Legal
Page: 13
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: Prosecutors file a first-of-its-kind criminal case against an alleged streaming fraudster who made $10 million with fake songs; the White Stripes file a copyright case against Donald Trump over use of their music; Spotify wins a strongly-worded ruling dismissing a long-running lawsuit filed by Eminem’s publisher; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: Streaming Fraud Finally Goes To Court
When Manhattan federal prosecutors indicted a North Carolina musician named Michael Smith last week, accusing him of stealing $10 million in streaming royalties as part of a “brazen fraud scheme,” they told a story that much of the music industry already knew. Streaming fraud – artificially boosting traffic for certain songs – has been a growing problem for years. One study found that 1% to 3% of plays in France in 2021 were fraudulent; a 2022 report by fraud-detection service Beatdapp estimated that more than 10% of global streams were fake. And this isn’t the scam from “Office Space,” stealing fractions of a penny from a faceless tech giant. Because royalties are calculated as a percentage of a finite pie, every phony stream represents real money being diverted away from music that consumers actually played and the artists who created it. In the first-of-its-kind indictment, the feds say Smith created thousands of fake songs, then used an army of bots to play them billions of times on Spotify and other streamers. At one point, Smith estimated that he could play his songs 661,440 times each day, raking in as much as $1.2 million per year. Prosecutors say Smith’s plot was aided by artificial intelligence – another growing problem for the industry. When he couldn’t create enough fake tracks to make the scam work, Smith allegedly partnered with an unnamed executive at an A.I. music company to produce grist for his mill, funneling money back in the form of percentage cuts. For more details go read Kristin Robinson’s stories – on the filing of the charges, and on an AI company with strong ties to the accused fraudster.
Trending on Billboard
Other top stories this week…
“SUES FASCISTS” – The White Stripes filed a copyright lawsuit against Donald Trump for using their iconic “Seven Nation Army” in a social media post, arguing that any association with the president was “offensive” because they “vehemently oppose” his policies and his bid for another term in the White House. In announcing the case, Jack White included a screenshot of the complaint with the caption “this machine sues fascists” – an allusion to Woody Guthrie’s famous use of a sticker reading “this machine kills fascists” on his guitar during World War II. The White Stripes are the latest in a long list of musical artists to threaten or take legal action against Trump over his use of music. LOSE YOUR CASE – Spotify defeated a long-running lawsuit filed by Eminem’s publisher, Eight Mile Style, that claimed the rapper’s music had been streamed illegally “billions” of times on the platform. Rather than order Spotify to pay, the judge sharply criticized Eight Mile for suing in the first place, ruling that the company had effectively manufactured the lawsuit in an effort to win legal damages. “Eight Mile Style was not a hapless victim,” the judge wrote. DIDDY DAMAGES – A Michigan inmate named Derrick Lee Cardello-Smith won a $100 million default judgment against Sean “Diddy” Combs in a sexual assault lawsuit — an eye-popping figure that was handed down after the rapper did not show up in court or file any formal response to the case. Following the ruling, Combs’ lawyers strongly denied that the rapper was served with the lawsuit and said he “looks forward to having this judgment swiftly dismissed.” GUESS WHO TRUCE – The members of classic rock band The Guess Who settled a bitter trademark lawsuit in which two bandmates (Randy Bachman and Burton Cummings) referred to a recent iteration of the group run by two others (Jim Kale and Garry Peterson) as nothing more than a “cover band.” COPYRIGHT CLAPBACK – Verizon fired back at a lawsuit filed by Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group and Sony Music Entertainment over allegations of “staggering” piracy on its network. The labels claim Verizon “buried its head in the sand” and enabled illegal filesharing, but in a motion to dismiss, the telecom giant blasted the “legally deficient” premise of the case: “When people do bad things online, their internet service providers are not typically the ones to blame. This lawsuit claims otherwise.”
A Michigan inmate has won a $100 million default judgment against Sean “Diddy” Combs in a sexual assault lawsuit, an eye-popping figure handed down after the rapper did not show up in court or file any formal response to the case.
The huge judgment, confirmed by Billboard from court records, was issued by a Michigan state judge in Lenawee County to Derrick Lee Cardello-Smith – one of numerous people to accuse the embattled rapper of sexual abuse over the past year.
The ruling is a so-called default judgment, a kind of legal award granted when an accused party doesn’t respond to a legal action. At a hearing last month, a judge said that Combs had been properly served with the lawsuit, and court records indicate that he never answered the claims.
Trending on Billboard
In a statement to Billboard, Combs’ attorney Marc Agnifilo strongly denied that his client had ever been served with the lawsuit and said the rapper “looks forward to having this judgment swiftly dismissed.”
“This man is a convicted felon and sexual predator, who has been sentenced on 14 counts of sexual assault and kidnapping over the last 26 years,” Agnifilo said. “His resume now includes committing a fraud on the court from prison, as Mr. Combs has never heard of him let alone been served with any lawsuit.”
If lawyers for the rapper now respond to the lawsuit, they could seek to overturn the default judgment and proceed to normal litigation, where Cardello-Smith would need to prove his allegations to a jury before securing a judgment.
Once one of the most powerful men in the music industry, Diddy has been hit with at least seven civil lawsuits alleging sexual abuse over the past year, including claims by ex-girlfriend Cassie Ventura that were later followed by a video showing him assaulting her. The hip-hop mogul is also facing an apparent federal criminal investigation after authorities raided his homes in March.
Though the rapper has denied the legal allegations against him, he issued an apology in May over his conduct captured on the video of the Ventura attack: “My behavior on that video is inexcusable. I take full responsibility for my actions in that video.”
According to Michigan inmate records, Cardello-Smith, 51, is serving multiple, decades-long sentences for a variety of crimes, including first-degree criminal sexual conduct and two counts of kidnapping. The earliest he can be released from prison is 2036.
Cardello-Smith sued Combs in June, claiming the rapper had spiked his drink and sexually assaulted him at a party in 1997. At a court hearing last month, he told a judge that the rapper had personally visited him in prison after he filed the lawsuit and offered him $2.3 million to drop his case.
At that same hearing, the inmate alleged that Combs had told him that he would not appear in court or respond to the lawsuit, saying “You know how we get down.” Cardello-Smith told the judge that he responded by telling Combs “I disagree with how you get down” and rejecting the settlement offer.
The lawsuit against Combs is not the first civil action Cardello-Smith has filed from behind bars. Last year, he sued a Detroit-area Catholic archdiocese, alleging he had been sexually abused by a priest and others between 1979 and 1993. The case was dismissed last month by state appeals court, which ruled that Cardello-Smith’s allegations were barred by the statute of limitations.
The White Stripes have filed a copyright lawsuit against Donald Trump for using “Seven Nation Army” in a social media post, making good on threats to sue the Republican presidential candidate.
In a complaint filed Monday in Manhattan federal court, Jack White and Meg White accused Trump and his campaign of “flagrant misappropriation” of one of the “most well-known and influential musical works of all time.”
The lawsuit accuses Trump not only of infringing the band’s rights to the song, but also of violating federal trademark law by falsely suggesting the duo support his bid for another presidential term.
“The new association with Defendant Trump that Defendants have foisted upon Plaintiffs through the Infringing Trump Videos is even more offensive to Plaintiffs because Plaintiffs vehemently oppose the policies adopted and actions taken by Defendant Trump when he was President and those he has proposed for the second term he seeks,” attorneys for the White Stripes wrote.
In a social media post announcing the lawsuit, White included a screenshot of the complaint with a one-line caption: “This machine sues fascists.”
The filing of the case came less than two weeks after White blasted Trump over the apparent use of his song. In the disputed clip, posted by the former president’s deputy director of communications, Trump ascends the stairs of a plane as the iconic bass riff of “Seven Nation Army” plays.
“Oh….Don’t even think about using my music you fascists,” White began. “Law suit coming from my lawyers about this (to add to your 5 thousand others.)”
Numerous artists have spoken out about in recent weeks about Trump’s use of their music. Beyoncé, Celine Dion, the Foo Fighters, ABBA and Sinead O’Connor‘s estate have all spoken out against the former president’s use of their songs.
Most of the complaints have come as public statements or cease-and-desist letters, but others have taken legal action before the White Stripes. In August, the estate of Isaac Hayes sued in federal court, accusing the campaign of using his “Hold On, I’m Coming” at rallies and in video recordings of those events. Last week, the Hayes estate won an injunction barring the use of the song while the case plays out.
The use of copyrighted music at campaign rallies is a sometimes murky issue, with candidates often claiming that they secured a blanket license from ASCAP or BMI to perform the track. But the use of a song in a video is more straightforward; if a candidate hasn’t secured a sync license directly from the artist or their label, it is copyright infringement to use it.
In their lawsuit on Monday, the White Stripes said that Trump knew or should have known that he needed a license to play their song in his video — citing the fact that he has been “on the receiving end of numerous copyright claims by musical artists whose work he used without permission.”
The band also cited its previous opposition to his use of their music. Back in 2016, the White Stripes “publicly denounced” Trump for using their songs, saying that they were “disgusted by that association.”
A representative for the Trump campaign did not immediately return a request for comment.
Spotify has defeated a long-running lawsuit that claimed Eminem’s music was streamed illegally “billions” of times on the platform, winning a ruling that sharply criticized the rapper’s publisher for filing the case in the first place.
Eminem’s publisher, Eight Mile Style, sued Spotify in 2019, claiming the streamer had made hundreds of the rapper’s songs available without proper licenses. That included mega-hits like “Lose Yourself,” which has been streamed more than 1 billion times on the service.
But in a decision last month, a federal judge dismissed those accusations entirely, ruling that Eight Mile had essentially manufactured a lawsuit for its own gain. The publisher knew for years that its songs were being played on Spotify, the judge wrote, but had chosen to do nothing in order to build a more lucrative legal case against the streamer.
Trending on Billboard
“Eight Mile Style was not a hapless victim,” Judge Aleta A. Trauger wrote. “While Spotify’s handling of composer copyrights appears to have been seriously flawed, any right to recover damages based on those flaws belongs to those innocent rights holders who were genuinely harmed, not ones who, like Eight Mile Style, had every opportunity to set things right and simply chose not to do so for no apparent reason, other than that being the victim of infringement pays better than being an ordinary licensor.”
An attorney for Eight Mile Style did not immediately return a request for comment on the decision. Eminem himself was not involved in the case.
At the center of the long legal battle is the chaotic system that governed streaming royalties in the U.S. for much of the 2010s, in which streamers like Spotify often failed to pay the proper rights holders. That messy situation was mostly fixed by the 2018 enactment of the federal Music Modernization Act (MMA), which created a single blanket license for streamers to pay.
The MMA largely immunized streamers like Spotify from lawsuits over past misdeeds, wiping the slate clean if they paid for the blanket license and complied with other requirements. But a year after the statute was enacted, Eight Mile sued anyway — arguing, among other things, that the landmark law itself was unconstitutional because it violated due process and negated the company’s copyrights.
In her ruling last month, Judge Trauger entirely avoided those lofty constitutional questions about the MMA, saying she would leave them “for a future case involving an appropriate plaintiff.” But like other aspects of her ruling, she suggested that “teeing up a constitutional showdown” had been another “strategic” decision by Eight Mile aimed at securing a bigger payout.
“The MMA framework was the culmination of what may have been one of the most high-stakes policymaking efforts in the history of copyright, and whether that framework survives has implications for the economy of music that go far beyond the rights of any individual artist, even a popular one like Eminem,” the judge wrote. “A lawsuit that imperiled the MMA could cost Spotify a great deal more than any one artist could ever claim — and could, potentially, justify a more generous settlement.”
In technical terms, Judge Trauger’s ruling cited the legal doctrine of equitable estoppel, which bars litigants from behaving unfairly to win advantage in court cases. In applying that rule to Eight Mile, she said the publisher “improperly chose the cultivation of infringement damages over the proper functioning of the copyright system.”
Eight Mile clearly knew that some of its most valuable IP was being used by Spotify, the judge wrote, and the entire lawsuit could have been avoided if Eight Mile had “simply sent a single, clear cease-and-desist letter.” But she said the company instead “simply allowed its rights to be violated.”
“If Eight Mile Style had come forward to contest the status quo, it would have brought this situation to a much quicker end, but it did not,” Judge Trauger wrote. “The only plausible reason for this course of action is that … allowing infringement to continue on a large scale is more economically beneficial to the purported victim than the licit streaming economy would be.”
Even if Eight Mile’s accusations against Spotify had been legally valid, the judge ruled that the damages wouldn’t have been Spotify’s to pay. Instead, she ruled that the liability would have belonged to Kobalt, because the company had signed a licensing deal with Spotify for the Eminem songs at issue and had agreed to indemnify the streamer for any such legal problems.
As it was, that question was largely moot because the judge had mostly rejected Eight Mile’s lawsuit. But she ruled that Kobalt would likely need to cover Spotify’s legal expenses incurred in defending the lawsuit — likely a sizeable sum after five years of litigation. That issue will be subject to future proceedings.
A representative for Spotify did not immediately return requests for comment. A representative for Kobalt declined to comment.
The members of 1960s rock band The Guess Who have settled a bitter trademark lawsuit in which two bandmates referred to a recent iteration of the group as nothing more than a “cover band.”
In a statement, Randy Bachman and Burton Cummings said they had reached a deal to resolve their lawsuit against fellow original members Jim Kale and Garry Peterson — ending a legal battle among the four original members of the band best known for hits like “American Woman” and “These Eyes.”
Under the deal, Bachman and Cummings said they will acquire full control over the trademark to the band’s name. Monetary terms and other aspects of the agreement were not disclosed in the announcement, and no legal papers announcing the settlement have yet been filed in court.
“We are pleased to have reached a resolution that honors our shared history and allows us to move forward with a new sense of purpose and camaraderie,” Bachman said, with Cummings adding that they were “committed to preserving and celebrating the legacy for our fans.”
Trending on Billboard
Attorneys for Kale and Peter didn’t immediately return a request for comment. As recently as April, their attorneys called the lawsuit “a complete farce” and threatened to “hold Bachman and Cummings accountable for their wrongful and extortionate conduct.”
The battle between the members of The Guess Who was just the latest clash between bandmates over the legal rights to classic group names. Journey, Stone Temple Pilots and Jefferson Starship have all fought protracted litigation over their trademarks, as have members of The Rascals, The Ebonys, The Commodores and The Platters.
Such disputes often arise out of one question: Who truly constitutes the band? Is it the members, or an LLC that owns the rights to the name? Is it the original lineup, or the one that produced the biggest hits? Does one key member and a bunch of replacements count? Fans, band members and lawyers will likely give you different answers.
Bachman and Cummings sued last year, claiming that Kale and Peterson were misleading the public by operating a “cover band” under the name The Guess Who. The case claimed that the rival band had never featured Bachman or Cummings, that Kale had retired in 2016 and that Peterson only rarely took the stage — but that the group had been falsely advertised as the real thing.
The lawsuit called the band a “deceptive scheme” driven by Kale and Peterson’s “greed.”
“Defendants’ false advertisements and marketing have led to confusion and outrage by fans and consumers, many of whom have taken to social media to share their experiences of being deceived into buying tickets to see the Cover Band because of advertising and promotion by Defendants implying that the Cover Band’s live performances will include Plaintiffs,” read the lawsuit filed by Bachman and Cummings.
Unsurprisingly, Kale and Peterson saw things differently. In an April motion to dismiss the lawsuit, they pointed out that they owned the federal trademark registration for the name and called the lawsuit a “complete farce” — perpetrated by two former members who had left the band in the 1970s and whom nobody expected to see in the current lineup.
“Consumers who see an ad for a concert by The Guess Who would not reasonably assume that Bachman and Cummings are performing merely because they were in the band many years ago,” Kale and Peterson’s attorneys wrote. “It is common knowledge that bands often undergo membership changes and that few if any bands formed in the 1960s still have the same lineup today.”
Responding to a lawsuit that called them a “cover band,” Kale and Peterson fired back with their own personal digs, painting Bachman and Cummings as spurned former members who were jealous of their ex-bandmates’ ongoing success.
“After all, that is what is really driving this lawsuit. Following their time in The Guess Who, Bachman and Cummings performed as solo artists or in other acts, but found less success than they apparently expected,” read Kale and Peterson’s response. “As a result, Bachman and Cummings have tried to take The Guess Who name for themselves, despite having left the band decades ago and Defendants carrying on the band’s legacy.”
A North Carolina musician has been indicted by federal prosecutors over allegations that he used AI to help create “hundreds of thousands” of songs and then used the AI tracks to earn more than $10 million in fraudulent streaming royalty payments since 2017.
In a newly unsealed indictment, Manhattan federal prosecutors charged the musician, Michael Smith, 52, with three counts of wire fraud, wire fraud conspiracy and money laundering conspiracy. According to the indictment, Smith was aided by the CEO of an unnamed AI music company as well as other co-conspirators in the U.S. and around the world, and some of the millions he was paid were funneled back to the AI music company.
According to the indictment, the hundreds of thousands of AI songs Smith allegedly helped create were available on music streaming platforms like Spotify, Amazon Music, Apple Music and YouTube Music. It also claims Smith has made “false and misleading” statements to the streaming platforms, as well as collection societies including the Mechanical Licensing Collective (the MLC) and distributors, to “promote and conceal” his alleged fraud.
Trending on Billboard
Because of Smith’s alleged activities, he diverted over $1 million in streaming payments per year that “ultimately should have been paid to the songwriters and artists whose works were streamed legitimately by real consumers,” says the indictment.
The indictment also details exactly how Smith allegedly pulled off the scheme he’s accused of. First, it says he gathered thousands of email accounts, often in the names of fictitious identities, to create thousands of so-called “bot accounts” on the streaming platforms. At its peak, Smith’s operation allegedly had “as many as 10,000 active bot accounts” running; he also allegedly hired a number of co-conspirators in the U.S. and abroad to do the data entry work of signing up those accounts. “Make up names and addresses,” reads an email from Smith to an alleged co-conspirator dated May 11, 2017, that was included in the indictment.
To maximize income, the indictment states that Smith often paid for “family plans” on streaming platforms “typically using proceeds generated by his fraudulent scheme” because they are the “most economical way to purchase multiple accounts on streaming services.”
Smith then used cloud computing services and other means to cause the accounts to “continuously stream songs that he owned” and make it look legitimate. The indictment alleges that Smith knew he was in the wrong and used a number of methods to “conceal his fraudulent scheme,” ranging from fictitious email names and VPNs to instructing his co-conspirators to be “undetectable” in their efforts.
In emails sent in late 2018 and obtained by the government, Smith told co-conspirators to not be suspicious while running up tons of streams on the same song. “We need to get a TON of songs fast to make this work around the anti fraud policies these guys are all using now,” Smith wrote in the emails.
Indeed, there have been a number of measures taken up by the music business to try to curb this kind of fraudulent streaming activity in recent years. Anti-streaming fraud start-up Beatdapp, for example, has become an industry leader, hired by a number of top distributors, streaming services and labels to identify and prevent fraud. Additionally, severl independent DIY distributors including TuneCore, Distrokid and CD Baby have recently banded together to form “Music Fights Fraud,” a coalition that shares a database and other resources to prevent fraudsters from hopping from service to service to avoid detection.
Last year, Spotify and Deezer came out with revamped royalty systems that proposed new penalties for fraudulent activity. Still, it seems fraudsters study these new efforts and continue to evolve their efforts to evade detection.
The rise of quickly generated AI songs has been a major point of concern for streaming fraud experts because it allows bad actors to spread their false streaming activity over a larger number of songs and create more competition for streaming dollars. To date, AI songs are not paid out any differently from human-made songs on streaming platforms. A lawsuit filed by Sony Music, Warner Music Group and Universal Music Group against AI companies Suno and Udio in June summed up the industry’s fears well, warning that AI songs from these companies “saturate the market with machine-generated content that will directly compete with, cheapen and ultimately drown out the genuine sound recordings on which [the services were] built.”
Though Smith is said to be a musician himself with a small catalog of his own, the indictment states that he leaned on AI music to quickly amass a much larger catalog.
The indictment alleges that around 2018, “Smith began working with the Chief Executive Officer of an unnamed AI music company and a music promoter to create thousands of thousands of songs that Smith could then fraudulently stream.” Within months, the CEO of the AI company was allegedly providing Smith with “thousands of songs each week.” Eventually, Smith entered a “Master Services Agreement” with the AI company that supplied Smith with 1,000-10,000 songs per month, agreeing that Smith would have “full ownership of the intellectual property rights in the songs.” In turn, Smith would provide the AI company with metadata and the “greater of $2,000 or 15% of the streaming revenue” he generated from the AI songs.
“Keep in mind what we’re doing musically here… this is not ‘music,’ it’s ‘instant music’ ;)”, reads an email from the AI company’s CEO to Smith that was included in the indictment.
Over time, various players in the music business questioned Smith’s activities, including a streaming platform, a music distributor and the MLC. By March and April 2023, the MLC halted royalty payments to Smith and confronted him about his possible fraud. In response, Smith and his representatives “repeatedly lied” about the supposed fraud and AI-generated creations, says the indictment.
Christie M. Curtis, FBI acting assistant director, said of the indictment, “The defendant’s alleged scheme played upon the integrity of the music industry by a concerted attempt to circumvent the streaming platforms’ policies. The FBI remains dedicated to plucking out those who manipulate advanced technology to receive illicit profits and infringe on the genuine artistic talent of others.”
Kris Ahrend, CEO of the MLC, added, “Today’s DOJ indictment shines a light on the serious problem of streaming fraud for the music industry. As the DOJ recognized, The MLC identified and challenged the alleged misconduct, and withheld payment of the associated mechanical royalties, which further validates the importance of The MLC’s ongoing efforts to combat fraud and protect songwriters.”
Lil Boosie is looking for a pardon, and it doesn’t matter who the U.S. president will be in 2025. Over the weekend, he went on X to vent about a case he’s been fighting since May of last year. “My case got dismissed for a ruling that was made n the 9th circuit court .2 […]
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: Allegations of corporate “sabotage” of Revlon’s Britney Spears partnership; the estate of Isaac Hayes wins an injunction against Donald Trump over music at rallies; a judge rules on Missy Elliot’s copyright battle; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: The Great Britney Fragrance Heist
Corporate espionage AND Britney Spears? We’re in. Two decades after the singer launched a lucrative perfume partnership with Revlon’s Elizabeth Arden, the company is now accusing several former employees and an upstart rival (Give Back Beauty) of effectively stealing the superstar. In a lawsuit filed last week, Revlon’s attorneys called it a “carefully planned and executed grab.” “Revlon and Elizabeth Arden were completely unaware that Revlon’s own team was actively sabotaging one of their most valuable licensing relationships,” the company’s lawyers claim. In technical terms, the lawsuit accuses the defendants of theft of trade secrets and so-called tortious interference with their business and contracts. It also accuses the individual employees of breach of their contracts and breach of their duty of loyalty to Revlon. Britney isn’t accused of any wrongdoing. Give Back Beauty strongly denied the allegations, telling Billboard that the allegations were “entirely without merit” and that it would “aggressively defend any attempt to impugn the integrity of our company. Revlon, for its part, mostly stressed that it wasn’t suing Spears herself: “We value our 20-year partnership and wish Britney all the best.” Revlon doesn’t feel the same way about the departing employees — labeling one as a “double-agent” who assisted a rival company in “taking the Britney Brands business away” while she was outwardly working to renew the account for Elizabeth Arden. For the rest of the lawsuit’s allegations, go read our full story here.
Other top stories this week…
TRUMP INJUNCTION – The estate of Isaac Hayes won a preliminary injunction prohibiting former President Donald Trump and his campaign from playing the singer’s “Hold On, I’m Coming” at rallies. Hayes is one of many artists to complain about the former president using their music in the 2024 campaign, but thus far he’s the only one to actually sue over it. MISSY FACES TRIAL – A federal judge ruled that Missy Elliott must face trial in a copyright lawsuit filed by a man named Terry Williams, who claims to have co-written several decades-old songs she released with the group Sistas. The judge did, however, dismiss one of the lawsuit’s key claims: That Terry and Elliott had co-written “Heartbroken,” a 1996 track released by the late Aaliyah. AUCTION DELAYED – A court-ordered auction of Damon Dash’s one-third stake in Jay-Z’s Roc-A-Fella Records was postponed for three weeks — and the minimum price for the sale was more than doubled to help cover Dash’s massive unpaid tax and child support debts. DEAL IN THE SKY – A lawsuit filed by Journey member Jonathan Cain against bandmate Neal Schon was largely resolved after Schon conceded to the appointment of a neutral third party to resolve the “deadlock” that Cain has claimed is crippling the band’s operations. The case, filed last month, was the latest in a string of legal battles among members of the “Don’t Stop Believin’” band. ROYALTIES ROW – Spotify fired back at a lawsuit filed by the Mechanical Licensing Collective that claims the streamer used the addition of audiobooks to “unlawfully” cut its music royalty payments nearly in half. In a motion to dismiss the case, Spotify called it “nonsensical” and claims that it “profoundly devalues the contributions of the tens of thousands of book authors.” MANILOW v. HIPGNOSIS – Barry Manilow sued Hipgnosis Songs Fund (HSF) in federal court, seeking $1.5 million in unpaid bonuses related to the music rights company’s acquisition of his catalog four years ago. The new case came a month after Hipgnosis sued Manilow in the UK alleging breach of contract relating to the bonus payments.MANSON APPEAL – Marilyn Manson launched an appeal seeking to revive his defamation lawsuit against ex-fiance Evan Rachel Wood, arguing a lower judge who dismissed much of the case ignored key evidence. The case, which claims that Wood “secretly recruited, coordinated, and pressured” women to make false abuse allegations against Manson, was largely dismissed last year under California’s anti-SLAPP statute. DMCA DISMISSED – A federal judge ruled that Universal Music Group and Playboi Carti didn’t abuse the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) when they issued a takedown notice — erroneously, it later turned out — against another rapper’s song that used the same beat. The judge ruled that the law’s safeguards against false takedowns only prohibit intentionally false use of the system.
Siding with the estate of Isaac Hayes, a federal judge has issued a temporary order prohibiting former President Donald Trump and his campaign from playing the singer’s “Hold On, I’m Coming” at rallies.
Weeks after Hayes’ heirs accused Trump of using the song without a license, Judge Thomas Thrash Jr. granted the estate a preliminary injunction on Tuesday (Sep. 3): “I do order Trump and his campaign to not use the song without proper license,” the judge said at a hearing, as reported by CNN.
The judge’s order bars the campaign from continuing to publicly perform the song at future rallies while the case plays out, according to CNN, but the judge denied a request for a more expansive order that would have forced the campaign to pull down videos of rallies in which the song can be heard.
An attorney for the Hayes estate did not immediately return a request for comment. An attorney for Trump confirmed that the order was issued, though he stressed that the campaign had already agreed to stop using the song at rallies.
Hayes’ estate sued Trump last month, accusing the campaign of using “Hold On” at rallies and in video recordings of those events. Hayes co-wrote the 1966 song, which was performed and released by the duo Sam & Dave.
Every four years, artists complain about the use of their music by politicians — often with mixed results. But the 2024 campaign season has seen a particular outburst of gripes about music used by Trump. Beyoncé, Celine Dion, the Foo Fighters, Jack White, ABBA and Sinead O’Connor‘s estate have all spoken out against the former president’s use of their songs — some merely with social media posts and others with cease-and-desist letters from their lawyers.
The Hayes estate went a step further, filing a federal lawsuit on Aug. 16 against Trump, his campaign, the Republican National Committee and others. The case accused the campaign of infringing copyrights, but also of violating federal trademark law — essentially claiming that the campaign’s use of the song made it appear that Hayes or his heirs had endorsed Trump’s bid to return to the White House.
The campaign has claimed that its use of Hayes’ song was covered by a so-called blanket license it purchased from BMI, which grants political campaigns the legal right to perform millions of different copyrighted songs at rallies. But the Hayes estate says it withdrew the song from that catalog in June — and that the Trump campaign was notified of the change in writing. It’s also unclear if such a license would cover the use of the song in video recordings of the rallies.
The flurry of complaints against Trump is nothing new. In past election cycles, the Rolling Stones, Neil Young, Bruce Springsteen, Adele, Rihanna, Aerosmith, Guns N’ Roses, Linkin Park, and the estates of Prince and Tom Petty have all asked the Republican candidate to stop using their music.
Revlon is suing several former employees over allegations that they “sabotaged” the company’s decades-old fragrance partnership with Britney Spears and took the business to a competitor.
In a case filed Monday (Aug. 26) in Manhattan federal court, attorneys for Revlon and subsidiary Elizabeth Arden claim that four ex-staffers stole trade secrets and breached their contracts when they jumped ship to upstart rival Give Back Beauty and took the Britney account with them.
Though an initial delay in Spears re-signing the 20-year perfume partnership deal was “attributed to Ms. Spears being preoccupied with other matters,” Revlon claims it eventually realized that its own executives had been orchestrating a corporate heist.
Trending on Billboard
“Revlon and Elizabeth Arden were completely unaware that Revlon’s own team was actively sabotaging one of their most valuable licensing relationships,” the company’s lawyers claim.
The case does not name Spears as a defendant nor accuse her of any wrongdoing.
As defendants, the lawsuit names the four employees — Vanessa Kidd, Dominick Romeo, Reid Mulvihill and Ashley Fass — as well as Give Back Beauty itself. None of the defendants immediately returned messages seeking comment on the lawsuit’s allegations.
Then at the peak of her powers, Spears signed a deal with Elizabeth Arden in 2004 to develop branded fragrances and other cosmetics. When she released “Curious” later that year, it quickly became the top selling fragrance of the year and reportedly pulled in more than $100 million in sales.
According to a 2013 report by the Hollywood Reporter, “Curious” had sold more than 500 million bottles over its first decade, and the overall Spears-Arden partnership, featuring many other scents, was pulling in $30 million a year in sales.
According to the new lawsuit, Revlon had historically renewed its partnership with Britney in five-year intervals, and the latest iteration was set to expire at the end of 2024. When negotiations began late last year, the company says it had “every expectation that the relationship would continue.”But according to the lawsuit, Give Back Beauty had launched a “campaign to obtain the Britney Brands fragrance business,” including contacting the Elizabeth Arden staffers as early as February: “This was obviously a carefully planned and executed grab by GBB for the Revlon fragrance business.”
Though Revlon says it struck a tentative deal with Britney’s team, the agreement had not been finalized in May, when staffers who had worked on the deal began “decamping to GBB.” Less than a month later, the lawsuit says, Give Back Beauty inked its own deal with Britney.
“The speed with which Britney Brands signed its deal with GBB was unprecedented for the Britney Brands organization and could not have been accomplished without the benefit of the Revlon employees’ deep knowledge of the misappropriated proprietary information about the relationship and GBB’s unlawful utilization of that information,” Revlon’s lawyers write.
The lawsuit takes particular aim at Kidd, a senior vice president for global marketing of fragrances who had spent years working on the Britney account and was allegedly the first to jump ship.
“At the same time that defendant Kidd was negotiating with Britney Brands on Revlon’s behalf, she had interviewed and accepted a job offer with GBB,” the company’s lawyers write. “Kidd effectively acted as a double-agent, assisting GBB in taking the Britney Brands business away from plaintiffs while she was charged with cementing an extension for Elizabeth Arden and purported to be doing so.”
The case claims that before she left, Kidd accessed more than 250 electronic files that contained proprietary information, including about the Britney partnership. Revlon says the “logical inference” is that she was “arming herself and her new employer” with info that could be used to “rapidly recreate the supply and distribution chains Elizabeth Arden had spent 20 years developing.”
In technical terms, the lawsuit accuses the ex-staffers and Give Back Beauty of theft of trade secrets and so-called tortious interference with their business and contracts. It also accuses the individual employees of breach of their contracts and breach of their duty of loyalty to Revlon.
In a statement to Billboard, Revlon stressed that the lawsuit did not accuse Spears or her team of wrongdoing and said “we value our 20-year partnership and wish Britney all the best.” “As a company, we will always take steps to protect our intellectual property,” Revlon said in the statement. “We have filed this complaint because it became clear to us that GBB and the four former employees named in the suit unlawfully used Revlon’s proprietary information and trade secrets — and we are confident in the merits of our case.”