Legal
Page: 14
Swedish supergroup ABBA has asked Donald Trump to stop using their music at campaign rallies, but the Republican presidential nominee’s campaign says it has permission.
“ABBA has recently discovered the unauthorized use of their music and videos at a Trump event through videos that appeared online,” said a statement to The Associated Press from the band, whose hits include “Waterloo,” “The Winner Takes It All” and “Money, Money, Money.”
“As a result, ABBA and its representative has promptly requested the removal and deletion of such content. No request has been received; therefore, no permission or license has been granted.”
Trending on Billboard
A spokesman for the Trump campaign said it had obtained a license. “The campaign had a license to play ABBA music through our agreement with BMI and ASCAP,” the spokesperson told the AP.
ABBA joins a long list of performers who’ve objected to Trump using their songs. Ahead of the 2020 election, that included Bruce Springsteen, Rihanna, Phil Collins, Pharrell, John Fogerty, Neil Young, Eddy Grant, Panic! at the Disco, R.E.M. and Guns N’ Roses.
This cycle, Celine Dion has asked the candidate to stop using “My Heart Will Go On” and Beyoncé blocked Trump from using her song “Freedom” in a campaign video. In 2016, Adele asked Trump to quit playing her songs at political rallies.
Campaigns don’t need an artist’s express permission to play their songs at rallies as long as the political organization or the venue has gotten what’s known as a blanket license from the performing rights organizations ASCAP and BMI.
Swedish daily newspaper Svenska Dagbladet said its reporter in July attended a Trump rally in Minnesota where “The Winner Takes it All” was played. Universal Music in Sweden said videos had surfaced of ABBA’s music being played at at least one Trump event.
ABBA, who have scored 20 songs in the Billboard Hot 100, mostly in the 1970s and 1980s, released a comeback album, “Voyage,” in 2021.
A seven nation army couldn’t hold Jack White back from calling out Donald Trump over the alleged unauthorized use of his music. In a heated Instagram post Thursday (Aug. 29), the White Stripes rocker reshared a tweet seemingly posted by the former president’s deputy director of communications, Margo Martin, featuring a video of Trump ascending […]
A federal judge says Universal Music Group and Playboi Carti didn’t abuse the Digital Millennium Copyright Act when they issued a takedown notice – erroneously, it turns out – against another rapper’s song that used the same beat.
A rapper named G-Baby (Jordan White) sued the label and artist last year after they red-flagged his song “Oi!” for using the same underlying beat as Carti’s “Right Now.” The takedown turned out to be wrong — G-Baby had legally licensed the same beat that Carti had, and he had actually released his song first.
The lawsuit claimed that the move violated the DMCA’s safeguards against improper takedowns, but a judge dismissed those claims Tuesday – citing previous decisions that such restrictions only prohibit intentionally false use of the takedown system.
Trending on Billboard
“Because the DMCA requires only a good faith belief that material is infringing, a copyright holder is not liable for misrepresentation under the DMCA if they subjectively believe the identified material infringes their copyright, even if that belief is ultimately mistaken,” Judge Analisa Torres wrote.
In G-Baby’s case, the judge noted that he had effectively conceded that the UMG employee who flagged “Oi!” as a copyright infringement did not know that the rapper had properly licensed the beat: “This admission alone dooms White’s claim against UMG,” Torres wrote.
According to Tuesday’s decision, G-Baby paid $250 to producer Pi’erre Bourne (Jordan Timothy Jenks) in 2017 for a non-exclusive license to an instrumental track, which he later used as the basis for “Oi!” The next year, Carti (Jordan Terrell Carter) used the same beat in “Right Now,” a track on the album Die Lit, which reached Number 3 on the Billboard 200.
Shortly after Carti’s song was released, a UMG “content protection specialist” flagged two posts on Twitter in which G-Baby had shared his song. Eventually, the Recording Industry Association of America filed a DMCA takedown, which succeeded in getting the track pulled down from Twitter.
In his lawsuit, G-Baby claimed that UMG had intentionally sought out his song because of animosity from Carti, who he claimed was unhappy that the same beat had been used by someone else.
“Carter and Jenks knew that ‘Oi!’ was properly licensed and not infringing, yet decided to conspire with Universal,” the rapper wrote in his complaint. “Carter, Jenks, and Universal sought the take-down of White’s song with the specific intent of harming White.”
But in Tuesday’s ruling, Judge Torres ruled that even if Carti and Jenks knew that G-Baby’s song was properly licensed, there is no evidence that this information was ever communicated to the UMG staffer who flagged the song for removal.
“White cites no caselaw for the proposition that one employee’s knowledge that a use may be non-infringing should be imputed to another employee who independently issues a takedown notice on behalf of the company,” the judge wrote.
As for Carti himself, Judge Torres ruled that there was no evidence that the rapper had any involvement in or knowledge of the takedown process – meaning he, too, could not have violated the DMCA’s rules.
“Although Carter may well have been aware of (and displeased with) White’s license to use the beat, White has failed to establish that Carter had any part in the takedown notices,” the judge wrote.
Attorneys for both sides did not immediately return requests for comment.
Marilyn Manson has 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.
Manson (real name Brian Warner) sued Wood in 2022, claiming she had “secretly recruited, coordinated, and pressured” women to make false abuse allegations against him. But a Los Angeles judge tossed out most of the case in a ruling last year.
That ruling came under California’s anti-SLAPP statute — a law that aims to make it easier for judges to quickly dismiss cases that threaten free speech. Wood’s lawyers claimed Manson’s case was exactly that: a prominent musician using a lawsuit to try to silence someone speaking out about alleged abuse.
But in an appeal lodged on Tuesday, Manson’s lawyers argued that a lower judge had repeatedly misapplied that statute to prematurely end a valid lawsuit that had been aimed at exposing a “malicious campaign” by Wood and others.
“This is an appeal of an order granting two anti-SLAPP motions, in which the trial court rubber-stamped Defendants’ assertions of ‘protected activity’ before weighing and disregarding evidence to conclude that plaintiff Brian Warner could never prevail,” his attorneys write.
Manson also claims that the judge ignored key elements of the case, including “bombshell” testimony from another Manson accuser named Ashley Morgan Smithline, who says she “succumbed to pressure” from Wood to make “untrue” accusations against the singer.
Wood strongly denied those allegations, and the judge ultimately refused to consider Smithline’s testimony because it had been filed far past a key deadline for submitting evidence. In Wednesday’s appeal, Manson’s lawyers say that was a clear and reversible error.
“The trial court prioritized convenience over the core function of the anti- SLAPP statute, which is to dispose of truly meritless suits before discovery,” Manson’s lawyers write.
Wood is one of several women to accuse Manson of serious sexual wrongdoing over the past several years. Manson has denied all of the allegations, and many of the lawsuits filed against him have since been dropped, dismissed or settled.
Manson filed the current lawsuit against Wood in March 2022, accusing her and a woman named Illma Gore of launching an “organized attack” that had derailed his career. His lawyer said the women had carried out “a campaign of malicious and unjustified attacks.”
But Wood quickly fought back, moving to strike Manson’s case under the anti-SLAPP law: “For years, plaintiff Brian Warner raped and tortured defendant Evan Rachel Wood and threatened retaliation if she told anyone about it,” her attorneys wrote. “Warner has now made good on those threats by filing the present lawsuit.”
In May 2023, Judge Teresa A. Beaudet largely granted that motion, ruling that Manson had not sufficiently shown that he would ultimately be able to prove many of those accusations against Wood, including that she had been “pressuring multiple women to make false accusations,” as well as the allegation that she had forged a letter from the FBI.
Anti-SLAPP laws, which exist in states across the country, work by putting more burden than usual on defamation plaintiffs like Manson, forcing them to clearly show at the outset that their case is legitimate. In last year’s decision, Judge Beaudet said Manson had failed to do so.
“The court does not find that plaintiff has demonstrated a probability of prevailing on his [intentional infliction of emotional distress] claim based on the FBI Letter,” the judge wrote, referring to one of Manson’s specific legal claims.
The most recent legal battle between Journey members Jonathan Cain and Neal Schon appears to be over 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.
In an order issued Wednesday (Aug. 28), a Delaware judge appointed a so-called custodian to break ties between the two longtime bandmates. The ruling came a month after Cain sued Schon seeking such an umpire, claiming their endless disputes pose “a severe threat of harm” to the band’s “storied history of musical greatness.”
The order comes after Schon agreed to the appointment of such a neutral. In his written ruling, the judge wrote: “Schon does not oppose the court’s appointment of a custodian with the power to act as a third, deadlock breaking director.”
Trending on Billboard
In a statement, a spokesman for Cain said he was “elated with the outcome and looks forward to moving beyond this matter so that Journey can continue the band’s 50th Anniversary Freedom Tour.” An attorney for Schon did not immediately return a request for comment.
Legal battles are nothing new for Cain and Schon, the two key remaining members of an iconic rock band that’s still printing money decades after its “Don’t Stop Believin’” heyday. The two have repeatedly fought in court over the band’s finances over the past two years.
Filed by Cain last month in Delaware’s Chancery Court, the new case largely rehashed those same disagreements over spending — like Cain claiming that Schon unilaterally charts private jets and lavishly spends band funds on personal expenses.
But in technical terms, the case focused narrowly on the governance of Freedom 2020 Inc., a Delaware-based corporate entity they created to operate Journey’s touring. Since Cain and Schon each control exactly 50% of the company, the lawsuit says the two have reached an impasse that has spilled into many aspects of the band’s operations.
“The deadlock between the company’s directors is now interfering with the company’s ability to take even the most basic actions and is causing significant disruptions in the smooth operation of the company,” Cain’s lawyers wrote.
Wednesday’s order aims to resolve that situation by naming Joseph R. Slights, a former Chancery Court judge, as a custodian — a court-appointed official who can cast tie-breaking votes in corporate disputes.
To carry out those duties, the judge said that Slights will be able to “retain advisors or professionals, including music-industry advisors, attorneys, accountants and other professionals,” in order to decide how to resolve disputes between Cain and Schon.
Slights will have his work cut out for him. The complaint lodged last month painted a picture of extreme dysfunction within Journey, ranging from spending decisions to managing employees.
“Petitioner and respondent are deadlocked with regard to issues concerning the hiring and firing of company employees and Band crew members,” Cain’s lawyers wrote in the lawsuit. “It is common that one director will terminate an employee or crew member, and hours or days later, the other director will rehire that same individual.”
In a Facebook post last week, Schon said the accusations leveled by Cain were “slanderous” and that he “can’t stress enough how much it upset me and how wrong they are.” But he hinted that a deal was close to resolve the lawsuit by appointing a neutral third party like Slights.
“We’re going to bring in someone impartial to help us resolve our disputes, bring clarity to what we’re doing and allow us, as a band, to get back to what we should all focus on — making music and performing for our fans,” Schon wrote at the time.
A federal judge says Missy Elliott must face trial in a lawsuit filed by a man who claims to have co-written several of her decades-old songs, though the judge dismissed allegations over one particular song released by Aaliyah. In a ruling Tuesday (Aug. 27), Judge Nitza I. Quiñones Alejandro refused to dismiss a lawsuit filed […]
Former gang leader Duane “Keefe D” Davis had his bond once again denied on Tuesday (Aug. 27), and he will remain behind bars as he faces a first-degree murder charge for his role in the September 1996 shooting death of Tupac Shakur.
Per the Associated Press, Clark District Court Judge Carli Kierny made her decision known on Tuesday, and was uncertain of the origins of Davis’ potential $750,000 bail funds. According to the AP, Kierny said she was skeptical after receiving two letters that were identical claiming that it was music executive Cash “Wack 100” Jones who wired him the payment.
“I have a sense that things are trying to be covered up,” the judge stated after revealing the signature on one letter was from a person not connected to the business, and the second had a typo in the name as well as a return address to a doctor’s office.
Trending on Billboard
Prosecutor Binu Palal believes the defense may have committed a crime if they indeed submitted false paperwork. “The state takes that very seriously,” he said, according to the AP. “Be advised that it will not go uninvestigated.”
Wack 100 previously testified in June about his motives for wanting to help bail out Davis. According to the AP, Wack said that David has “always been a monumental person in our community … Especially the urban community.” He also cited Davis reportedly battling cancer.
Wack also discussed bailing out Keefe D during an interview with VladTV earlier this year. “It’s only $750,000,” he told Vlad at the time. “I’ve been thinking about going to get him with the stipulations that I’ll do the series on it.”
However, Jones also admitted in a June court hearing that he sometimes says things for entertainment purposes and to drive up engagement. Keefe D was preparing to post bond back in June, but when he went to enter his $750,000 bail, the courts blocked the process due to concerns about the legitimacy of the funds.
In addition to denying Keefe D’s bid to be released on house arrest, Kierny also pushed Davis’ trial back from Nov. 4 to March 17 on Tuesday.
Davis was arrested in September 2023 and charged with one count of murder with a deadly weapon in connection to the September 1996 Las Vegas shooting of Tupac Shakur. The legendary rapper ultimately succumbed to his injuries six days later on Sept. 13, 1996.
A court-ordered auction of Damon Dash’s one-third stake in Jay-Z’s Roc-A-Fella Records has been postponed for at least three weeks, court documents show, and the minimum price for the sale will be more than doubled to help cover Dash’s massive unpaid tax and child support debts.
The auction – in which the U.S. Marshals Service will sell off Dash’s 33.3% interest in the storied record company – had been set to be held Thursday. But in an order Tuesday, a federal judge granted a motion to extend the deadline for the event to Sept. 21.
The delay will give more time to sort out who will get paid first from the proceeds. The auction was originally intended to pay off an $823,000 judgment against Dash won by movie producer Josh Webber in a civil lawsuit over a failed film partnership. But New York City has jumped into the case to demand more than $193,000 in unpaid child support, and New York state later claimed that the auction must also help pay down more than $8.7 million Dash owes in back taxes.
Trending on Billboard
In a court filing on Monday, Webber’s attorney Chris Brown alerted the judge that he had reached an agreement with New York City and New York state to sort out a pecking order for the proceeds, but he also asked to push back the auction; it was that request that was granted by the judge on Tuesday.
Under the agreement, the minimum bid for Dash’s stake will be increased from $1.2 million to $3 million. New York City will get first dibs at that money, taking at least $193,000 to cover the money Dash owes in child support. That will be followed by $1.7 million going to the state to cover part of the massive tax bill, followed by the original $823,000 in legal damages owed to Webber. After other civil litigants are paid smaller sums, the remainder of the tax bill – roughly $7 million – will be paid to New York state. If anything is left, it will go to Dash himself.
Other issues remain to be ironed out. New York City is still seeking an additional deposit of nearly $70,000 more from Dash to cover ongoing child support payments in the future, and wants any payouts from the auction paused until a judge decides the issue. Brown has opposed that motion, and a hearing before the judge to decide the issue is set for next month.
Dash himself was not involved in the deal. In court filings, his attorney Natraj Bhushan said his client was “not privy to these discussions, had no input on the same, and disagrees with the priority given.” In a statement to Billboard on Wednesday, he said the pecking order had yet to be finalized.
“We look forward to upcoming court conference so that all interested parties can be heard and the court can decide who gets what, and in what priority from the forthcoming public auction,” Bhushan said.
Brown declined to comment on Wednesday. Attorneys for New York City and New York state did not immediately return requests for comment.
Whenever it happens, the auction will be for Dash’s stake in Roc-A-Fella Inc., an entity whose primary asset is Jay-Z’s iconic debut album Reasonable Doubt. The rest of the catalog of music released by Roc-A-Fella, which dissolved as an active label in 2013, isn’t involved.
The owners of the other two-thirds of Roc-A-Fella — label cofounders Jay-Z (Shawn Carter) and Kareem “Biggs” Burke — have already attempted to stop the auction, including making changes to the company’s bylaws and intervening in the lawsuit. But a federal judge rejected such opposition in February.
Though the auction’s minimum bid has now been increased, it’s entirely unclear how much a potential buyer is going to be willing to spend on Dash’s one-third stake.
The royalties from Reasonable Doubt would likely provide them a revenue stream; since its 1996 release, Reasonable Doubt has racked up 2.2 million equivalent album units in the U.S., according to Luminate, including 21,500 units so far this year. But the eventual buyer also would be a minority owner in a company controlled by hostile partners, with little ability to perform typical due diligence on the asset they’re about to purchase. And Roc-A-Fella’s rights to Reasonable Doubt will potentially expire in 2031 thanks to copyright law’s termination right, which would allow Jay-Z himself to reclaim full control.
Taeil is no longer part of NCT, with SM Entertainment announcing Wednesday (Aug. 28) that the 30-year-old K-pop idol has left the group following an accusation of an unspecified sex crime. According to the Associated Press‘ English translation of a Korean statement posted to SM’s X, the label wrote, “We recognized the seriousness of the […]
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: Shaboozey gets into a thorny legal battle with his former label; Beyoncé and the Foo Fighters move to stop Donald Trump from using their songs; another lawsuit erupts over the control of the Ramones; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: Shaboozey’s Looming “Bar” Fight
Amid the massive success of Shaboozey’s “A Bar Song (Tipsy),” an acrimonious legal battle is brewing in Los Angeles Superior Court. On Wednesday (Aug. 21), the breakout country star (born Collins Obinna Chibueze) filed a lawsuit against music publisher Warner Chappell and his former record label, Kreshendo Entertainment, accusing them of breach of contract. Two days later, Kreshendo sued him right back, accusing him of “a strategy of fraud and misrepresentation.” The dispute? The extent to which Shaboozey is still bound by a deal he signed with Kreshendo back in 2016, when he was a relatively unknown artist. Both sides agree that the deal was terminated in 2019, but they are at odds over Shaboozey’s continuing obligations to his old label. And Warner has gotten roped in because it administers his publishing rights, which play a key role in the dispute. The litigation is getting underway just as “A Bar Song” has emerged as one of the biggest hits of 2024. A genre-blending hit that interpolates J-KWON‘s 2004 rap hit “Tipsy” into a bouncy pop country track, the track has spent seven weeks at No. 1 on the Billboard Hot 100, marking the longest chart-topping stint of the year. In its lawsuit, Kreshendo says it was that sudden success that sparked the legal battle: “Shaboozey had no issue with any of these terms for years. It was only after he recently released the ‘Bar Song,’ which has become a huge hit, that he has taken sudden issue with the terms he expressly agreed to.” We’ll keep you posted as the dispute moves ahead in court…
Other top stories this week…
FAMILY FUED – A California appeals court issued a final ruling allowing the Michael Jackson estate to proceed with a $600 million sale of the singer’s catalog to Sony Music, rejecting objections from his mother Katherine Jackson that aimed to block the deal. She’d argued that the deal “violated Michael’s wishes,” but the court ruled that the superstar’s will gives his executors (John Branca and John McClain) “broad powers” to ink such transactions. HOLD UP – Beyoncé‘s record label and music publisher sent a cease-and-desist to Donald Trump‘s presidential campaign over its use of the megastar’s song “Freedom” in a social media video, prompting the campaign to quickly pull down the offending post. The Bey track serves as the official theme song for the campaign of Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris — likely the reason why the Trump campaign used it. ANTI-HERO? – Elsewhere in Trump world, the Foo Fighters publicly claimed that they had not authorized the former president to play their 1997 anthem “My Hero” at a rally with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and would seek to prevent him from doing so in the future. The campaign later claimed that it had, in fact, obtained proper licenses to perform the song. Either way, the band said that any royalties received as a result of this usage would be donated to the Harris/Walz campaign. DAME’S UNPAID TAXES – Just a week before a court-ordered auction of Damon Dash’s one-third stake in Jay-Z’s Roc-A-Fella Records, there was a stunning new wrinkle: He owes more than $8.7 million in unpaid taxes — and New York state says the proceeds from the Roc-A-Fella sale must be used to pay them. The new claim complicated an already complex situation, in which Dash’s stake in the storied record label is being sold off by U.S. Marshals to pay off an $823,000 civil judgment. HEY, HO, LET’S SUE – Opening up a new front in the never-ending legal war over the Ramones, Joey Ramone’s brother (Mitchel Hyman, better known as Mickey Leigh) sued Johnny’s widow (Linda Cummings-Ramone), accusing her of infringing the band’s trademarks by carrying out an “unrelenting quest” to associate herself with the Ramones. DIDDY CASE UPDATE – Sean “Diddy” Combs asked a federal judge to dismiss a case filed in February by Rodney “Lil Rod” Jones, arguing that the “salacious” lawsuit was filled with “blatant falsehoods” designed to pressure him into paying a lucrative settlement: “Running to nearly 100 pages, it includes countless tall tales, shameless celebrity namedrops, and irrelevant images.” SNEAKER SETTLEMENT – The sneaker company Vans and a Brooklyn art collective called MSCHF reached a settlement to end a long-running trademark lawsuit over Tyga‘s “Wavy Baby” sneakers — a parody of the company’s classic Old Skool brand of shoes. The artists said Tyga’s pricy sneakers were akin to an art project, and thus protected by the First Amendment. But Vans called it “blatant” infringement of the company’s IP, and federal courts repeatedly agreed with that assessment. OUTKAST TRADEMARK CASE – The legendary rappers sued an EDM duo called ATLiens, the same name as one of OutKast’s best-known songs. Big Boi and André 3000 claimed that the name (a combo of “aliens” and their hometown of Atlanta) is a novel linguistic term that had been “invented by OutKast” — and that the rival group is confusing music fans by using it. SHKRELI SEIZURE – A federal judge ordered convicted pharma executive Martin Shkreli to hand over his copies of Wu-Tang Clan’s Once Upon a Time in Shaolin, rejecting his claims that he had a right to retain duplicates of the one-of-a-kind album even after he forfeited it to federal prosecutors.
Trending on Billboard