slime Surprise product line has generated tens of millions of dollars in revenue for Defendant.”
In musical terms, BMG says that MGA’s song stole a number of key elements, including the melody, bass line, rhyme scheme, chord progression, cadence and others, and that the “My Poops” singer uses “a similar delivery and vocal inflections as used by Fergie.” It also says the name of the song is “an obvious play” on the name of the original.
Neither BMG nor MGA immediately returned requests for comment on Friday.
The new lawsuit sets the stage for a high-profile dispute over parody songs – a complex area of federal copyright law.
The legal doctrine of “fair use” expressly empowers people to parody existing copyrighted works, and one of the U.S. Supreme Court’s most seminal copyright rulings held that 2 Live Crew was legally allowed to release a bawdy parody of Roy Orbison’s rock ballad “Oh, Pretty Woman” without paying royalties. But the music industry’s premiere parodist, “Weird Al” Yankovic, voluntarily chooses to license all of the songs that he parodies. And the legal analysis is undoubtedly trickier when a parody song is used for outright commercial advertising or as part of an actual consumer product, rather than merely as a new song.
A more recent case pitted the Beastie Boys against a toy company called GoldieBlox, which released a viral parody of the group’s 1987 song “Girls” to promote its engineering and construction toys for girls. After the band threatened copyright infringement, GoldieBlox argued fair use – saying it had aimed to criticize the “highly sexist” message of the original Beastie Boys track and “further the company’s goal to break down gender stereotypes.”
But six months later, GoldieBlox agreed to a settlement in which it apologized to the Beastie Boys and agreed to donate a portion of its revenues to charities of the band’s choosing.
Read BMG’s entire lawsuit here: