Legal
Page: 27
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: A new copyright rule on streaming royalties and termination rights is hailed as a “landmark victory” for songwriters; a judge rules on the latest legal battle inside the Prince estate; a band called Jellyroll drops its trademark lawsuit against Jelly Roll; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: ‘Landmark Victory’ On Termination & Streaming
The U.S. Copyright Office has finalized a new rule to clear up uncertainty about who gets paid streaming royalties when songwriters take back their music rights – a wonky subject, but one that roused superstars and advocacy groups into action to secure a “landmark victory” for songwriters.The new rule addresses complicated issues about how the Music Modernization Act’s blanket license for streaming royalties interacts with so-called termination rights – a federal provision that empowers authors to reclaim the rights to their copyrighted works decades after selling them away.It seems straightforward that if a songwriter invokes termination to win back their songs, they should get paid for them. But due to complex legal questions (mind-meltingly complex, trust me on this), the Mechanical Licensing Collective had implemented a policy that critics warned might keep streaming royalties flowing – in perpetuity – to the companies that used to own the rights.Following a multi-year effort that included a push from artists like Don Henley, Sheryl Crow, Sting, Bob Seger, Maren Morris, John Mayer and many others, the Copyright Office overturned that “erroneous” approach this week. For more, go read our full story, complete with an explainer of the legal issues, reactions from the industry, and access to the text of the new rule.
Other top stories this week…
PRINCE ESTATE FIGHT – A Delaware judge issued a key decision in the latest legal battle over the Prince estate, ruling that a group of the star’s heirs could not oust two of Prince’s former business advisors (L. Londell McMillan and Charles Spicer Jr.) from leadership roles. The judge said the advisors had been vested with “broad” authority and could not be removed after one heir “came to regret this decision.”JELLYROLL v. JELLY ROLL – The leader of a Philadelphia wedding band called “Jellyroll” agreed to drop a trademark lawsuit he filed earlier this year against rapper-turned-country singer Jelly Roll, claiming he had settled the case by reaching an “amicable agreement” with the superstar artist. But the move to drop the case was unilateral and the artists reps did not confirm that any kind of deal had been reached.CARDI B COPYRIGHT – The rapper was sued for copyright infringement by a pair of producers (Joshua Fraustro and Miguel Aguilar) who claim that Cardi used their earlier track without permission in her hit single “Enough (Miami).”DIDDY SUED AGAIN – Sean “Diddy” Combs was hit with another sexual abuse case, this time by an exotic dancer named Adria English who claims she was a victim of a sex trafficking operation. Like one of the many previous cases against Combs, the new lawsuit claims he and others violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations, the federal “RICO” law that’s historically been used to target the mafia, drug cartels and other organized crime rings.LYRICAL PROBATION? Following an 11-year prison sentence on federal gun charges, New Orleans rapper B.G. will be required to provide the U.S. Probation Office with a copy of the lyrics to his upcoming songs before producing and promoting them. The arrangement – the product of an agreement between prosecutors and defense attorneys – came months after prosecutors arrested B.G. for violating his parole by performing at a Las Vegas concert alongside rapper Lil Boosie.
Trending on Billboard
GUITAR RULING SHREDDED – A federal appeals court overturned a jury verdict won by guitar maker Gibson against a smaller company that allegedly copied the trademarked shape of the Flying V and other iconic designs. The reason? The appeals court said the trial judge improperly excluded key evidence that might have helped show that the design was too “generic” for trademark protection.
The leader of a Philadelphia wedding band called Jellyroll has agreed to drop a trademark lawsuit he filed earlier this year against rapper-turned-country singer Jelly Roll.
The case accused Jelly Roll (Jason DeFord) of infringing the trademark to “Jellyroll” — a name Kurt Titchenell says he’s used for decades for an act the Philadelphia Inquirer has labeled as “Philly’s favorite wedding band.”
But in a court filing on Tuesday (July 9), Titchenell agreed to voluntarily drop his lawsuit permanently. In a statement, Titchenell said he had “settled” the case by reaching an “amicable agreement” with the superstar artist: “We look forward to our continued use of the name, Jellyroll Band, in connection with our party band business.”
Trending on Billboard
Court records do not confirm that such a settlement was reached. The filing dismissing the case was not signed by attorneys for Jelly Roll, and instead simply dropped the case against him unilaterally. A spokeswoman for the star did not immediately return a request for comment.
Titchenell sued in April, claiming that Jelly Roll’s increasing popularity — his “Need A Favor” reached No. 13 on the Billboard Hot 100 in November — has flooded the market with his name, making it difficult for prospective clients to find Titchenell’s band.
“Prior to the defendant’s recent rise in notoriety, a search of the name of Jellyroll … returned references to the plaintiff,” his lawyers write in their complaint, obtained by Billboard. “Now, any such search on Google returns multiple references to defendant, perhaps as many as 18-20 references, before any reference to plaintiff’s entertainment dance band known as Jellyroll can be found.”
Titchnell claimed he’s been using the name for his band since 1980. In a 2019 Inquirer article marking the band’s 40th anniversary, the newspaper described Jellyroll as a group that nearly every Philadelphian has likely heard at some point, at one of thousands of weddings, galas and other public events.
In media interviews, Jelly Roll has said that his mother gave him the nickname as a child. He used the name on a 2003 self-released mixtape called The Plain Shmear Tape, and then on dozens of subsequent releases over nearly two decades as a little-known Nashville rapper.
The two artists appear to have peacefully co-existed until recently when Jelly Roll climbed the charts and became a household name. Following his breakout 2021 hit “Son of a Sinner” and last year’s “Need A Favor,” he was nominated for Best New Artist at this year’s Grammy Awards and won a trio of major honors at this year’s Country Music Awards.
In the April lawsuit, Titchenell’s attorneys had asked for an immediate court order that would stop the star from using the name “Jelly Roll.” They specifically pointed to an upcoming concert at Philadelphia’s Wells Fargo Center in October: “Despite his receipt of a demand to cease and desist using plaintiff’s registered service mark, defendant has ignored this demand.”
The U.S. Copyright Office has finalized a new rule aimed at ensuring that songwriters who invoke termination rights to regain control of their music will actually start getting paid streaming royalties after they do so.
The provision, issued on Tuesday, will overturn what the Copyright Office called an “erroneous” earlier policy by the Mechanical Licensing Collective, which critics feared would have kept sending money from streamers like Spotify to former owners in perpetuity, long after a songwriter took back ownership.
Proposals to force the MLC to change that approach, first reported by Billboard in 2022, were supported by a slew of songwriters like Don Henley, Sheryl Crow and Sting, who feared they would be “deprived of the rights afforded to them by copyright law.” The effort was led by groups including the Music Artists Coalition, Songwriters of North America, Black Music Action Coalition and the Recording Academy.
Trending on Billboard
In a statement on Tuesday, Music Artists Coalition board member Jordan Bromley called the Copyright Office’s new termination rule a “landmark victory for songwriters.”
“This decision not only ensures fair compensation for songwriters who reclaim their rights, but also sets a precedent that strengthens the very foundation of copyright law in the digital age,” Bromley said. “It’s a clear message that in the evolving landscape of music streaming and licensing, the rights of creators must be protected and respected.”
A spokeswoman for the MLC did not return a request for comment.
HOW IT WORKS
The new rule issued Tuesday addresses complex questions about how MLC’s blanket license for streaming royalties, created by the Music Modernization Act in 2018, interacts with so-called termination rights – a federal provision that empowers authors to reclaim the rights to their copyrighted works decades after selling them away.
Though a powerful tool for songwriters, termination comes with an important exception. Even though a publisher must hand back the rights to the original song, they’re entitled to keep selling any existing “derivative works” they created when they owned it. Those continue to be fair game, and any fees under existing licenses keep flowing back to their old publisher.
That exception makes practical sense: It would be unfair to let a terminating songwriter suddenly send cease-and-desists over a famous sample that had been legal when it was initially cleared, or sue over a movie that featured the song under a synch license. But it also creates difficult ambiguity for the MLC and the blanket license.
Say a songwriter terminates their publisher’s control of their music. The writer is now the owner of those songs — that’s easy to figure out. But by paying the MLC for access to the blanket license, Spotify arguably already has an existing license in place with the old publisher. So, isn’t the copy of the song on Spotify an existing derivative work? And shouldn’t the royalties from it continue to go to the old publisher under that license?
Under a dispute resolution policy issued by MLC in 2021, that appeared to be the case. The rules seemed to choose who to pay based on when a song was uploaded to a digital streamer’s servers; if it was uploaded prior to when a songwriter invoked their termination right, the royalties would keep going to the old owner — seemingly forever.
The MLC’s approach was not intended as a scheme to hurt songwriters. According to the Copyright Office, the group saw it as a “middle ground,” aimed at preventing drawn-out disputes that would lock up royalty payments “to the disadvantage of both songwriters and publishers.” But advocates argued that it would undermine the very purpose of termination rights, which were created to level the playing field for small creators who sold their works away to powerful companies.
In October 2022, the Copyright Office largely agreed. In a proposed new rule, the agency said the MLC’s policy was based on an “erroneous understanding and application of current law.” Ordering the group to “immediately repeal its policy in full,” the proposal said that when a songwriter gets their rights back, they should obviously start getting the royalties, too.
Nearly two years later, that rule was finalized on Tuesday. The final version retains most of the core features of the original proposal, though certain elements have been changed to address “practical and administrative concerns” raised by industry groups. In particular, the agency said it had modified how the rule identifies the payee to whom the MLC must distribute royalties, and pushed back deadlines to give the MLC more time to “update its processes and systems.”
QUIETING THE CRITICS
Over the past two years, the proposed rule underwent a so-called public comment period, during which it was met with both support and criticism from outside groups. According to Tuesday’s final rule, one of the “principal critics” was the National Music Publisher’s Association, which argued that the MLC’s original approach had been supported by historical precedent in industry practice.
In the new rule, the Copyright Office said it was “not persuaded by NMPA’s argument” on that issue.
“We do not dispute NMPA’s assertion that certain publishers may have adopted a different approach to termination, but this approach is not supported by the law in the context of the blanket license,” the agency wrote. “The Office is not adopting a new position, or changing the law as it relates to termination or the exception. Nor are we contending that the MMA or blanket license altered the law as it relates to the exception. The Office is merely stating what the law is and has always been.”
The Copyright Office also rejected separate arguments from the NMPA that the new rule was an impermissible “retroactive” rule, or even an unconstitutional “taking” that violated the Fifth Amendment. In doing so, the agency said that “these royalties always belonged to the post-termination copyright owner” and that the new rule simply “implements the law as it already existed.”
Despite earlier disagreements, NMPA President & CEO David Israelite celebrated the final enactment of the rule in a statement Tuesday, saying the group was pleased with a policy that “ensures songwriters are properly and expediently paid post termination.”
“Having clear guidance on this issue will make the MLC and larger industry even more efficient as it gives a clear roadmap to those who have decided to reclaim their copyrights,” Israelite said. “The songwriter groups deserve much credit for working with the Copyright Office and music publishers to push for this decision.”
A spokesperson for the NMPA declined to comment the Copyright Office’s decisions on the group’s specific objections.
Notably, the new rule will not just change the MLC’s approach going forward, but also require “corrective royalty adjustments” to address any money that was paid improperly under the old policy. But such payments are likely to be relatively small: In filings, the MLC has said that it voluntarily suspended the old termination policy while the case played out at the Copyright Office, and that it expects any corrections to total “less than $2 million.”
You can read the entire new rule here.
Pressure on Congress is heating up to pass legislation that will clean up the live events ticketing business following May’s passage of the Transparency In Charges for Key Events Ticketing (TICKET) Act in the House of Representatives.
The Fix the Tix Coalition, led by the National Independent Venue Association (NIVA), is calling for a nationwide day of action Tuesday (July 9) to encourage music fans, professionals and supporters to lobby their congressional representatives to pass meaningful legislation that will curb the growing problem of ticketing scams and deceptive practices in the live music business.
NIVA and other members of the Fix the Tix coalition, which also includes the Recording Academy and the National Independent Talent Organization, are backing their own legislation — the Senate’s Fans First Act, supported by U.S. Senators John Cornyn (R-Texas), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) — while also supporting passage of the TICKET Act, which is sponsored by Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), Gus Bilirakis (R-Fla) and Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-N.J.), among others.
Trending on Billboard
Both bills would ban the use of speculative ticket listings on sites like StubHub and SeatGeek, require all-in-pricing before checkout and crack down on the use of deceptive websites and URLs. The Fans First Act would also require resellers to disclose seat locations on their resale listings, ban scalpers from using fan clubs to buy up some concert tickets and include greater consumer protections for canceled events.
Fix The Tix officials are asking fans, artists, and members of the music and performance communities to reach out to Congress on Tuesday to demand action by the end of 2024.
The U.S. House of Representatives passed the TICKET Act in a 388-24 vote on May 15. The bill is currently before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
A case study conducted by Fix The Tix across five independent venues in the Washington, D.C., area shows that in 2024, 73,000 speculative tickets totaling an estimated $49 million have been listed on resale platforms. Speculative tickets are tickets that aren’t actually available for purchase but are sold to consumers at a considerable markup by sellers who promise to procure and deliver the tickets prior to the concert. These listings can often be misleading and lead to fraud.
“The Fix the Tix Day of Action is an important moment for all of us who believe in fair and transparent ticketing,” said Stephen Parker, executive director of NIVA, in a press release. “It’s a time to elevate the voices of fans and artists and harness their power as constituents. This is more than a one-day campaign. It’s a collective cry to protect the integrity of live performance. We urge Congress to listen to the voices of fans and artists and put comprehensive ticketing reform on their list of must-pass legislation in 2024, alongside other critical legislation such as FY 2025 Appropriations and the Farm Bill.”
Information on how to contact senators, members of Congress and the White House for tomorrow’s day of action can be found at fixthetix.org.
Prince’s former business advisors have won a key ruling in their ongoing legal battle with three of the pop legend’s heirs over the management of his estate.
In a decision issued Friday, a Delaware judge ruled that advisors L. Londell McMillan and Charles Spicer Jr. could not be ousted as mangers of Prince Legacy LLC, a company created to operate half of Prince’s lucrative estate.
Three of Prince’s heirs, led by his sister Sharon Nelson, had argued they could amend the LLC agreement to remove McMillan and Spicer from their leadership positions, but the judge ruled that such efforts were clearly invalid under the terms of the agreement.
“The LLC agreement is unambiguous and [McMillan and Spicer]’s interpretation is the only reasonable one,” Chancellor Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick wrote in the decision, which was obtained by Billboard.
Trending on Billboard
Ruling that Prince’s heirs had vested the two advisors with “broad and exclusive management authority,” the judge said they could not now amend their agreement simply because they “came to regret this decision.”
An attorney for Sharon Nelson and the other Prince heirs did not immediately return a request for comment on the ruling.
Prince had no will when he died of a fentanyl overdose in 2016, leaving six heirs to inherit equal shares in his valuable estate and sparking a long legal battle in Minnesota probate court over how the estate would be managed in the future.
When the court case finally wrapped up in August 2022, the estate was split into two companies – one controlled by Primary Wave after it purchased the shares of three heirs, and another (Prince Legacy) controlled by McMillan, Spicer and the three remaining relatives. At the time, both sides vowed to work together to bring Prince’s music and legacy to a new generation of music fans.
But in January, McMillan and Spicer sued their partners within Prince Legacy, claiming Nelson and other heirs were improperly trying to force them out as managers and “install themselves” in their place. McMillan and Spicer claimed Nelson had become “disgruntled” because they had refused to comply with her “unreasonable demands. They cited one incident in which she allegedly attempted “replace the entire staff” of Prince’s legendary Paisley Park home “with individuals of her choosing.”
The lawsuit argued that the efforts to oust McMillan and Spicer were not only barred by Prince Legacy’s operating agreement, but also posed a threat to their efforts “to preserve and protect Prince’s legacy.”
“The individual defendants lack any business and management experience, have no experience in the music and entertainment industries, and have no experience negotiating and managing high-level deals in the entertainment industry,” attorneys for McMillan and Spicer wrote at the time. “They have a documented history of infighting. Based on the amount and complexity of the work that Prince Legacy is involved with, they are simply not capable of stepping in and managing its business.”
In Friday’s decision, McCormick sided decisively with McMillan and Spicer, granting them summary judgment on their core allegation: That Nelson’s effort to amend the LLC agreement had been invalid under terms of the deal.
“Defendants’ interpretation … would lead to the absurd result of giving the non-managing members the authority to unilaterally take actions on behalf of the company and bind the company without the approval of the managing members,” the judge wrote in her ruling.
In a statement to Billboard following the ruling, McMillan said: “We are pleased with the judge’s decision and wish we were not forced to take legal action for the wrongdoing of the defendants (and their advisors) yet we have a heavy responsibility to preserve and protect Prince’s legacy and all he created, by all appropriate means necessary. I have protected Prince and been his partner for decades. Nothing will change our history and my loyalty to him and his legacy.”
Friday’s decision will not end the lawsuit, because McCormick also ruled that McMillan and Spicer could to pursue their related allegation that Nelson and the other heirs had breached that contract when they attempted to amend the LLC agreement. That claim will be subject to future litigation.
Primary Wave, which controls the other half of Prince’s estate, is not involved in the litigation nor accused of any wrongdoing.
Cardi B (born Belcalis Almanzar) has been sued for copyright infringement by Joshua Fraustro and Miguel Aguilar, who make up producer duo Kemika1956, alleging that the Grammy-winning rapper used their “Greasy Frybread” track without permission in her hit single “Enough (Miami).” According to court documents filed in Texas federal court on Wednesday (July 3), Fraustro […]
Sean “Diddy” Combs has been hit with a new lawsuit by exotic dancer Adria English, who claims she was a victim of sex trafficking orchestrated in the 2000s by the Bad Boy mogul and others she named in a sprawling complaint filed Wednesday (July 3) in New York federal court.
According to the lawsuit, filed by attorneys Ariel Mitchell-Kidd and Steven Metcalf, English was a victim of sex trafficking at the hands of Combs along with his fellow defendants Tamiko Thomas, who was allegedly an employee of Bad Boy Entertainment at the time, and a man named Jacob Arabov (a.k.a. Jacob The Jeweler). She alleges that the trio was “aided and abetted” by several companies also named as defendants in the complaint, including Bad Boy Entertainment, Combs Global Enterprises, Sean John Holdings, VIBE magazine and its current parent company, Penske Media Corporation (PMC). (PMC did not own VIBE when the alleged events occurred.)
Notably, the complaint alleges that the actions of all defendants amounted to a violation of federal RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) laws, which have historically been used to target the mafia, drug cartels and other organized crime rings (a similar state-level law in Georgia has formed the basis of prosecutors’ case against rapper Young Thug, whom they allege leads a violent Atlanta street gang known as Young Slime Life). These types of racketeering laws make it easier for prosecutors to sweep up members of alleged criminal enterprises based on many individual actions.
English claims she first came into contact with Combs in 2004 — when she says she was working as a dancer at Larry Flynt’s Hustler Club in Manhattan — after accompanying her then-boyfriend, model Anthony Gallo, to an audition for a Sean John modeling campaign. While at the audition, she says Gallo and another model were asked to perform fellatio on Combs as a condition of booking the job. After Gallo refused, she claims he was later told he could book the campaign if he commanded English to work as a go-go dancer at Combs’ Labor Day White Party in the Hamptons, N.Y. “In an effort to assist Mr. Gallo’s desire to become a model, Plaintiff agreed to what she believed to be legitimate employment,” the complaint reads.
While working the event, English says she was instructed to give lap dances and be “sexually flirtatious” with guests and “forced to consume liquor and illicit narcotics,” including bottles she claims were laced with ecstasy. She alleges she was subsequently invited to perform at additional White Parties, where Combs and Thomas — whom she compares to Ghislaine Maxwell, the former associate of late sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein — eventually “groomed” her into sex trafficking.
By her third White Party, English claims that Combs and Thomas demanded she partake in sexual intercourse with guests, using knowledge of her past work in adult films “to coerce” her into doing so. This activity, she claims, continued through 2009 at White Parties thrown at Combs’ Hampton and Miami residences.
One of the men English says she was forced to have sexual intercourse with during this period was Jacob Arabov (Jacob The Jeweler) at the behest of Combs, as she feared she could lose her job along with her boyfriend’s future modeling opportunities. “Plaintiff, fearing not only her safety, but her and her then-boyfriend’s job security, did as instruct and went with Defendant Jacob where she engaged in forced sexual intercourse with Defendant Jacob at the demand and behest of Defendant Combs,” the complaint reads.
English further alleges that Combs kept hidden cameras in every room of his Hamptons and Miami homes and believes her sexual assaults were caught on tape, including when she was “unconscious.”
During this period, English also alleges that VIBE magazine published an image of her in a November 2006 story about Combs’ White Parties without her consent, claiming its use violates her “rights to privacy via misappropriation.” She claims she “did not discover the infringing use” until April 2024. She further accuses VIBE and parent company PMC of “intentionally and falsely marketing and promoting” Combs’ White Parties “as a high-profile networking and social event in an effort to disguise and deceive the real intent of the event…and to further the goals of the Defendants illegal and criminal Enterprise.”
English says she continued putting up with Combs’ demands in part due to promises that he would help her break into the music business by putting her in an all-female music group. She says she finally detached herself from Combs when she returned to California in 2009, at which point she claims she suffered from deep depression and anxiety in response to the past trauma of being assaulted and trafficked, along with her unraveling career.
According to the lawsuit, English’s victimization at the hands of Combs and his alleged co-conspirators has led her to suffer continued “extreme emotional distress” that has impacted every aspect of her personal life.
In a statement sent to Billboard, Combs’ attorney Jonathan Davis said, “No matter how many lawsuits are filed it won’t change the fact that Mr. Combs has never sexually assaulted or sex trafficked anyone. We live in a world where anyone can file a lawsuit for any reason and without any proof. Fortunately, a fair and impartial judicial process exists to find the truth and Mr. Combs is confident he will prevail against these and other baseless claims in court.”
Billboard reached out to Thomas and Arabov for comment but had not heard back by press time. PMC declined to comment.
This is the 10th sexual misconduct lawsuit to be filed against Combs since his ex-girlfriend, pop star Cassie, made waves with her sexual abuse suit against the mogul in November, which was settled less than 24 hours later. He has vehemently denied all cases against him. Combs’ Miami and Los Angeles homes were raided by federal agents in March, though no arrests were made.
In May, disturbing footage obtained by CNN showed Combs abusing Cassie in an elevator bank at a Los Angeles hotel in March 2016. Soon after the footage came out, Combs apologized for his actions, which he says he was “disgusted” by.
“I was f—ed up. I mean, I hit rock bottom. But I make no excuses,” he said in the since-deleted Instagram clip. “My behavior on that video is inexcusable. I take full responsibility for my actions in that video. I’m disgusted. I was disgusted then when I did it, I’m disgusted now.”
In the wake of the allegations, the fallout for Combs has continued to reverberate. Last month, his media company Revolt announced employees would become the company’s largest shareholders after Combs reportedly sold his stake to an anonymous buyer. Also in June, Combs’ Miami Day honor was revoked and Howard University withdrew an honorary degree it bestowed upon him.
Editor’s Note: PMC is the parent company of Billboard.
When New Orleans rapper B.G. came home in September after serving an 11-year sentence following his guilty plea on two counts of possession of a firearm and one count of conspiracy to obstruct justice, the rap community rejoiced. He’s the man responsible for entering the phrase “bling-bling” into the pop culture lexicon, after all.
But nearly a year later, the founding member of ’90s rap group Hot Boys is facing an unusual legal challenge: On Friday (June 28), a U.S. District Court judge in Louisiana ruled that the New Orleans rapper must provide the U.S. Probation Office with a copy of the lyrics to his upcoming songs for approval before producing or promoting them.
The decision, handed down by U.S. district court judge Susie Morgan, came several months after B.G. (real name Christopher Dorsey) was arrested in March for performing at a Las Vegas concert alongside rapper Lil Boosie; apparently, B.G. needed prior permission from the court to associate with acts that also have felony convictions on their record, as Lil Boosie does. The probation officer in the case also cited B.G.’s work with Gucci Mane, another rapper/convicted felon with whom B.G. released a collaborative mixtape, Choppers & Bricks, in December.
B.G. was subsequently released on his own recognizance pending the judge’s decision. Shortly after, the rapper expressed his frustration in an Instagram post, saying in part, “It’s crazy how after paying my debt to society with 12 and a half years of my life I come home and still ain’t free…I been doing everything the right way and it seems like that ain’t enough.”
At a court hearing on June 18, B.G. and prosecutors confirmed they had reached a deal to modify the conditions of the rapper’s supervised release following his March arrest but “disagreed” over the prosecutors’ request to prohibit the rapper “from promoting and glorifying future gun violence/murder” in his music and at his concerts, according to the June 28 ruling.
[embedded content]
“The Defendant argues that the additional condition proposed by the Government is an unconstitutional prior restraint of speech that is an overly broad condition of supervised release,” the ruling reads.
The judge ultimately found that the prosecutors’ request was “not sufficiently clear and specific to serve as a guide for the Defendant’s conduct and for those entrusted with his supervision,” instead imposing a special condition that B.G. provide the probation office “with a copy of the lyrics of any song he writes,” according to the ruling. All lyrics B.G. shares with the probation office will be passed to the U.S. government, which can then decide if his “conduct is inconsistent with the goals of rehabilitation,” the ruling continues.
A representative for B.G. did not immediately respond to Billboard‘s request for comment.
The ruling is certain to cause controversy at a time when the practice of lyrics being used against rappers in criminal court has become a hot-button issue. In November, a judge ruled that Young Thug‘s lyrics can be used during his YSL RICO case, saying that “the First Amendment is not on trial.” Bobby Shmurda and the late Drakeo the Ruler have also had their lyrics used against them in criminal cases. There have since have been laws passed and proposed on both the state and federal levels to stop the criminalization of rap lyrics; in September, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law a statute restricting the practice, while similar laws have been proposed in New York and the U.S. House of Representatives.
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: Pharrell Williams and Louis Vuitton face a trademark lawsuit over “Pocket Socks”; Diplo is hit with a lawsuit claiming he distributed “revenge porn”; the Village People move forward with a lawsuit against Disney; a longtime attorney repping Britney Spears moves on; and much more.
Top stories this week…
SOCKED WITH A LAWSUIT – Pharrell Williams and Louis Vuitton were hit with a trademark lawsuit over their launch of a high-end line of “Pocket Socks” a literal sock-with-a-pocket that launched at Paris Fashion Week last year and sells for the whopping price of $530. The case was filed by a California company called Pocket Socks Inc. that says it’s been using that same name for more than a decade on a similar product. AI FIRMS FIRE BACK – Suno and Udio, the two AI music startups sued by the major record label last week over allegations that they had stolen copyrighted works on a mass scale to create their models, fired back with statements in their defense. Suno called its tech “transformative” and promised that it would only generate “completely new outputs”; Udio said it was “completely uninterested in reproducing content in our training set.”REVENGE PORN CLAIMS – Diplo was sued by an unnamed former romantic partner who accused him of violating “revenge porn” laws by sharing sexually-explicit videos and images of her without permission. NYPD confirmed to Billboard that a criminal investigation into the alleged incident was also underway. DISCO v. DISNEY – A California judge refused to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the Village People that claims the Walt Disney Co. has blackballed the legendary disco band from performing at Disney World. Disney had invoked California’s anti-SLAPP law and argued it had a free speech right to book whatever bands it chooses, but a judge ruled that the company had failed to show the issue was linked to the kind of “public conversation” that’s protected under the statute. WRIT ME BABY ONE MORE TIME – More than two years after Mathew Rosengart helped Britney Spears escape the longstanding legal conservatorship imposed by her father, the powerhouse litigator is no longer representing the pop star. In a statement, the Greenberg Traurig attorney said he was shifting to focusing on other clients: “It’s been an honor to serve as Britney’s litigator and primarily to work with her to achieve her goals.” PHONY FEES? – SiriusXM was hit with a class action lawsuit that claims the company has been earning billions in revenue by tacking a shady “U.S. Music Royalty Fee” onto consumers’ bills. The fee — allegedly 21.4% of the actual advertised price — represents a “deceptive pricing scheme whereby SiriusXM falsely advertises its music plans at lower prices than it actually charges,” the suit claims. DIVORCE DRAMA – Amid an increasingly ugly divorce case, Billy Ray Cyrus filed a new response claiming that he had been abused physically, verbally and emotionally by his soon-to-be-ex-wife, Firerose. The filing actually came in response to allegations that it was Cyrus who had subjected Firerose to “psychological abuse” during their short-lived marriage. UK ROYALTIES LAWSUIT – A group of British musicians filed a joint lawsuit against U.K. collecting society PRS, accusing the organization of a “lack of transparency” and “unreasonable” terms in how it licenses and administers live performance rights. The case, filed at London’s High Court, was brought by King Crimson’s Robert Fripp, as well as rock band The Jesus and Mary Chain and numerous other artists.
Trending on Billboard
The Spanish Society of Authors and Publishers (abbreviated SGAE in Spanish) has been fined 6.38 million euros (more than $6.9 million, using the average 2023 conversion rate) by the Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia (CNMC) for anti-competitive practices related to its licensing deals with radio and TV stations.
SGAE has been fined for “two infractions of abuse of dominant position” by designing and applying its licensing rates in a manner that forces radio and TV operators to accept an “averaged availability rate” (comparable to a flat rate) to be able to use its repertoire, according to a CNMC press release on Wednesday (June 26).
The widespread application of the flat rate by the Spanish collecting society “has had a double anti-competitive effect,” the CNMC says. The first effect, which the CNMC refers to as “exploitative abuse,” results from SGAE’s practice of forcing licensees to pay the flat rate “unrelated to the actual use they make of their repertoire, both in terms of the number of works and the intensity of their use,” according to the release, which states this practice has been ongoing since “at least” Jan. 1, 2016.
Trending on Billboard
Because licensees are forced to pay the flat rate regardless of the extent of their use of SGAE’s repertoire, the CNMC adds, licensees’ incentives to contract with SGAE competitors with less substantial repertoires are limited — a second anti-competitive effect that hinders “the entry and expansion” of those competitors in the marketplace.
According to the CNMC, SGAE “enhanced” the latter effect — which it says SGAE instituted from “at least” Jan. 1, 2016, through Dec. 31, 2017 — by “presenting its musical repertoire to users as universal and offering guarantees of indemnity against possible claims by third parties for the use of rights that do not belong to its repertoire.” The CNMC argues this further limited incentives for licensees to contract with SGAE competitors.
In addition to fines, SGAE has been ordered to cease these behaviors.
Investigations into SGAE began after complaints were made by audiovisual media copyright entities Management Entity (Dama) and Unison Rights, S.L. (Unison), the release states.
Billboard reached out to SGAE but had not heard back by press time.
Earlier this year, Billboard reported SGAE’s intentions to improve its reputation under new CEO Cristina Perpiñá-Robert, who was appointed a little more than a year ago.
“SGAE is one of the world’s leading CMOs, with a crucial role to play for its members,” Perpiñá-Robert previously said. “This year is our 125th anniversary, which is a chance to celebrate what we’ve achieved but also highlight where we need to reform. I’m determined that SGAE should achieve a greater presence internationally.”
Last year, SGAE took in 349.1 million euros ($377.8 million, based on the 2023 average conversion rate) and distributed 354.1 million euros ($383.2 million), according to its 2023 financial results, while the number of members with authors rights grew from 36,956 to 83,148.