Legal
Page: 19
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
Troy Ave has been released from New York City’s Rikers Island after being inside since February. He commemorated the occasion with an Instagram post on Monday (Aug. 26), sharing a picture of himself in front of a Rikers Island sign holding a bag of cash, a red Lamborghini Urus next to him. He captioned the […]
Lil Baby was arrested on the charge of carrying a concealed weapon in the early morning hours of Monday (Aug. 26), Las Vegas Metropolitan Police told Billboard. According to TMZ, the artist was processed at the Clark County Detention Center for carrying a concealed weapon without a permit, which is a felony in Nevada, and […]
Sean “Diddy” Combs wants a federal judge to end one of the several sexual abuse cases he’s facing, arguing that the “salacious” lawsuit is filled with “blatant falsehoods” designed to force him into a settlement.
In a motion filed Monday in Manhattan federal court, attorneys for the star ask a judge to dismiss a case filed in February by Rodney “Lil Rod” Jones, who claims Combs sexually assaulted, drugged and threatened him while he worked as a producer on the rapper’s 2023 The Love Album.
Though they say the case is really nothing more than a “run of the mill commercial disagreement,” Combs lawyers claim Jones’ lawyer added “meaningless allegations and blatant falsehoods” in order to “generate media hype and exploit it to extract a settlement.”
Trending on Billboard
“Running to nearly 100 pages, it includes countless tall tales, shameless celebrity namedrops, and irrelevant images,” Combs’ lawyers write. “Yet, despite all its hyperbole and lurid theatrics, the [complaint] fails to state a single viable claim against any of the Combs defendants.”
The filing took personal aim at Jones’ attorney Tyrone Blackburn, citing a recent ruling in a separate case in which a federal judge sharply criticized the lawyer for filing suits designed to “garner media attention” and “embarrass defendants.”
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 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.”
Jones sued in February, accusing Diddy not just of sexual assault but also of operating a sweeping conspiracy that violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act — the federal RICO statute that’s more often used in criminal cases against mobsters and drug cartels. He also accused Combs and others of violating federal sex trafficking laws.
In Monday’s motion to dismiss the case, attorneys for the rapper argued that Jones had fallen well short of showing that he could sue under RICO.
“Because litigants frequently attempt to transform garden-variety fraud or breach of contract cases into RICO claims, the civil provisions of RICO are the most misused statutes in the federal corpus of law,” Combs’ lawyers write, quoting from earlier rulings. “Thus, courts strive to flush out frivolous RICO allegations at an early stage of the litigation.”
Combs lawyers also asked the judge to dismiss the other claims in the case. They argued that the claim of sexual assault is spelled out in “two vague paragraphs” in which Jones “fails to allege essential facts, such as the where, when, and how of the purported misconduct, or even any conversation about, report of, or witness to any particular occurrence.”
Jones’ attorney, Blackburn, did not immediately return a request for comment from Billboard. But in a statement to Deadline, Blackburn called the motion to dismiss “nothing more than a billing exercise by Sean Combs’ latest set of lawyers.”
“It is a weak attempt to fill their pockets before he is indicted, and they decide to haul ass, just like his five previous lawyers did,” Blackburn told the outlet.
Jones’ case initially named Universal Music Group (UMG) and CEO Lucian Grainge as defendants, claiming they “aided and abetted” Combs in his alleged misconduct and were members of the RICO conspiracy. But Jones later dropped them from the case, with Blackburn admitting there had been “no legal basis for the claims and allegations that were made against the UMG defendants.”
Read the entire motion filed by Combs’ lawyers here:
UPDATE (Aug. 26): Shaboozey’s ex-record label sued him back after the singer filed his own lawsuit against the company, accusing him of “fraud” to avoid fulfilling his contractual obligations. You can read more here.
PREVIOUSLY (Aug. 23): Amid the chart-topping success of “A Bar Song (Tipsy),” Shaboozey is now suing music publisher Warner Chappell — claiming the company is stonewalling his efforts to exercise a contractual provision that would give him an early exit from his deal.
In a case filed Wednesday (Aug. 21) in Los Angeles, the country star (born Collins Obinna Chibueze) claims his publishing administration deal with Warner-Tamerlane (a unit of Warner Chappell) contained an acceleration clause — meaning he could repay 110% of advances to speed up the expiration of the deal.
Trending on Billboard
Shaboozey’s lawyers say he invoked that clause last month — perhaps unsurprisingly, given the massive success of “Bar Song.” But they claim Warner has, thus far, declined to even tell him how much is owed.
“To date, Warner has refused to disclose to plaintiff the total amount of the unrecouped balance of prior advances it made,” writes Todd Bonder, the star’s attorney. “Warner’s conduct violates the administration agreement signed between the parties.”
The lawsuit comes amid a breakout year for Shaboozey. “A Bar Song,” a genre-blending hit that interpolates J-KWON‘s 2004 rap hit “Tipsy” into a bouncy pop country track, has spent six weeks at No. 1 on the Billboard Hot 100, tying the longest chart-topping stint for a song in 2024.
In his complaint, Shaboozey also names his former record label, Kreshendo Entertainment, as a defendant. He claims the company — which he left in 2019 before signing a new record deal with Empire — is the reason Warner is refusing to turn over the crucial information.
“Kreshendo and [others] have instructed Warner not to provide plaintiff the total unrecouped balance related to advances made with respect to the compositions or has refused to authorize Warner to provide such information,” his lawyers write.
The dispute appears to turn on Shaboozey’s argument that he personally took over Kreshendo’s role in the contract with Warner after he terminated his label. In his legal filings, he says that Warner “has not agreed” with such an interpretation.
The lawsuit also claims that Kreshendo released three separate Shaboozey songs in 2019 after he had already terminated the deal — “More,” “Joan Jett” and “Prosperity” — without his permission.
A spokesman for Warner Music Group did not immediately return a request for comment. A spokesperson for Kreshendo could not immediately be located for comment. A publicist for Shaboozey did not return a request for comment.
Days after Shaboozey sued both Warner Chappell and his former record label, the label sued him right back — accusing the breakout country star of using “fraud” and “bad faith” to avoid his existing contractual obligations in the wake of the massive success of “A Bar Song (Tipsy).”
In a complaint filed Friday (Aug. 23) in Los Angeles court, Kreshendo Entertainment claims that after it released Shaboozey (Collins Obinna Chibueze) from his record deal in 2019, the company retained key rights to his music. Rather than stick to those requirements, Kreshendo claims the star has instead “elected a strategy of fraud and misrepresentation to deprive plaintiffs of their contractual rights.”
“Notably, Shaboozey had no issue with any of these terms for years,” write the company’s attorneys, from the law firm Reed Smith. “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.”
Trending on Billboard
The new case was filed just two days after Shaboozey filed his own case on Wednesday (Aug. 21) against Kreshendo and Warner Chappell. In that lawsuit, Shaboozey claimed that Warner was blocking him from exiting a publishing administration deal and that it was doing so at the behest of Kreshendo even though he had terminated the label years earlier.
But in the new accusations, Kreshendo says it’s Shaboozey who’s in the wrong. The company admitted that it had released Shaboozey from his record deal in 2019 but argued that the move came with important stipulations — namely, that Kreshendo would continue to own a 50% stake in all of the singer’s compositions and retain a right to be paid a percentage of profits from his masters.
Those requirements were put in place, according to Kreshendo, to compensate the company for the support it had provided a then-undiscovered singer.
“Before Shaboozey became the well-known artist he is today, he was an unknown artist that plaintiffs believed in, and they agreed to invest their time and money to help him develop and reach success in the music industry,” the complaint reads.
The lawsuit claims that Shaboozey has repeatedly breached the termination agreement, including through failing to pay the required profits and also through the wrangling with Warner that was detailed in his own lawsuit earlier in the week. Kreshendo says Shaboozey’s statements to Warner, including directing the company to stop paying Kreshendo, have been “false” and “an attempt to circumvent his contractual obligations.”
An attorney for Shaboozey did not immediately return a request for comment from Billboard on Monday (Aug. 26). Warner Chappell, which was named as a defendant in Shaboozey’s case, is not a plaintiff in the newer lawsuit.
The dueling lawsuits come amid a breakout year for Shaboozey. “A Bar Song,” a genre-blending hit that interpolates J-KWON‘s 2004 rap hit “Tipsy” into a bouncy pop country track, has spent seven weeks at No. 1 on the Billboard Hot 100, marking the longest chart-topping stint for a song in 2024.
There’s a new front in the never-ending legal war between Joey Ramone’s brother and Johnny Ramone’s widow over control of the iconic punk band.
In a new lawsuit filed Friday (Aug. 23) in Manhattan federal court, Joey’s brother Mitchel Hyman (better known as Mickey Leigh) accused Johnny’s wife, Linda Cummings-Ramone, of violating federal trademark law by carrying out an “unrelenting quest” to associate herself with the Ramones.
As is typical of the nasty dispute between the two heirs (who each control exactly half of the band’s holding company), the lawsuit pulled no punches — calling Cummings-Ramone a former “groupie” with an “insatiable personal desire to shine a spotlight on herself.”
Trending on Billboard
“Ms. Cummings-Ramone has made and continues to make blatant attempts to exploit and personally capitalize on and benefit from the name, goodwill and legacy of the Ramones — that is, to try to push the false narrative that she is the heiress to … the Ramones’ legacy,” Leigh’s lawyers write. “She most certainly is not. She is nothing more than a blatant self-promoter and an infringer.”
Joey Ramone (Jeffrey Ross Hyman) and Johnny Ramone (John William Cummings) were not actually brothers, and they had a notoriously chilly relationship during their decades as bandmates. In the years since the two died in the 2000s, that feud has seemingly continued between Leigh and Cummings-Ramone.
As the executors of Joey’s and Johnny’s respective estates, Leigh and Cummings-Ramone each own half of Ramones Productions, the entity that controls the band’s music and other assets. But that partnership has not gone smoothly, featuring multiple lawsuits and arbitrations over the past decade.
The latest scuffle began in January, when Cummings-Ramone sued Leigh in New York state court over allegations that he had “covertly” developed an “unauthorized” biopic (believed to be Netflix’s announced Ramones movie starring Pete Davidson as Joey). In the lawsuit, Cummings-Ramone said that any “authoritative story of the Ramones” would require her sign-off: “To permit defendants alone to tell the authoritative story of the Ramones would be an injustice to the band and its legacy.”
Eight months later, with the earlier case still pending, Leigh is now on offense — claiming that Cummings-Ramone has infringed the band’s trademarks held by Ramones Productions by using them herself. His new case repeatedly takes aim at her use of the name “Linda Ramone” despite the fact that “Ramone” was not the legal surname of her late husband nor any other band member.
“Ramones are unique in many ways. One of which is that they are the only band of stature where all the members were not related but used the same last name as if they were,” Leigh’s lawyers write. “That made it easy for defendant to insert herself into the Ramones legacy as part of the family, the public spokesperson, and to associate her personal brand with Ramones, by using the name ‘Linda Ramone.’ Indeed, ‘Linda Ramone’ never existed while her husband, John Cummings was alive. Defendant increasingly adopted the name ‘Linda Ramone’ after Mr. Cummings died.”
The lawsuit claims that earlier legal proceedings and agreements have sharply restricted how Cummings-Ramone is allowed to use that name, but that she has repeatedly exceeded those limitations in her public persona because she is “unabashedly obsessed with portraying herself as the widow of Johnny Ramone” and as an “integral member” of the band.
“Ms. Cummings-Ramone presents herself to the world as ‘Linda Ramone’ and unilaterally adopts the mantle of designated Ramones spokesperson and ‘keeper of the legacy’,” Leigh’s lawyers write. “She intentionally gives the false impression that she is empowered to take the lead on, or unilaterally pursue, Ramones business.”
A representative for Cummings-Ramone did not immediately return a request for comment on Monday (Aug. 26).
A federal judge has 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.
Following a hearing Friday in Manhattan federal court, Judge Pamela K. Chen granted a preliminary injunction to PleasrDAO — a digital art collective that bought the album in 2021 after Shkreli was forced to forfeit it as part of his criminal case.
In addition to extending previous restrictions barring him from sharing the album, the judge ruled that Shkreli must hand over “all recordings of the Album’s contents that Defendant possesses or controls” to his own attorneys. He has until Friday to file written confirmation that he’s done so.
Trending on Billboard
By granting the motion, Judge Chen rejected Shkreli’s arguments about the copies. In court filings last month, his lawyers argued that making private copies had been legal when he owned the rare album — and that he had not been required to turn those copies over to prosecutors when he handed over the famous original CD.
Pleasr sued Shkreli in June over the potential leak of the album, accusing him of violating both their purchase agreement and the federal forfeiture order. They also accused him of violating federal trade secrets law, which protects valuable proprietary information from misappropriation.
Wu-Tang’s fabled album was recorded in secret and published just once, on a CD secured in an engraved nickel and silver box. Though the group intended the bizarre trappings as a protest against the commodification of music, Shaolin later became the ultimate commodity. In 2015, Shkreli — soon to become infamous as the man who intentionally spiked the price of crucial AIDS medications — bought it at auction for $2 million.
When it was initially sold, Shaolin came with much-discussed stipulations — namely, that the one-of-a-kind album could not be released to the general public until 2103. But Shkreli’s lawyers say the deal granted him the right to “duplicate or replicate the work for private use.”
After Shkreli was convicted of securities fraud in 2017, he forfeited the album to federal prosecutors to help pay his multi-million dollar restitution sentence. Pleasr then bought the album from the government in 2021 for $4 million, and in 2024 acquired the copyrights and other rights to the album for another $750,000.
Pleasr, which has recently been attempting to monetize the album, sued Shkreli on the grounds that had been threatening to release the album publicly and destroy the exclusivity that the company had purchased.
In a statement following Friday’s ruling, Pleasr’s attorney, Steven Cooper of the law firm Reed Smith, called the ruling “an important victory” for his client: “We are pleased that Judge Chen recognized that immediate relief was necessary to thwart the continuing bad acts of Mr. Shrkeli.”
An attorney for Shkreli did not immediately return a request for comment.
Following Friday’s ruling, the injunction against Shkreli will be in place until a final ruling is reached at the end of the case. Barring a settlement, the lawsuit will now proceed to full litigation – including discovery, dueling motions from each side, and an eventual jury trial.
The Isaac Hayes estate is taking Donald Trump to court.
On Friday (Aug. 23), the late soul singer’s son Isaac Hayes III announced on social media that a federal judge had granted his father’s estate an emergency hearing in their lawsuit against the former president, who has been using “Hold On, I’m Coming” without authorization during multiple campaign rallies.
“The Federal Court has granted our request for an Emergency Hearing to secure injunctive relief,” Hayes III wrote on X (formerly Twitter). “Donald Trump, the RNC, Trump, Trump for President Inc. 2024, Turning Point and The NRA are required to appear in court September 3rd, 2024 at the Northern U.S. District Federal Court in Atlanta. See you in court.”
On Aug. 11, lawyers for Isaac Hayes Enterprises filed a notice of copyright infringement and threatened further legal action against the Trump campaign over its use of the Sam & Dave classic at multiple Trump rallies without authorization from 2022-2024.
“Today, on the anniversary of my father Isaac Hayes’ death we have repeatedly asked Donald Trump, the RNC and his representatives not to use ‘Hold on I’m Coming’ written by Isaac Hayes and David Porter during campaign rallies but yet again, in Montana they used it,” Hayes III wrote on X on Aug. 10.
He added the following day, “We demand the cessation of use, removal of all related videos, a public disclaimer, and payment of $3 million in licensing fees by August 16, 2024. Failure to comply will result in further legal action.”
Hayes died Aug. 10, 2008, at the age of 65. He and David Porter wrote “Hold On, I’m Coming,” which was recorded by soul duo Sam & Dave, and issued on the Stax label in 1966, peaking at No. 21 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart.
Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, has had numerous run-ins with other musical acts. Scores of top artists and songwriters have objected to his campaign’s use of their songs at political rallies since he first ran for president in 2015, among them The Rolling Stones, Adele, Rihanna, Sinead O’Connor‘s estate and Aerosmith‘s Steven Tyler.
“It is most unfortunate that these artists have publicly posted on their social media and asked Team Trump and other candidates not to use their music — and yet their candidates keep using their music,” James L. Walker Jr., an attorney for Hayes Enterprises, previously stated.
On Friday, Foo Fighters joined the list of artists who are opposed to Trump using their music during his events. The Dave Grohl-fronted group’s 1997 anthem “My Hero” was played while Trump welcomed Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to the stage Glendale, Ariz., after the independent presidential candidate suspended his campaign and endorsed the Republican nominee.
“Foo Fighters were not asked permission, and if they were, they would not have granted it,” a spokesperson tells Billboard of the unauthorized usage. Furthermore, “appropriate actions are being taken” against the campaign, the spokesperson continues, and any royalties received as a result of this usage will be donated to the Kamala Harris/Tim Walz campaign.
The move marked the second time in the week — and third time in August — Trump’s campaign had run afoul of a superstar for using music without permission. On Tuesday (Aug. 22), Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung posted a 13-second video on his X account of footage of Trump stepping off a plane as Beyoncé’s “Freedom” played. The video arrived long after his opponent, Democratic presidential nominee Harris, had been using the song (with permission) for weeks.
Beyoncé’s record label and music publisher sent a cease-and-desist notice on Wednesday (Aug. 21) to Trump’s campaign over its use of “Freedom.” Later that evening, the video was deleted from Cheung’s X account.
See Isaac Hayes III’s posts on X below.
🚨Breaking 🚨The Federal Court has granted our request for an Emergency Hearing to secure injunctive relief.Donald Trump, @realdonaldtrump, the RNC, Trump, Trump for President Inc. 2024, Turning Point and The NRA are required to appear in court September 3rd, 2024 at the…— Isaac Hayes III (@IsaacHayes3) August 23, 2024