Legal
Page: 24
Neil Zlozower, a veteran rock photographer who’s snapped images of Led Zeppelin, The Rolling Stones, Michael Jackson and Bruce Springsteen, is suing Warner Records over a Facebook post featuring a picture of Tom Petty — the latest of more than 50 lawsuits the litigious photog has filed over the past decade.
In a case filed in Los Angeles federal court, Zlozower accuses Warner of infringing the copyright to his photo, which depicts ’70s-era Petty sitting in front of a record player. His lawyers claim the image was posted in 2020 to the official Facebook page for Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers, which Warner allegedly controls.
Trending on Billboard
“Defendant has not implemented adequate internal policies to verify copyright ownership before content use, indicating a gross negligence in legal compliance, which is essential for a company with defendant’s reach, capabilities, and level of sophistication,” Zlozower’s lawyer Craig Sanders writes in the July 23 complaint.
Warner’s alleged failure to employ such copyright protections indicates “de facto willful infringement” by the company, the lawsuit claims — a key accusation, since under U.S. copyright law “willful” violations can result in increased damages of up to $150,000 per work.
A spokesman for Warner did not return a request for comment on the lawsuit’s allegations.
The case is hardly the first for Zlozower, who has also photographed Prince, Van Halen and countless other bands and artists over a decades-long career. Since 2016, court records show he’s filed a whopping 57 copyright lawsuits against a wide range of defendants in federal courts around the country, demanding monetary damages over the alleged unauthorized use of his photographs.
Many of his cases have targeted media companies, including CBS, Buzzfeed and Vice. But he’s also twice sued Universal Music Group, once over an image of Elvis Costello and another time over a photo of Guns N’ Roses. A different case targeted Ticketmaster, accusing the Live Nation unit of using an image of Ozzy Osbourne guitarist Zakk Wylde. In 2019, Zlozower sued the guitar maker Gibson over claims that the company used a shot of Eddie Van Halen without permission.
Copyright lawsuits over the unauthorized use of photographs on the internet are extremely common, with hundreds filed in the federal courts each year. The photographers and attorneys who bring them say it’s their only real recourse against rampant online theft of their intellectual property, often by sophisticated companies that should know better.
“Photographers who are serious about protecting their copyright have no other choice but to file suit in [court] when an infringer refuses to negotiate,” says David C. Deal, an attorney who represents photographers in such cases. “Photographers are the overwhelming losers in the digital age because they are properly compensated at a fraction of the rate at which their intellectual property is copied and used by others.”
But critics have questioned the tactics of some particularly litigious photographers and their attorneys, suggesting they’re using litigation itself as a business model — namely, by leveraging the threat of huge damages and prohibitive costs of to win as many small “nuisance” settlements as possible.
In 2019, a federal judge sharply criticized David Oppenheimer, a North Carolina photographer who filed more than 170 such lawsuits. As detailed by The Assembly, Judge Martin Reidinger cited Oppenheimer’s big demands and high volume of cases before saying that he “appears to be using the copyright laws as a source of revenue, rather than as redress for legitimate injury.”
A year earlier, a New York federal judge used harsher language about Richard Liebowitz, a Long Island attorney who filed thousands of such photo infringement cases. Judge Denise Cote labeled the lawyer a “copyright troll” — which she defined as someone who aims to win “quick” settlements that are “priced just low enough” that it makes financial sense to simply “pay the troll rather than defend the claim.”
“As evidenced by the astonishing volume of filings coupled with an astonishing rate of voluntary dismissals and quick settlements in Mr. Liebowitz’s cases in this district, it is undisputable that Mr. Liebowitz is a copyright troll,” the judge wrote in her 2018 decision.
In November 2021, Liebowitz was suspended from practicing law in New York over a pattern of misconduct, including “behavior that made a mockery of orderly litigation processes.” Earlier this year, he was disbarred by the state for failing to comply with court orders and making false statements.
According to federal court records, Liebowitz represented Zlozower in the vast majority of his copyright cases until 2021. In 2018, his firm filed nine lawsuits on behalf of the photographer, including one against Spotify over an image of Mötley Crüe on the band’s artist page. In the year 2019 alone, Liebowitz’s firm filed 14 more cases for Zlozower, including one against famed indie record store Amoeba Music.
According to Deal, many photographers face an “impossible position” on the modern internet: Allow for-profit businesses to exploit their works for free, or “insist on being properly compensated” and risk being labeled a “troll” when they take action in court. But even within that context of mass infringement, Deal says, Zlozower’s volume of litigation seems unusually high.
“The idea of one photographer filing an average of 5-6 cases per year strikes me as excessive,” Deal says, saying his own firm will only typically sue in a “very small percentage of cases” after exhausting every other option.
One of Zlozower’s earliest cases was filed against Mötley Crüe itself. Represented by Liebowitz, he accused the band in September 2016 of creating t-shirts and other concert merch for its 2014 “Final Tour” that were emblazoned with photos he had snapped of Nikki Sixx, Tommy Lee and other members during Crüe’s 1980s heyday. But unlike many such defendants, the band actually fought back.
During two years of litigation, attorneys for Mötley Crüe argued that the band had already paid decades earlier for the right to use those images, and that it had “continued to use them without objection ever since.” Crüe also filed its own countersuit, accusing Zlozower of infringing their trademarks and likenesses by using the band’s name and images to sell books and prints: “Zlozower never requested, nor received, consent to sell photographs depicting the likenesses of the band members of Mötley Crüe.”
But in 2020, the case against Crüe ended like many of Zlozower’s have: in a confidential settlement and the voluntary dismissal of the lawsuit, without a final ruling on the merits. Terms of the agreement were not disclosed in court filings.
Zlozower and his current attorney, Sanders, did not return requests for comment from Billboard.
Convicted pharma executive Martin Shkreli is firing back in a lawsuit over Wu-Tang Clan’s Once Upon a Time in Shaolin, arguing he had a legal right to retain copies of the one-of-a-kind album even after he handed it over to federal prosecutors.
The filing came a month after Shkreli was sued by PleasrDAO — a digital art collective that bought the album in 2021 after Shkreli was forced to forfeit it as part of his criminal case. The company is seeking an injunction barring him from leaking the album and forcing him to turn over any copies.
But in an opposition filing on Wednesday (July 24), Shkreli’s attorneys argued that he had been well within his rights when he made copies of the album before the forfeiture — and that he had not been required to turn those copies over to prosecutors.
Trending on Billboard
“Defendant continues to have the right to use them to this day,” Shkreli’s attorneys write.
PleasrDAO has argued a leak of the famously secret album would “irreparably harm” its value. But Shkreli’s attorneys say the feds made no promises to Pleasr that they were buying the only copy in existence.
“Plaintiff was well aware that its purchase of assets from did not include any promise or expectation of ‘exclusivity’ or ‘uniqueness,’” Shkreli’s lawyers write. “It bought a copy of a musical work that it knew was not unique, and cannot now claim to be irreparably harmed by the existence of its non-uniqueness.”
PleasrDAO sued Shkreli last month 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 legendary 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.
In Wednesday’s filing, Shkreli’s lawyers argued that when the government sold the album, it expressly told Pleasr that it would not “assume” any of the promises or guarantees that had been made in Shkreli’s original deal with Wu-Tang — including the claims about the album’s one-of-a-kind status.
“It would be fundamentally unfair for this court to restrict Shkreli from his permitted use of the work after the [government] explicitly disclaimed any warranties, described the assets as being sold “As-Is, Where-Is,” and listed only physical objects to be delivered on the sale of the assets,” his lawyers write.
A hearing on the potential injunction is set for next month. A rep for PleasrDAO’s attorneys did not immediately return a request for comment.
Billy Ray Cyrus lashed out at his estranged wife singer Firerose in an Instagram Story on Wednesday (July 24) after the leak of a tape in which it appeared that the 62-year-old “Achy Breaky Heart” star was lambasting Firerose (born Johanna Hodges), 37, during a heated argument in which he blamed the Australian vocalist for making him late to a show.
“Hell yeah, I was at my wit’s end,” Cyrus wrote in the Story. “As every day went by, I started realizing something was wrong. And that’s before I knew she was a fraud. I just knew something wasn’t right. That was before I knew she was David Hodges ex-wife. That’s before I knew her parents last name.”
The post continued, “I had no idea she was arrested for felony residential burglary. I saw before my very own eyes, everything I thought I knew about her, was a lie. She was trying to take over my career, my life and usurp the Cyrus name for her own gain. See you in court.”
It’s unclear who leaked the undated audio of the argument to Britain’s Daily Mail, but Cyrus’ divorce lawyers told ET that it was Firerose; at press time, a spokesperson for Firerose had no comment when asked by Billboard to respond to that claim.
In the 90-second recording — which Billboard has obtained — a hoarse-sounding man identified as Cyrus can be heard berating Firerose over his claims she made him late for an appearance. “It’s 9:15 you idiot,” he says. “I needed to leave two hours ago,” as the person identified as Firerose calmly responds, “No you didn’t, you can still leave.”
“Get the f–k out of here. I had to go when I was ready to go,” the man identified as Cyrus continues. “If you had just shut the f–k up. I’m not in no place to do a show. I had to go when I was ready to go! [sound of hands clapping together]. If you had just shut the f–k up!” Firerose asks Cyrus to “stop screaming” at her as the singer continues to blame his ex for making him late.
“If you would’ve left it alone when I told you, it’s done. Now I’m really f–king pissed. You once again showed me you will not listen. I don’t know who the f–k you think you are, but you will not f–king listen.” Cyrus then tells Firerose that their argument is about her being a “selfish b–ch,” telling her “I don’t think you’re real smart. I changed my damn mind on that s–t.” He then repeatedly called her a “b–tch” and a “dumb ass” and says, “you cannot continue to walk all over me and think that I’m gonna go out in public with your dumb ass and f–king have have you do s–t anywhere you want in front of whoever… you just f–ked up.”
Cyrus filed for divorce on May 22 citing “irreconcilable differences” and “inappropriate marital conduct” seven months after the couple married; they began dating in 2022 after years of friendship. In a follow-up filing on June 13 filing, Cyrus requested an emergency motion accusing Firerose of making nearly $100,000 in unauthorized “fraudulent” credit card charges while seeking a temporary restraining order to stop her, accusations her attorneys labeled “untrue.”
In a statement shared with Billboard, Cyrus’ divorce attorneys, Rose Palermo and Jason Talley of the firm Cheatham Palermo and Garrett said, “On behalf of our client, Billy Ray Cyrus, we wish to respond to Ms. Hodges recent release to the press in an apparent last-ditch effort to squeeze money out of Mr. Cyrus ahead of our court ordered mediation scheduled for next week.”
They added, “As we previously stated and released back in June, we regret that Ms. Hodges has chosen to litigate this 7-month marriage in the press and has left Mr. Cyrus with no recourse but to set the record straight, once again. Mr. Cyrus previously admitted in a court filing that he had been very vocally frustrated and angry with Ms. Hodges during their 7-month marriage as he began to uncover more and more of Ms. Hodges true motives for marrying him.”
In reference to the leaked audio, the attorneys said that Firerose — who has legally changed her name to Firerose — allegedly made the recording without telling Cyrus that he was being taped. “Of course, she was intentionally on her best behavior since she knew the recording was being made,” they wrote. “If Mr. Cyrus was truly the person that Ms. Hodges desires the court of public opinion to believe with the release of her one-sided recording, then it is mindboggling to try and explain why Ms. Hodges begged to return to live with him and for Mr. Cyrus to give her a chance to ‘explain everything’ after he filed to annul or dissolve their marriage.”
The attorneys concluded, “Unfortunately, Ms. Hodges is attempting to litigate her case in the press for her own personal gain and in an attempt to harm our client’s longstanding career, as she promised she would do if he tried to divorce her, which Mr. Cyrus alleged in a previous court filing. At this point Ms. Hodges has played her last card, while Mr. Cyrus, on the other hand, has much more material to present to the Court to demonstrate the lies that she made public throughout these proceedings.”
After Cyrus’ divorce filing, Firerose accused him of domestic abuse, saying he was psychologically abusive during their marriage, calling the country singer “unpredictable and volatile” due to alleged substance abuse, adding the claim that he filed for divorce one day before she was scheduled to have a preventative double mastectomy. Cyrus’ lawyers “vehemently” denied the allegations, saying that while he was “certainly vocal, frustrated and angry with the defendant in May 2024, it is the plaintiff who, in fact, has been abused. Not only verbally and emotionally by the defendant, but PHYSICALLY.”
If you or someone you know are experiencing domestic violence, please call the National Domestic Violence Hotline at 1-800-799-7233 for confidential support.
Chris Brown and Live Nation are facing a second lawsuit over an alleged melee that took place backstage at a concert in Fort Worth last week, filed by a security guard who says he was “brutally and severely” beaten when he tried to break up the fight.
In a civil complaint filed Tuesday in Houston court, Frederick Overpeck accuses the singer of assault and battery over the alleged incident, in which Brown and members of his entourage allegedly brawled with four fans in the VIP area of the July 19 concert.
The lawsuit, which comes a day after the four alleged victims filed their own separate lawsuit, cites Brown’s “checkered past,” including a high-profile 2009 attack on his then-girlfriend Rihanna that led to a felony conviction.
Trending on Billboard
“The plaintiff herein is just the latest in a long line of individuals who have suffered at Brown’s hands,” Overpeck’s attorneys write. “This R&B performer lacks civility and boldly disregards life and health of anyone who he targets.”
According to the lawsuit, Overpeck says he witnessed Brown and his entourage attack the four men after the singer was reminded that he had “beef” with one of the alleged victims. “I don’t forget shit,” Brown allegedly said to the four men, before instructing his entourage to “fuck em up.”
Working as a security guard, Overpeck says he attempted to “de-escalate” the situation and “intervene to stop the violence,” but was “thrown out of the way” as “chairs and punches started flying.” During the fight, Overpeck says he was repeatedly kicked and that one of Brown’s men jumped on top of him.
The “brutal assault” left Overpeck with “crippling neck injuries,” the lawsuit claims, including a fractured neck that has left him unable to work and needing “extensive medical treatment.”
The lawsuit also names three members of his entourage — Conway, Hood Boss (a.k.a. Omololu Omari Akinlolu) and Sinko Ceej — as defendants. It also names tour promoter Live Nation as a defendant, accusing the company of negligence for failing to protect him despite Brown’s history of violent behavior.
The lawsuit is seeking “no less” than $15 million in damages, but such demands have little bearing on how much money is eventually awarded if a lawsuit is ultimately successful.
The case largely echoes claims made a day earlier in a separate by the four fans allegedly attacked by Brown — Larry Parker, Joseph Lewis, Charles Bush and Damarcus Powell. In that case, a Houston judge has already issued a temporary restraining order barring Brown and others from destroying any videos of the alleged incident and requiring them to hand over such evidence.
In Wednesday’s new lawsuit, attorneys for Overpeck referenced that court order – and said that they believe a video of the fight exists: “The initial assault, wherein Brown is clearly shown throwing the first punch, is captured on video. A temporary restraining order has now been entered to preserve such video.”
Brown was accused of co-conspiring, aiding and abetting in a 2017 sexual assault that took place during a party at his house in a lawsuit filed by attorney Gloria Allred on behalf of her client, a woman who will be known as Jane Doe.
According to the lawsuit, a copy of which was reviewed by Billboard, Doe had attended a concert at 1 Oak in West Hollywood, where she was invited to attend an after party at a recording studio where Brown and rapper Young Lo — whose real name is Lowell Grissom, Jr. — were working. When she arrived there, her phone was allegedly taken from her because Brown did not want any phones in the studio. Even when Doe wanted to leave, she claims her phone was not returned and she was then coerced into going to Brown’s house in order to retrieve her phone.
While at Brown’s house, the plaintiff claims alcohol and illicit drugs that she believed include cocaine, molly and marijuana were provided to guests. She also says Brown handed each female guest, including herself, a pill filled with white powder and instructed them to take it to have a “good time.” Doe did not take her pill and instead sought to isolate herself in hopes she would be left alone.
Meanwhile, according to the filing, Doe’s mother — with whom she is usually in close contact — became worried because she had not heard from her daughter and used an app to track the phone’s location to Brown’s house. Using that information, she called the police asking they go search for her daughter. The police did show up, but Brown refused to open the gate and denied them entry to his property.
The police left and the party continued, while Doe claims Grissom was “evasive” and would not return her phone. From there, things took a turn for the worse. The plaintiff alleges that Brown, Grissom, a female guest referred to as Doe X — who is believed to be friends with Brown and Grissom and to have toured with them — and others planned to use drugs, alcohol and intimidation to “coerce and force unwilling female guests to perform sexual acts for Defendants and others.” They allegedly lured the female guests into a bedroom and then falsely imprisoned those unwilling to voluntarily engage in sexual activity by going so far as to barricade the door and then further “coerce, intimidate and sexually harass the unwilling female guests to commit sexual acts” on the defendants and others.
Brown, Grissom, Doe X and other unnamed defendants were accused of sexual battery, gender violence, hate violence, assault, interference with exercise of civil rights, intentional infliction of emotional distress and more.
The new judge in Young Thug’s sprawling Atlanta gang trial has been greeted by a flood of new motions, including a renewed demand to release the rapper from the “torturous conditions” he’s faced while sitting in jail for more than two years.
A week after Judge Paige Reese Whitaker took the reins in the massive racketeering case, Thug’s attorney Brian Steel asked her on Tuesday (July 23) to release the rapper on bond and allow him to live under house arrest with strict monitoring until a verdict is reached.
Judge Ural Glanville, who was removed from the case earlier this month after revelations of a secret meeting with prosecutors and a key witness, has repeatedly denied such requests. In his new motion, Steel told Whitaker that those rulings had forced Thug to “languish” in jail for years without ever being convicted of a crime.
“The most fundamental premise of our criminal justice system is that the criminally accused cannot be punished for an offense until the prosecution proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt,” Steel told the new judge in his filing. “In our society, liberty is the norm.”
Thug (Jeffery Williams) and dozens of others were indicted in May 2022 over allegations that their YSL was not really a record label called Young Stoner Life but rather a violent Atlanta gang called Young Slime Life. Citing Georgia’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) law, prosecutors claim the group operated a criminal enterprise that committed murders, carjackings, armed robberies, drug dealing and other crimes over the course of a decade.
The trial kicked off in January 2023 but has faced repeated delays and disruptions, including an unprecedented 10-month jury selection, the stabbing of another defendant and now the removal of the presiding judge. Prosecutors have only presented part of their vast list of potential witnesses, and the case is expected to run well into 2025.
Since being arrested on the day the indictment was released, Thug has sat in jail. Steel has repeatedly asked for pre-trial release, but Glanville rejected those requests after Fulton County prosecutors warned that the rapper might intimidate witnesses if granted bond. At a hearing last year, the judge ruled that Thug posed “a significant risk to the community.”
In Tuesday’s motion, Steel urged Whitaker to reject those concerns, repeating his previous promises that Thug would submit to strict conditions under house arrest. Steel said those conditions include the use of electronic monitoring, the hiring of off-duty police officers to guard him, subjecting all communications to monitoring and requiring searches of all people entering the home.
“This will prevent any possibility to intimidate a witness or otherwise obstruct the administration of justice,” Steel wrote. “With these parameters in mind, it cannot be said that Mr. Williams would be a threat or a danger to the community or any person or property in the community.”
Thug’s conditions while “languishing in the county jail” have been “tortuous,” Steel wrote — including 22 hours of daily isolation, “inedible food” and an “ant infested room” from which he cannot see out the windows.
“Ordering Mr. Williams to wear an ankle monitor and to be in ‘total lockdown’ in his home is the equivalent to custody and confinement and has been deemed lawful confinement without the punishment imposed by the current county jail conditions wrongly imposed on Mr. Williams,” Steel wrote.
In addition to Thug’s renewed motion for bond, Whitaker is also facing a flood of other motions as she takes over the case, including multiple requests to declare a mistrial.
Echoing a similar motion already filed by Thug’s legal team earlier this month, attorneys for Yak Gotti (Deamonte Kendrick) argued in a Tuesday filing that Glanville’s secret meeting with prosecutors was an “egregious violation” and grounds for an immediate mistrial: “Kendrick’s Constitutional rights were violated when neither he nor his attorneys were present at a critical stage of the proceedings,” attorney Doug Weinstein wrote.
Attorneys for Quamarvious Nichols, another YSL defendant, made a different argument for a mistrial: that a brand new judge could not possibly “make informed rulings” after missing the first 19 months of trial in which over 100 witnesses had already testified.
“Trials evolve and decisions are made by the court based in part on the way the trial and evidence play out over time,” attorney Bruce Harvey wrote. “This Court has missed crucial proceedings necessary to make fair and well-founded rulings and to properly instruct the jury both during and at the conclusion of trial.”
Whitaker is facing new filings from prosecutors, too. In a motion filed Tuesday, the Fulton County District Attorney’s office asked the judge to order defense attorneys to stop making “extrajudicial statements to the media” about the case, arguing that it could have a “prejudicial effect” on jurors. Prosecutors cited specific statements allegedly made by Steel, Weinstein and other defense lawyers to media outlets.
Whitaker has set a hearing date for next week to hear and potentially decide the various new motions.
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: Michael Jackson’s estate scores a victory in litigation over a $600 million catalog sale; Snoop Dogg is hit with a copyright lawsuit that cites Tracy Chapman; Melissa Etheridge faces a legal battle from her partners in her failed cannabis business; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: Jackson Estate Scores Legal Victory
Michael Jackson’s estate won a key ruling last week in a legal battle with the late singer’s mother — and though it’s only a “tentative” win, the stakes are enormous. More than 15 years after Jackson’s death, his estate is still tied up in probate court, reportedly over unresolved tax issues. So when the King of Pop’s executors wanted to sell part of his catalog to Sony Music for more than $600 million, it asked a California judge for approval to do so. Katherine Jackson objected, arguing that the sale “violated Michael’s wishes” and that the catalog would likely continue to gain value over time if retained, among other arguments. Last week, a California appeals court tentatively rejected Katherine’s objections — ruling that it would likely rule for the estate both procedurally (that she had failed to preserve arguments on appeal) and substantively (that the estate’s executors had the power to make the Sony deal.)Go read our full story on the decision — and stay tuned for whether the court decides to finalize its ruling.
Other top stories this week…
LEGAL LEGEND – While we’re on the subject of the Jackson estate, go read Frank DiGiacomo’s excellent profile of estate co-executor John Branca, a music attorney who at various points in his career has represented Bob Dylan, The Beach Boys, Paul McCartney, the Elvis Presley estate and The Rolling Stones. SNOOP LIABILITY – Snoop Dogg was sued for copyright infringement over allegations that the legendary rapper has refused to pay a veteran studio musician after using two of his backing tracks. The case offers a glimpse at industry practices surrounding the use of uncleared samples to privately “experiment” in the recording studio — and cites an earlier battle between Tracy Chapman and Nicki Minaj over that same issue. WEED WAR – Melissa Etheridge is facing a legal battle over her brief foray into the cannabis business, filed by two business partners in Northern California (Josephine and D’Angelo Roberto) who say they “invested their life’s work into the businesses” but claim the singer “abandoned them” and left them in “financial ruin.” AN “ABHORRENT SCHEME”– Attorneys for Priscilla Presley filed a lawsuit against four of her former business partners over allegations of elder abuse and fraud, accusing them of a “meticulously planned” scheme to drain Elvis Presley’s ex-wife of “every last penny she had” — including nearly $1 million to date and 80% of her future income.ANOTHER DAY, ANOTHER JUDGE – Just two days after Judge Ural Glanville was ordered removed from Young Thug’s sprawling Atlanta gang trial, his replacement on the trial bench (Judge Shukura L. Ingram) said that she would also recuse herself. Later the same day, Judge Paige Reese Whitaker assumed control of the massive racketeering case and now appears to be settling in to run it for the long haul. KANYE SUED AGAIN – Ye (formerly Kanye West) was sued yet again over claims of illegal sampling, this time over allegations that he used an instrumental track called “MSD PT2” in two songs from the album Donda even after he was explicitly denied permission. The case closely echoes a lawsuit filed against him by the estate of Donna Summer, which similarly claimed that he had used one of her songs even after being directly refused a license. That case settled last month. GOSSIP OR DEFAMATION? Soulja Boy launched a defamation lawsuit against social media personalities Tasha K and William The Baddest, claiming that they made false statements on a podcast about the rapper having a sexual encounter with a man — or, in the words of his lawyers, “redefining his character as a man who is not straight.” If Tasha K’s name sounds familiar, it should: She’s the gossip host who Cardi B sued for defamation over claims about STDs, drug use and prostitution, eventually winning a $4 million judgment. NBA MUSIC LAWSUITS – More than a dozen NBA teams were sued for copyright infringement by Kobalt and other music companies over allegations that the basketball teams used songs in social media videos without permission. The cases came with city-specific flair: The New York Knicks were accused of using songs by “New York legends” Jay-Z and Cardi B; the Philadelphia 76ers allegedly used music from Philly native Meek Mill; and the Atlanta Hawks took songs by “Atlanta’s own” Migos and OutKast. MUSIC AI BATTLES – How are the copyright lawsuits against AI music firms Suno and Udio going to shake out? Billboard’s Robert Levine breaks down the fair use doctrine and how it might be applied to the new frontier of training artificial intelligence models, particularly in the wake of high-profile cases involving Google Books, the Android operating system and an Andy Warhol print of Prince. ROYALTY ROW – SoundExchange sued a free streaming service called AccuRadio over allegations that the company has failed to pay royalties for music for years, claiming the streamer has “directly harmed creators.” The small streamer denied the allegations, saying it had reliably paid $12.5 million in royalties over the years but was struggling with high rates imposed on online radio. BACKSTAGE MELEE – Chris Brown, Live Nation and several members of his entourage were hit with a lawsuit over an alleged assault that took place following Brown’s concert last week in Fort Worth, Texas. The case claims that Brown and others “brutally and severely beat” four men backstage in an unprovoked attack following the show. CHIPPING AWAY – Attorneys for Live Nation asked a federal judge to dismiss part of the Justice Department’s antitrust lawsuit — specifically, that the concert promoter uses illegal tying arrangements to operate its amphitheaters. The company argued that this practice, described as a “refusal to deal,” is common in the concert business and protected by Supreme Court precedent.
Trending on Billboard
Chris Brown and several members of his entourage, along with Brown’s 11:11 Tour promoter Live Nation, are facing a lawsuit over an alleged assault that took place following Brown’s concert in Fort Worth, Texas, on Friday night.
Filed Monday (July 22) in Harris County district court by attorneys Tony Buzbee and Caroline Adams, the lawsuit claims that Brown and several accomplices “brutally and severely beat” four men — Larry Parker, Joseph Lewis, Charles Bush and Damarcus Powell — backstage at Dickies Arena in an unprovoked attack following the show.
“The violence included Brown and his entourage surrounding the Plaintiffs, throwing chairs at them, and repeatedly kicking, stomping, and beating them,” the complaint reads. “The unprovoked violence included multiple strikes to the Plaintiffs’ heads and chests, and ultimately involved stomping them while they were down. The brutal, violent assault participated in and directed by Brown, severely injured all Plaintiffs.”
Trending on Billboard
According to the complaint, the attack occurred after the four men were invited to the backstage VIP area following the show, where they allegedly waited 30 minutes for Brown to arrive. “Having grown tired of waiting,” the complaint reads, the men began making their way to the exit, at which point Bush says he approached Brown to shake his hand and congratulate him on the concert. After exchanging pleasantries, a member of Brown’s crew then allegedly shouted to Brown, “Man, you don’t remember you two were beefing?” The lawsuit claims that Brown then replied, “Oh yeah, we were…I don’t forget sh–” before instructing his entourage to “f—” Bush up.
At that point, the plaintiffs claim that Brown, along with “seven to ten members” of his crew, followed them into a hallway as they were attempting to leave and attacked them. “One of Brown’s entourage, known by the alias Sinko, ran to the left side of the crowd and punched Bush in the chest,” the complaint reads. “Simultaneously, another of Brown’s entourage, stage alias Hood Boss, picked up a chair and threw it at Bush’s head.”
The complaint says that Parker was also badly beaten after Brown allegedly instructed another member of his entourage, Markies Deandre Conway (a.k.a. Yella Beezy), and several others to “f—” him up. After fleeing into a stairwell, the lawsuit claims Parker became trapped by a locked door at the bottom of the stairs, where he was subsequently attacked by Brown and several other men.
“Upon instruction by Brown, Parker was then punched in the face and chest, kicked in the head for over ten minutes, and stomped on by Defendant Brown and his associates,” the complaint alleges. “Brown encouraged his companions to join in the assault simultaneously. Brown and his entourage then continued to beat Plaintiff Parker closed fisted for almost minutes, repeatedly stomping on Defendant Parker’s head, kicking his face and ribs, and causing severe bodily injury.”
Brown and his crew are also accused of punching Powell in the shoulder and punching Lewis in the shoulder and chest.
The complaint claims that all four men required medical treatment and that Parker was hospitalized and “will need to undergo extensive medical treatment for the damages he suffered in the attack, including head injuries.”
In addition to Brown, the lawsuit names three members of his entourage — Conway, Hood Boss (a.k.a. Omololu Omari Akinlolu) and Sinko Ceej — as defendants. As for Live Nation, the complaint alleges that the concert promoter continued working with Brown despite his history of “bad conduct and violent conduct.” According to the lawsuit, the company “shamelessly profits and promotes Brown’s The 11:11 Tour and brought Brown to Texas for financial gain. Live Nation failed to insure that the [participants] of the concert who may be around Brown, and his associates, were safe.”
The plaintiffs are asking for compensatory and punitive damages “in excess [of] $50 million,” along with actual damages for “pecuniary losses, pain and suffering, disfigurement, mental anguish, and past, present, and future medical expenses,” among other relief.
In making its case, the plaintiffs’ attorneys make note of several of the defendants’ criminal histories, alleging that Ceej was a member of “the blood gang” and spent “at least eight years in prison” and that Conway, “a former Crip gang member,” has been arrested multiple times for firearm possession and sexual assault.
The lawsuit additionally recounts Brown’s well-publicized brushes with the law, including the singer’s guilty plea for beating his then-girlfriend Rihanna in 2009, for which he was sentenced to five years’ probation and community service and forced to undergo domestic violence counseling. Brown has been arrested and/or sued multiple times for various instances of alleged physical and sexual assault, including by multiple women and his former manager, Michael Guirguis. In 2014, Brown pleaded guilty to simple assault for punching a man in the face the previous year.
Representatives for Brown, Live Nation and Conway did not immediately respond to Billboard‘s requests for comment. Representatives for Akinlolu and Ceej could not be located for comment.
SoundExchange is suing a free streaming service called AccuRadio over allegations that the company failed to pay royalties for music, claiming the streamer has “directly harmed creators.”
In a lawsuit filed Friday in Washington D.C. federal court, SoundExchange accused AccuRadio of violating the federal law that governs how radio-like services pay royalties to record labels and artists for the right to publicly perform copyrighted sound recordings.
SoundExchange – the non-profit that collects and distributes such “statutory royalties” – says AccuRadio had always paid its full bill until 2016, when its payments “slowed” and then finally stopped in 2018.
“AccuRadio has directly harmed creators over the years by refusing to pay royalties for the use of protected recordings,” said Michael Huppe, SoundExchange’s president and CEO said in a statement on Monday. “Today, SoundExchange is standing up for creators through this lawsuit to protect the value of music and ensure creators are compensated fairly for their work. We hope AccuRadio will immediately reverse course and pay what they owe for the use of the music that sits at the foundation of its service.”
Trending on Billboard
Founded in 2000, AccuRadio boasts that it is “the only online music streaming service curated by human beings, not algorithms.” The company offers hundreds of ad-supported free music channels that users can further customize, including skipping songs they don’t like.
According to SoundExchange, after AccuRadio stopped paying its royalty bill, the two sides have attempted to negotiate a solution for years, including a so-called forbearance agreement last year in which the streamer agreed to make a set down payment and then regular additional payments. But after three months, SoundExchance claims AccuRadio defaulted on that agreement, too.
“The cumulative amount of defendant’s underpayment – which harms SoundExchange, as well as the performing artists and copyright owners on whose behalf it collects and distributes royalties – continues to grow with each passing month,” SoundExchange’s lawyers write in their complaint.
In addition to demanding payment, the lawsuit is seeking a preliminary injunction that would immediately force AccuRadio to either pay up or stop offering copyrighted music to its listenership.
“While defendant has defaulted on the payments due pursuant to the forbearance agreement, it continues to operate its multichannel internet radio service, providing access to over a thousand pre-developed music channels and access to millions of sound recordings,” the lawsuit reads. “Injunctive relief is reasonably necessary to stop defendant from abusing the statutory license and incurring further damages throughout the pendency of this litigation.”
AccuRadio did not immediately return a request for comment on Monday.
More than a dozen NBA teams are facing copyright lawsuits from Kobalt and other music companies over allegations that the basketball teams used songs in social media videos without permission.
In 14 separate actions filed in federal court Friday, Kobalt and others accused each club of using copyrighted music in promotional videos on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, TikTok and X (formerly Twitter) to “increase viewership” and “engage its fanbase.”
In the case against the New York Knicks, the music companies accused the team of using songs by “New York legends” Jay-Z and Cardi B. The case against the Philadelphia 76ers cited use of songs by Philly native Meek Mill. In the action against Atlanta Hawks, the complaint said the club had used music by “Atlanta’s own” Migos and OutKast.
But in each case, the overarching allegation was the same – that a sophisticated corporate entity had stolen music that it knew it was supposed to pay for.
Trending on Billboard
“Defendants are acutely aware of the protections that the copyright laws of the United States afford,” lawyers for the music companies wrote in language that appeared in each lawsuit. “[The team] utilizes the full extent of legal protections available for its own intellectual property while simultaneously knowingly and willfully infringing on the intellectual property rights of the plaintiffs.”
In addition to the Knicks, 76ers and Hawks, the lawsuits targeted the Cleveland Cavaliers, the Denver Nuggets, the Indiana Pacers, the Miami Heat, the Minnesota Timberwolves, the New Orleans Pelicans, the Orlando Magic, the Phoenix Suns, the Portland Trail Blazers, the Sacramento Kings and the San Antonio Spurs.
A spokesman for the NBA did not immediately return a request for comment.
The other music companies who signed onto the lawsuits include Artist Publishing Group, Notting Hill Music and Prescription Songs.
Social media platforms like Instagram and TikTok provide huge libraries of licensed music for users to add to their videos. But there’s a key exception: The songs can’t be used for commercial or promotional videos posted by brands. That kind of content requires a separate synch license, just like a conventional ad on television.
In recent years, music owners have cracked down on brands that blur those lines on social media. All three major labels sued drink maker Bang Energy for using hundreds of copyrighted songs in TikTok videos, with Universal and Sony eventually winning judgments. The owner of the “Space Jam” song has filed several lawsuits over the past year, including suing a minor league baseball team that used the famed 1990s track in a Facebook video. And earlier this month, the Beastie Boys sued the owner of Chili’s for using the trio’s “Sabotage” in social media clips that spoofed the song’s famous music video.