Legal
Page: 105
This is The Legal Beat, a weekly newsletter about music law from Billboard Pro, offering you a one-stop cheat sheet of big new cases, important rulings and all the fun stuff in between.
This week: Ed Sheeran’s lawyers move to ban a “misleading” concert clip from his upcoming copyright trial, Justin Bieber is sued over a 2022 shooting the occurred after his concert, Drake fights back against efforts to drag him into the XXXtentacion murder trial, and much more.
Want to get The Legal Beat newsletter in your email inbox every Tuesday? Subscribe here for free.
THE BIG STORY: Ed Sheeran’s Lawyers Want Concert Footage Banned From Trial
Ed Sheeran is headed to trial in a few months over allegations that his smash hit “Thinking Out Loud” infringed Marvin Gaye‘s iconic “Let’s Get It On.” And unfortunately for Ed, there’s a video floating around on YouTube of him playfully switching back and forth between the two songs at a 2014 concert.
Unsurprisingly, Sheeran’s accusers (the heirs of Gaye’s co-writer Ed Townsend) want to play that video at the trial. They point to an earlier ruling in the case when the judge specifically noted that a clip of Sheeran “seamlessly transitioning” between the two songs might serve as key evidence in a jury trial.
But in a new filing last week, Sheeran’s lawyers asked that same judge to block the plaintiff’s from citing the video. The problem? They say the video is falsely incriminating – that it might look to jurors like damning evidence, but only actually shows that both songs contain a common chord progression.
“There are dozens if not hundreds of songs that predate and postdate [Let’s Get It On] utilizing the same or similar chord progression,” Sheeran’s lawyers wrote. “These medleys are irrelevant to any issue in the case and would be misleading [and] confuse the jury.”
For a full breakdown of Sheeran’s arguments – including their claim that the dispute could have a broader “chilling effect” on how artists perform at concerts – go read our story here.
Other top stories this week…
2022 SHOOTING LAWSUIT – Justin Bieber and Kodak Black were hit with a lawsuit over a shooting that occurred last year outside a pre-Super Bowl party that followed Bieber concert, filed by two men who say they were hit in the crossfire.
DRAKE’S DEPOSITION DRAMA – A Florida judge ordered Drake to sit for a deposition over the murder of XXXtentacion, but the superstar’s lawyers quickly fired back that he has no connection at all to the crime and that defense attorneys are merely trying to “add more layers of celebrity and notoriety” to the case.
ANTITRUST ANTICLIMAX – A federal appeals court rejected an antitrust lawsuit accusing Ticketmaster and Live Nation of exploiting its “impregnable market power” to foist inflated prices on hundreds of thousands of fans. Upholding an earlier ruling, the court said concertgoers forfeited their right to sue in court when they bought their tickets.
DEATH PENALTY SHOWDOWN – Lawyers for YNW Melly launched an appeal to the Florida Supreme Court, seeking to overturn a ruling last year that said the rapper could face the death penalty if convicted in his upcoming murder trial. They say the state violated strict procedural requirements for seeking the death penalty.
MOFI SCANDAL SETTLED. OR IS IT? – Vinyl producer Mobile Fidelity reached a settlement that could be worth as much as $25 million to resolve allegations that the company’s pricey “all analog” records were secretly created using digital methods. But some customers are already objecting to the deal, saying it’s “tainted by the stink of collusion.”
YOUTUBE SCAMMER PLEADS GUILTY – Jose Teran, one of two men accused of orchestrating a $23 million scam to steal YouTube royalties from artists, pleaded guilty to fraud and money laundering charges on the eve of a looming trial. Along with business partner Webster Batista Fernandez (who already pleaded guilty), Teran stole millions from Latin artists under the name “MediaMuv” in what amounts to one of the largest royalty scams in history.
Two men who were allegedly shot outside a pre-Super Bowl party that followed a Justin Bieber concert last year have filed a wide-ranging lawsuit Bieber and Kodak Black, among a host of other defendants.
Plaintiffs Mark Schaefer and Adam Rahman are alleging negligence, battery, assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress in claims brought by lawyer Gloria Allred over injuries they say they suffered during the Feb. 11, 2022, incident, which occurred outside Los Angeles restaurant The Nice Guy where the party was being held. Filed Thursday (Feb. 9) and obtained by Billboard, the suit claims that the defendants “negligently breached the duties owed to Plaintiffs” by “failing to provide adequate security; failing to warn Plaintiffs of the danger; increasing the likelihood of violence; and/or instigating, escalating, and exacerbating the impact of the violence.”
Kodak Black is solely named on a total of three counts — assault, battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress — with the plaintiffs singling out his conduct as a “substantial factor” in causing them harm.
The complaint goes on to claim that both plaintiffs suffered “physical pain, mental suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, disfigurement, physical impairment, inconvenience, grief, anxiety, humiliation, and severe emotional distress,” along with financial harm including medical expenses and lost earnings. Schaefer and Rahman are asking for general, special and punitive/exemplary damages in amounts to be determined at trial.
Reps for Kodak Black and Bieber did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
On the night of the party, which was held on Feb. 11, 2022, the LAPD reported that four men, reportedly including Kodak Black, were shot outside The Nice Guy. Videos posted to TMZ and social media showed Black posing for photos with a group of people outside the restaurant when a fight broke out. Black was among several people involved in the scuffle when shots rang out, sending everyone at the scene running for cover.
The party followed Bieber’s private concert at the Pacific Design Center in West Hollywood, Calif., which was held as part of “Homecoming Weekend” — a series of events held in advance of that year’s Super Bowl. Guests at the bash also reportedly included Jeff Bezos, Hamilton actor Anthony Ramos, NFL Hall-of-Famer Tony Gonzalez, Drake, Khloe Kardashian, Tobey Maguire and Bieber’s wife Hailey Bieber.
A federal appeals court on Monday (Feb. 13) rejected an antitrust lawsuit accusing Ticketmaster and Live Nation of exploiting its “impregnable market power” to foist inflated prices on hundreds of thousands of fans, ruling that concertgoers forfeited their right to sue when they bought their tickets.
In a 24-page ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld an earlier ruling that dismissed the proposed class action, saying that when the fans purchased their tickets, they had agreed to settle any disputes with Ticketmaster via private arbitration rather than in open court.
On appeal, attorneys for the plaintiffs had challenged the validity of that agreement, arguing it had not been presented clearly enough to customers. But in Monday’s decision, the appeals court was unswayed.
“At three independent stages — when creating an account, signing into an account, and completing a purchase — Ticketmaster and Live Nation webpage users are presented with a confirmation button above which text informs the user that, by clicking on this button, ‘you agree to our Terms of Use,’” Judge Danny J. Boggs wrote for a panel of three judges. “A reasonable user would have seen the notice and been able to locate the terms via hyperlink.”
The ruling came as Live Nation and Ticketmaster are facing heightened scrutiny over their market power in the wake of a disastrous November rollout of tickets to Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour.
The incident, which saw widespread service delays and website crashes, has prompted calls from lawmakers in Washington D.C. to break up Live Nation and Ticketmaster, which merged to create their current structure in 2010. It has also spawned investigations from attorneys general around the country and at least two antitrust class actions. The DOJ is also reportedly investigating Live Nation for antitrust violations, though the probe predated the Swift tour debacle.
The case decided on Monday was filed back in 2020 but raised similar accusations to critics who have spoken out in the wake of the Swift incident. Aiming to represent “hundreds of thousands if not millions” of customers, the proposed class action alleged that Live Nation’s dominance allowed it to increase prices for consumers and perform other “predatory acts” — calling it a “monster” that “must be stopped.”
“Defendants’ anticompetitive scheme has been wildly successful and today threatens to put nearly all ticketing services for major concert venues (primary and secondary) in the United States under Ticketmaster’s monopolistic thumb,” the accusers wrote in their April 2020 complaint.
But the case was quickly tossed out. A federal judge ruled in 2021 that Live Nation and Ticketmaster users had clearly assented to a form of so-called clickwrap agreement — a common online tool that presents users with terms of service before proceeding — that required them to resolve any such claims against Live Nation via a private arbitration process.
Monday’s ruling upheld that decision for Live Nation. The appeals court said the company’s agreement was not the kind of “pure clickwrap” that offers users the clearest presentation of terms of service, but the court said it also was not “browsewrap” — a less effective form of user agreement where terms are “hidden in links located at the bottom of webpages.” Whatever the format, the appeals court said Live Nation’s version “did enough” to pass legal muster.
“Appellees’ notice is conspicuously displayed directly above or below the action button at each of three independent stages that a user must complete before purchasing tickets,” Judge Boggs wrote for the court. “Crucially, the ‘Terms of Use’ hyperlink is conspicuously distinguished from the surrounding text in bright blue font, making its presence readily apparent.”
The ruling will effectively end the current case, but a second similar lawsuit against Live Nation (filed by the same team of attorneys from the law firm Quinn Emmanuel) based on slightly tweaked allegations is still pending in a lower federal court.
Both a representative for Live Nation and an attorney for the plaintiffs did not immediately return a request for comment on the Ninth Circuit’s ruling.
Drake’s lawyers are firing back at efforts to force the superstar to sit for a deposition over the murder of XXXtentacion, claiming he has no connection at all to the crime and that defense attorneys are merely trying to “add more layers of celebrity and notoriety” to the case.
Just days after a Florida judge ordered Drake to appear for such a deposition by Feb. 24, the rapper’s lawyers argued in a new motion filed on Sunday that there is no evidence suggesting that he was in any way connected to XXXTentacion’s 2018 shooting death.
“It is both unreasonable and oppressive to subpoena an out of state party who has not been mentioned in any reports, any investigation, or referenced to have any involvement in this matter,” Drake’s attorney Bradford M. Cohen wrote in the response filing. “To mandate that he appear for deposition for something that he very clearly has no relevant knowledge of is unreasonable.”
Prosecutors have never claimed that Drake (real name Aubrey Graham) was involved in the death of XXXTentacion (real name Jahseh Onfroy). Instead, they charged four Florida men — Dedrick Williams, Trayvon Newsome, Michael Boatwright and Robert Allen – who they allege killed XXX during a robbery that escalated into deadly violence.
But defense attorney Mauricio Padilla, who represents Williams in the case, listed Drake on a star-studded witness list in December. And at opening arguments last week, Padilla suggested that the police had not sufficiently investigated a possible connection to Drake, who allegedly had an existing feud with XXX before his death. Such speculation has been fueled by a 2018 social media post – later deleted – in which XXX said: “If anyone tries to kill me it was @champagnepapi,” referring to Drake by his Instagram name.
Planning to make those arguments at trial, Padilla attempted to force Drake to sit for a Jan. 27 deposition, but he’s claimed in court filings that the star didn’t show up for the hearing. So last week, the judge overseeing the case ordered Drake to either appear for a deposition via Zoom on Feb. 24, or risk being held in contempt of court.
In Sunday’s filing, Drake’s lawyers pushed to set that order aside. They said the subpoena was not properly served on the superstar, meaning he had been under no procedural obligation to show up. And even if it had been, they argued that he has no connection to the case that requires a deposition in the first place: “No evidence has been provided to substantiate the assertion that the Non-Party in any way contributed to, had knowledge of, or participated in the alleged incident.”
Instead, Drake’s lawyers pointed to the fact that prosecutors plan to show jurors video evidence of the defendants committing the crime. And they cited that headline-grabbing December witness list — which also listed Quavo, Offset, Tekashi 6ix9ine, Joe Budden and even the late Migos rapper Takeoff after he had already been killed – as evidence that defense attorneys were merely trying to pull unrelated big names into the case.
“It would appear, based on the names mentioned on the witness list filed by defendant’s counsel, that the intent to subpoena [Drake] is less for the purpose of discovering relevant evidence and testimony, but instead add more layers of celebrity and notoriety to a tragic and unfortunate event,” the star’s lawyers wrote.
Padilla, the defense attorney who is seeking to depose Drake, did not immediately return a request for comment Monday on Drake’s response filing.
Less than two months after the defense team for Dedrick Williams — one of the three suspects on trial for the murder of XXXtentacion — listed a slew of artists as potential witnesses in December, one of those artists is now being ordered to appear in court.
Due to a feud between Drake and the late rapper born Jahseh Onfroy, who was shot and killed in 2018, defense attorney Mauricio Padilla believes the Certified Lover Boy superstar is connected to XXX’s death — and in an effort to solidify that claim, he tried to subpoena the Certified Lover Boy rapper last month. But according to a court document obtained by Billboard, Drake failed to appear on his scheduled deposition date of Jan. 27 and is now being ordered to appear for a deposition on Feb. 24 via Zoom video. If he fails to appear again, he may be held in contempt.
A representative for Drake did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Drake’s alleged involvement in the murder stems from unsubstantiated rumors that swirled following XXXtentacion’s death, connected with a 2017 beef over what XXX believed to be a rip-off by Drake of his flows from breakout track “Look at Me!” on Drake’s “KMT.” A year after the drama, a story was posted to XXX’s Instagram page that read, “If anyone tries to kill me it was @champagnepapi,” tagging Drake’s Instagram handle. Afterward, XXXtentacion claimed his account was hacked; he was killed four months later in Deerfield Beach, Fla.
According to a December court filing, “Onfroy relentlessly taunted Graham on social media making statements about his mother and even posting a picture of a Drake look alike with semen on his face,” following frustrations that Drake didn’t lend him a hand during his time behind bars in 2016-17. Tensions continued to escalate, with XXX allegedly involving DJ Akademiks by asking the media personality to repost the photo. The filing went on to accuse Drake of having ties to “gang related activities” while naming Somali Canadian rapper Hassan Ali, a “suspected member of the Jungle Bloods Street Gang,” as a possible associate (Drake has publicly been connected to Ali via his own Instagram posts). In an interview, Ali also told Akademiks that he’s “Drake’s shooter.”
In the December filing, Padilla also listed Quavo, Offset, late Migos rapper Takeoff, Tekashi 6ix9ine and Joe Budden as potential witnesses, but at a subsequent hearing reported on by the Miami Herald, prosecutors called the move a stunt. “It is apparent from the deliberate, late disclosure of the defendant’s witnesses and comments made between the parties that [the] defendant intended to ‘surprise’ the state and create a trial by ambush,” wrote prosecutor Pascale Achille, as reported by the Herald. Broward Country Circuit Judge Michael Usan then demanded answers from Padilla in writing as to why the superstars were relevant to the case.
“They are high-profile people. And it’s not easy for me to subpoena,” Padilla answered. “I don’t have numbers, but it doesn’t mean I won’t be able to. Trying to subpoena Drake is not easy — you need a drone.”
Vinyl producer Mobile Fidelity has reached a settlement that could be worth as much as $25 million to resolve allegations that the company’s pricey “all analog” records were secretly created using digital methods. But some customers strongly object to the deal, saying it’s “tainted by the stink of collusion.”
The proposed agreement, first publicly filed in court last month, would allow tens of thousands of MoFi customers to secure a full refund for any eligible records that they purchased. Alternatively, it would also allow them to keep their albums and instead take a 5% cash refund or a 10% refund in credit.
The final monetary total depends on how many consumers utilize the settlement and which options they choose, but court filings say the money available under the deal is “expected to be over $25 million.” Under the settlement, MoFi will continue to deny any wrongdoing.
But the deal is not final, and it’s already facing stiff objections from attorneys who filed similar lawsuits against MoFi. They say the settlement was struck without their input, by “ineffectual” lawyers who took a bad deal: “Despite this clear abdication of their duties to class members, counsel … are now trying to ram an inadequate, collusive settlement through this court.”
The scandal at MoFi first erupted last summer, after Phoenix-area record store owner Mike Esposito posted a pair of videos to YouTube alleging that the company’s “all-analog” and “triple analog” records were in fact partially created using so-called direct stream digital technology. In one of the videos, MoFi’s engineers appeared to confirm that some digital tech had in fact been used in production.
As reported by the Washington Post, the digital revelations created “something of an existential crisis” in the analog-obsessed vinyl community. In a statement in late July, MoFi apologized for using “vague language” and for “taking for granted the goodwill and trust” of its customers: “We recognize our conduct has resulted in both anger and confusion in the marketplace. Moving forward, we are adopting a policy of 100% transparency regarding the provenance of our audio products.”
But the apology wasn’t enough to avoid litigation. In early August, a pair MoFi customers named Stephen J. Tuttle and Dustin Collman filed a proposed class action in Washington federal court, claiming the company’s analog branding had been “deceptive and misleading” and had duped them into paying premium prices.
Later, at least four more similar cases over the analog scandal were filed in federal courts around the country, including a class action filed in Illinois on behalf of a MoFi buyer named Adam Stiles, who claimed the company had “intentionally hid this fact from consumers.”
“When defendant began using a digital mastering process in its records as opposed to purely analog, it inherently produced less valuable records — because the records were no longer of limited quantity and were not as close to the studio recording — yet still charged the higher price,” the lawyers for Stiles wrote at the time.
The proposed settlement, first filed on Jan. 15 in the lawsuit filed by Tuttle and Collman, is expected to cover at least 40,000 consumers who purchased records marketed as analog. The “total gross value” of the refunds and credits available to consumers is over $25 million, according to the agreement; the lawyers who filed the case will be paid $290,000 for their services.
Seeking approval of the settlement, attorneys for both sides argued the deal was reached through “arm’s-length negotiations” and represents “a fair compromise in light of potential risks of continued litigation.” They warned that if the case continued, MoFi might have success in defending itself by arguing that the customers didn’t actually suffer any real harm by buying the digitally-processed records.
In a statement to Billboard in response to a request for comment on the proposed settlement, MoFi lead counsel Joseph J. Madonia said: “Unfortunately, we can’t comment on pending litigation, but MoFi stands behind its records and is offering anyone who is not satisfied a refund.”
While the new settlement was filed solely in one case (the case filed by Tuttle and Collman), it would cover all applicable MoFi buyers nationwide — including those who filed the separate cases in other courts and weren’t involved in negotiating the deal. If the agreement is approved, those other customers would be eligible for the same refunds, but they would also be barred from continuing to bring their own claims against MoFi.
Faced with that scenario, the attorneys who filed those other cases are none-too-pleased about the deal.
In a Jan. 27 filing, the lawyers who filed the Illinois case on behalf of Stiles decried the agreement as a “reverse auction” settlement, alleging that MoFi essentially shopped around between the various lawsuits and picked the most “ineffectual” lawyers it could find in order to get the cheapest nationwide settlement possible. They claimed MoFi’s lawyer had directly stated that he would “pick the lowest bidder” from the five class actions.
“There is no doubt that the [settling] plaintiffs have inadequately represented the class,” they wrote, saying that the settlement will be “perpetually tainted by the stink of collusion.”
An attorney for the settling customers declined to comment on the allegations of “collusion” and “reverse auctions.” A representative for MoFi declined to comment directly on those claims, but in a court document filed this week in the Stiles case, the company’s attorneys flatly rejected those allegations, arguing that the proposed settlement would “afford the best possible representation for the class.”
Attorneys for the objecting customers did not immediately return a request for comment on Thursday (Feb. 9).
Lawyers for YNW Melly have launched an appeal to the Florida Supreme Court, asking the court to overturn a ruling last year that said the rapper could face the death penalty if convicted in his upcoming murder trial.
In an opening brief filed last month, Melly’s lawyers urged Florida’s top court to rule that prosecutors had forfeited the right to seek capital punishment. They say the government failed to give Melly and his attorneys proper notice that they planned to do so, violating strict procedural rules.
In making their argument to the state high court, the rapper’s lawyers said the justices should take the case because it raises issues of “great public importance” beyond Melly’s individual charges.
“Death penalty law is an area where it is in the clear interest of everyone — defendants, victims, lawyers, judges, etc. — to have precisely defined and easily understood rules,” Melly’s attorneys, Daniel Tibbitt and Philip R. Horowitz, wrote in the Jan. 27 brief.
Melly (real name Jamell Demons) has spent years awaiting trial on first-degree murder charges over accusations that he and another YNW rapper shot and killed Anthony “YNW Sakchaser” Williams and Christopher “YNW Juvy” Thomas Jr. in 2018.
A first-degree murder defendant in Florida would typically face the possibility of execution if convicted, but Melly’s attorneys argued in April that the state had failed to comply with strict laws on how they must warn defendants that they’ll seek the death penalty.
Florida requires prosecutors to give notice 45 days after arraignment if they plan to seek capital punishment. In Melly’s case, the state attorney filed such a notice when they originally indicted the rapper in 2019, but failed to do so when a so-called superseding indictment was handed down earlier this year.
In July, a trial judge sided with Melly’s attorneys and said prosecutors had forfeited the chance to seek death. But in November, an appeals court ruled the judge’s decision was incorrect. The court wrote that since prosecutors gave notice that they might seek death when they first charged Melly in 2019, they had complied with state rules: “Notice is notice.”
In taking the case to the Florida Supreme Court last month, Melly’s lawyers argued the state rules “plainly require” new notice be filed when a new indictment is handed down.
“The Petitioner was arraigned on a new indictment, and the State did not file the requisite notice within 45 days of that arraignment (or ever),” the rapper’s lawyers wrote. “The State relies on a notice that was filed as to an original indictment that is, and has been since the filing of the new indictment, a legal nullity.”
An attorney for the state of Florida did not immediately return a request for comment. The state can file a response to the brief in the months ahead.
A family friend of the rapper XXXTentacion broke down Tuesday (Feb. 7) as he told jurors how he and the rapper were ambushed by armed robbers as they drove away from a motorcycle shop, how he fled in fear and then heard the gunshots that killed the rising star.
Leonard Kerr’s testimony highlighted the opening day in the trial of three men accused of fatally shooting XXXTentacion on June 18, 2018, inside his BMW sports car, which had been blocked by an SUV as Kerr and the rapper pulled out of the Riva Motorsports’ parking lot near Fort Lauderdale.
Two men jumped out with guns, Kerr said. He said the taller man pointed his weapon at him and told him not to get out of the car, punctuating his command with a curse word. The other man was trying to pull the rapper’s gold chain from his neck. Kerr said he could hear XXXTentacion asking, “What’s this for?” At that point, Kerr said, he decided to escape, pushing the button that opened the passenger door.
“If I run, I can get shot, but I can live. If I sit….” Kerr said, his voicing trailing off until he stopped to regain his composure.
Kerr said when he looked back, the taller man was pointing his gun at XXXTentacion, and he said he heard at least two loud bangs. The men then got back into the SUV and sped off, taking with them the $50,000 the rapper had in his designer bag.
Michael Boatwright, 28, is accused of being the shooter, while his friend, Trayon Newsome, 24, is accused of being the other gunman. Dedrick Williams, 26, is accused of being the driver. They could all receive life sentences if convicted of first-degree murder. A fourth man who prosecutors say was in the SUV, 26-year-old Robert Allen, pleaded guilty last year to second-degree murder and is set to testify against his former friends.
During opening statements earlier Tuesday, the jurors heard divergent theories about the shooting. A robbery gone awry, according to prosecutors. According to the defense, it could have been a feud between XXXTentacion and the megastar Drake, but they say detectives refused to investigate that possibility.
Prosecutor Pascale Achille told jurors that Boatwright, Newsome, Williams and Allen, set out that day to commit armed robberies. Allen and Williams went inside the motorcycle shop to buy masks, she said.
There, they happened upon XXXTentacion, who, according to Kerr, had the $50,000 he had just gotten from the bank hanging out of his bag. The pair recognized him, and the group seized upon the opportunity, deciding to rob him as he left, Achille said. Boatwright shot him several times “without any provocation,” she said.
To varying degrees, the defendants are linked to the shooting by surveillance video and cellphone locations, and all are implicated through Allen’s expected testimony, Achille said. Then there are the social media photos of some of the men flashing the money posted that night, she said.
“They go on social media and start bragging that they have this influx of cash,” Achille said. “They flash it like it’s Christmas Day.”
To the men’s attorneys, the defendants are victims of Robert Allen’s lies and the failure of detectives to investigate XXXTentacion’s feud with Drake — XXXTentacion once said on social media that if he ever wound up dead, the Canadian rapper would be the cause. He later retracted that. Another rapper had also made threats against XXXTentacion.
They said that with the rapper’s slaying coming just four months after the slaying of 17 people at nearby Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, the Broward Sheriff’s Office was under extreme political pressure to solve the case quickly.
“For Broward County, for everyone involved, this was a nightmare,” said Mauricio Padilla, Williams’ attorney.
That’s why they wanted no part with investigating a celebrity, he said.
Prosecutors say there is no evidence linking Drake to the shooting, and Williams is clearly seen in the store’s surveillance video, recognizable through his distinctive facial tattoos. He was also identified by one of the clerks. Padilla conceded Williams was present in the store but didn’t say how he would explain that.
Joseph Kimok, Boatwright’s attorney, also pointed the finger at a third man as the possible shooter — a friend Williams was seen talking to inside the motorcycle store just before the shooting who has the same build as his client. He alluded that the friend could have gotten into the SUV Williams was driving outside the view of surveillance cameras. He said the evidence will show that Boatwright was asleep at the home he shared with his grandmother at the time of the shooting.
“At no point (in the surveillance videos) will you see Mr. Boatwright, because he wasn’t there,” Kimok said.
Yes, a cellphone linked to him was near the store — but that was a community phone used by several men, he said. And yes, he “very stupidly posed” with money that night — but that money was Allen’s, not Boatwright’s, Kimok said.
Newsome’s attorney also denied that his client was present.
The victim (born Jahseh Onfroy) was a platinum-selling rising star who tackled issues including prejudice and depression in his songs. He also drew criticism over bad behavior and multiple arrests, including charges that he severely beat and abused his girlfriend.
In an upcoming courtroom showdown, is a YouTube video of Ed Sheeran switching between his “Thinking Out Loud” and Marvin Gaye‘s “Let’s Get It On” a smoking gun? Or just smoke and mirrors?
Facing a trial in April over whether his smash hit infringed Gaye‘s iconic song, Sheeran’s lawyers asked a federal judge Tuesday (Feb. 7) to block his accusers from citing that clip, which captures the star at a 2014 concert entertaining the crowd by seamlessly toggling between the two songs.
The problem? Sheeran’s lawyers say the mash-up video is falsely incriminating. It could look to jurors like damning evidence that Sheeran copied “Let’s Get It On,” they say, but only actually shows that both songs contain a common chord progression — one that isn’t covered by copyrights and was “freely available to all songwriters.”
“There are dozens if not hundreds of songs that predate and postdate LGO utilizing the same or similar chord progression,” Sheeran’s lawyers wrote. “These medleys are irrelevant to any issue in the case and would be misleading [and] confuse the jury.”
The case against Sheeran was filed way back in 2017 by heirs of Ed Townsend, who co-wrote “Let’s Get It On.” Gaye’s heirs, who once famously sued Robin Thicke over accusations that his “Blurred Lines” was stolen from the legendary singer, are not involved in the case.
Sheeran’s lawyers have long argued that the star did nothing wrong, since “Thinking Out Loud” and “Let’s Get It On” share only “unprotectable and commonplace elements” that are not covered by copyright law. But Judge Louis D. Stanton has repeatedly refused to decide the case in their favor, ruling that the dispute is close enough that it must be decided by a jury.
In the lead-up to the trial, attorneys for the Townsend heirs filed a formal notice that they planned to play the YouTube clip for jurors. In the video — a 6-minute snippet of a November 2014 concert in Zurich that’s been viewed nearly 300,000 times — Sheeran abruptly switches from “Thinking” to “Lets” and back again, drawing huge cheers from the crowd.
It’s not surprising that Sheeran’s accusers want to use the medley video. In a 2019 ruling in which he sent the case to trial, Judge Stanton specifically highlighted the clip as potential evidence that might resonate with jurors, saying they “may be impressed by footage of a Sheeran performance which shows him seamlessly transitioning between LGO and TOL.”
But in Tuesday’s objections, Sheeran’s lawyers argued that the jury would be impressed for all the wrong reasons.
“The admission of this evidence will mislead the jury and cause unjustified prejudice – suggesting to the jury, inaccurately, that segueing from singing the lyrics of TOL over the TOL chord progression to singing a snippet of the lyrics of LGO over the TOL chord progression is ‘evidence’ that Sheeran copied LGO,” they wrote.
Sheeran’s lawyers also argued that letting such evidence play a key role in the upcoming trial would have a broader “chilling effect” on the music industry and on medleys, which they called an “important, enduring aspect of live concerts.”
“Such ‘mash-ups’ underscore the fact … that music has been, and always will be, built on commonplace and unprotectable musical building blocks freely available to all composers to use,” Sheeran’s lawyers wrote, but allowing it to serve as evidence would deter artists “for fear of creating a suggestion of infringement and encouraging unfounded claims.”
In a statement to Billboard, the Townsend heirs attorney Patrick R. Frank strongly disagreed with Sheeran’s attorneys, pointing directly to Judge Stanton’s previous ruling about the medley clip’s potential value to jurors.
“The passage of time has not diminished the acknowledged evidentiary significance of the medley,” Frank said. “I suspect that if there was, in fact, a legally-cognizable basis for [Sheeran’s motion], we would have seen the motion quite some time ago, as opposed to on the proverbial ‘eve’ an imminent trial.”
Frank will file his own formal response to Sheeran’s motion in court in the coming weeks.
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: Lizzo wins a key ruling in her efforts to secure trademark protection for ‘100% That B-tch,” Taylor Swift calls a lawsuit over her Lovers companion book “legally and factually baseless,” Kanye’s lawyers finally track him down long enough to drop him as a client, and much more.
THE BIG STORY: Lizzo Is Now – Legally Speaking – ‘100% That B-tch’
A Grammy for record of the year wasn’t all Lizzo won last week.
Just days before her big Grammy win Sunday night, a tribunal at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office sided with the superstar in her quest to secure a federal trademark registration for “100% That B-tch” – the iconic lyric from her breakout single “Truth Hurts.”
Last year, the agency had rejected Lizzo’s application for the trademark on the grounds that it was merely a commonplace “motivational phrase” aimed at “female empowerment,” not the kind of unique brand name that’s eligible for trademark protection.
But the USPTO’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) overturned that ruling last week, saying that consumers who see the phrase on apparel would likely “associate the term with Lizzo and her music.”
For a full breakdown of Lizzo’s legal victory, including access to all the actual court documents, go read our story here.
Other top stories this week…
SWIFT RIPS COPYRIGHT SUIT – Taylor Swift‘s attorneys asked a federal judge to toss out a copyright case claiming the star stole aspects of a self-published book of poetry when she created a companion book for her album Lover, calling it “a lawsuit that never should have been filed.”
LAW FIRM FINDS KANYE – After months of searching, attorneys from the law firm Greenberg Traurig said they had finally tracked down Kanye West and formally notified him that he’s no longer a client of the firm, ending a bizarre ordeal in which the lawyers said they’d be willing to run newspaper ads to be rid of the disgraced rapper.
COGNAC UNDER THE BRIDGE – Jay-Z and Bacardi reached an agreement to end bitter litigation over their D’Ussé Cognac brand. Under the deal, Bacardi will take over a “majority interest” in the company, which was previously split 50-50 between the two sides.
COACHELLA v. MOECHELLA – The organizers of Coachella filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against the operators of a Washington D.C.-based music event called “Moechella,” accusing the smaller group of confusing consumers with the similar name.
RAPHY PINA LOSES APPEAL – A federal appeals court upheld a federal gun conviction against Daddy Yankee’s manager Raphy Pina, citing “overwhelming” evidence. The court overturned a separate conviction over an illegal automatic weapon, but it’s unclear if the ruling will reduce Pina’s 41 month sentence.
NICK CARTER STRIKES BACK – Two months after Nick Carter was hit with a civil lawsuit claiming he raped a 17-year-old girl on his tour bus in 2001, the Backstreet Boys member filed a countersuit claiming the allegations were the product of a “five-year conspiracy,” designed to extort him by coopting the #MeToo movement.