Legal
Page: 33
Travis Scott is asking a federal judge to end a lawsuit accusing him of using unlicensed samples on songs from Utopia and Astroworld, arguing that nobody can claim a copyright on the words “alright, alright, alright.”
The case was filed in February by Dion Norman and Derrick Ordogne, who claim that Scott and Sony Music illegally borrowed a portion of their song “Bitches Reply” — an oft-sampled 1992 track that’s previously been used by Lil Wayne, Cardi B, Kid Cudi and others.
But in a motion to dismiss the case filed Monday (June 3), lawyers for Scott and Sony argue that the allegations were centered on the “untenable” claim to ownership over basic words — “alright, alright, alright” — that everyone should be free to use.
Trending on Billboard
“The only alleged copyright infringement here is the alleged copying of the word ‘alright’,” the star’s attorneys write. “But the single word ‘alright’ and the short phrase ‘alright, alright, alright’ lack even the minimal creativity required for copyright protection both because these lyrics are too short and because they are commonplace, or stock, expressions.”
Released in 1992 by DJ Jimi, “Bitches Reply” has reportedly been sampled or interpolated in dozens of songs, including tracks by Megan Thee Stallion, Drake and OutKast. Most of those samples have come from a staccato burst of the word “alright” shouted nine times at the beginning of the song.
Norman and Ordogne, who say they co-wrote DJ Jimi’s song and own the copyrights to it, claimed in their February lawsuit that Scott sampled from that portion of the track twice — first in his 2018 song “Stargazing” off the Astroworld album, and again in his 2023 “Til Further Notice” off Utopia.
But copyright law only protects “original” works, and that typically doesn’t include short phrases that are already widely used. In Monday’s response filing, Scott’s lawyers say that a repetition of a common word like “alright” in song lyrics was exactly that — too “trite” and “cliched” to meet copyright law’s basic requirements.
They cite numerous other songs that had featured the phrase before “Bitches Reply” was even released, including “Revolution” by The Beatles, Elton John’s “Saturday Night’s Alright” and Earth, Wind & Fire’s “Let’s Groove.” They also cite a 2003 ruling in which a federal judge ruled that T-Pain’s “Put It Down” didn’t infringe copyrights by using phrases like “I can’t get enough” and “raise your hands in the air.”
“The Copyright Act does not protect ‘stock’ expressions,” Scott’s lawyers write. “Because the allegedly infringed phrase “Alright, Alright, Alright” is too commonplace to be copyrightable, Plaintiffs’ copyright infringement claims should be dismissed.”
Monday’s motion also made various other attacks on Norman and Ordogne’s lawsuit, including that they failed to show that they own the proper copyright registrations and filed the claims over “Stargazing” past the statute of limitations.
An attorney for Norman and Ordogne did not immediately return a request for comment. Their lawyers can file a formal response to Scott’s motion in the coming weeks.
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: Cher wins a closely-watched termination battle against Sonny Bono’s widow; the massive copyright lawsuit against Bad Bunny and other reggaeton stars moves forward; R&B hitmaker The-Dream is hit with a sexual abuse lawsuit; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: Copyrights & Divorces & Cher, Oh My!
Cher emerged victorious last week in a long-running legal battle with Sonny Bono’s widow that centered on the messy intersection between federal copyrights and state-level divorce law.The lawsuit was the industry’s latest test of copyright law’s “termination right,” which gives creators and heirs the power to reclaim control of works decades after they sold them away. Created by Congress in the 1970s, termination was designed to level the playing field for creators who faced an “unequal bargaining position” with big companies and sold their rights for cheap.Over the past few years, record labels have faced class actions from artists seeking to win back their masters; musicians have pushed for a rule change to make sure songwriters can actually start collecting streaming royalties after they take back their copyrights; and individual artists like Dwight Yoakam, 2 Live Crew and KC & the Sunshine Band have all fought their own lawsuits over termination.Cher’s case posed new and difficult questions. After using termination to take back control of Sonny’s copyrights, Mary Bono argued that she was no longer required to honor Sonny and Cher’s 1978 divorce settlement, which gave the superstar a permanent 50% cut of the publishing revenue from songs written before the couple split up.But in a ruling on Wednesday (May 29), Judge John A. Kronstadt sided with Cher, ruling that she must continue to receive publishing royalties for her catalog of songs created with Sonny, including “I Got You Babe,” “The Beat Goes On” and “Baby Don’t Go.”For more, go read our entire breakdown of the ruling, including access to the judge’s full written decision.
Other top stories this week…
REGGAETON CASE GOES ON – A federal judge ruled that a sprawling copyright lawsuit can move forward with accusations that nearly 2,000 reggaeton songs — including hits by Bad Bunny, Karol G and dozens of others — all infringed a single 1989 song called “Fish Market” that allegedly spawned the so-called “dem bow” rhythm. The stars had argued that the lawsuit aimed to “monopolize practically the entire reggaetón musical genre,” but a judge said it was too early to make that argument — and that he wasn’t particularly receptive to it anyhow.“A PROLONGED NIGHTMARE” – The-Dream, a singer and producer who has worked with Beyoncé, Rihanna and others, was hit with a sex trafficking lawsuit that claims he subjected a young songwriter named Chanaaz Mangroe to an “abusive, violent, and manipulative relationship” that included an alleged incident of rape. The lawsuit claims the producer (Terius Gesteelde-Diamant) used promises of career advancement to lure a “young and vulnerable artist” into “a prolonged nightmare” filled with “violent sexual acts.”MEGAN THEE STALLION HITS BACK – The superstar rapper fired back at a lawsuit that claims she forced a cameraman named Emilio Garcia to watch her have sex with a woman inside a moving vehicle, filing a scathing first response that called those claims “false and fabricated” and labeled her accuser a “con artist.”MADONNA SUED AGAIN – The Queen of Pop was hit with yet another class action over delayed concerts on her Celebration Tour, this time from a ticket buyer who also claims that the show — which allegedly featured “topless women” who were “engaging in simulated sexual acts” — amounted to a form of “pornography.”STUBHUB JURY VERDICT – StubHub must pay more than $16 million in legal damages after a jury decided that the ticketing giant screwed over a smaller company called Spotlight Ticket Management — first by failing to pay millions in commissions, then by torpedoing the startup’s lucrative concierge partnership with American Express.KANYE HARASSMENT SUIT – Kanye West was sued by a former assistant named Lauren Pisciotta over allegations of sexual harassment and wrongful termination. In a lawsuit that came with pages of graphic texts that the rapper allegedly sent to her, Pisciotta’s attorneys claim she faced a “systematic” onslaught of “unlawful harassment” during her year of working for Ye.SPOTIFY SUED OVER “CAR THING” – A group of angry consumers filed a class action against Spotify over its recent decision to kill its short-lived “Car Thing” device, claiming that the streaming company’s move left them “with nothing more than a paperweight that cost between $50 and $100”.AEG CEO TALKS LIVE NATION CASE – In the wake of the DOJ’s antitrust lawsuit against Live Nation, AEG chairman/CEO Jay Marciano celebrated the case against its chief rival, saying it will bring “sweeping changes” to the live music industry. In an internal memo, Marciano said he believes that Live Nation “uses its monopoly power to impose its will on the live entertainment business.”
Trending on Billboard
The-Dream, a singer and producer who has worked with Beyoncé, Rihanna and others, was hit with a sex trafficking lawsuit Tuesday (June 4) that accuses him of subjecting a young songwriter to an “abusive, violent, and manipulative relationship” that included an alleged incident of rape.
In a lawsuit filed in Manhattan federal court, Chanaaz Mangroe claims the producer (Terius Gesteelde-Diamant) used promises of career advancement to lure a “young and vulnerable artist” into “a prolonged nightmare” filled with “violent sexual acts.”
“Over more than a year, Ms. Mangroe experienced trauma that she has still not recovered from—she is broken as an artist, constantly afraid for her physical safety, and plagued by reminders of the violence and control she experienced at the hands of Dream, who has continued his successful career unscathed by his horrific acts,” her attorneys write.
In addition to numerous allegations of violent sex, the lawsuit includes an allegation that The-Dream raped Mangroe in May 2015. Her lawyers say he pinned her down inside a sprinter van, started “forcibly having sex with her” and choked her so intensely that she potentially lost consciousness.
Representatives for The-Dream did not immediately return a request for comment on Tuesday.
In addition to five studio albums of his own, The-Dream has credits on a wide range of hits, including Rihanna’s 2007 smash “Umbrella” and Beyonce’s 2008 chart-topper “Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It).” He’s also worked with Britney Spears, Justin Bieber, Kanye West and numerous other stars.
Mangroe, a native of the Netherlands, claims that The-Dream reached out to her in 2014 when she was just 23 years old and working in the United States on an international visa. After she sent samples of her work, she says he invited her to Atlanta to work with him and his producing partner, Tricky Stewart.
Over time, her lawyers say The-Dream “used his age and influence in the industry to manipulate the young artist into believing that she needed him to be successful.” They say he promised to help her secure a visa extension, sign a record deal with a major label and even offered her a chance to open for Beyonce’s upcoming tour.
But in reality, her lawyers say The-Dream “used Ms. Mangroe for his base desires, which manifested in violent sexual acts and vicious psychological torture.” In addition to the alleged rape, they say he frequently subjected her to violent choking during sex, “berated” her during sex and used recordings of their sex to “threaten Ms. Mangroe into silence.”
“Nearly a decade later, Ms. Mangroe is still putting the pieces of her life back together, but she knows that without speaking up about what Dream did to her, she will never be able to heal from the harm he has caused,” her lawyers write. “She therefore brings this lawsuit to speak up for herself and other female artists who have been tormented by powerful and selfish men in the recording industry.
In addition to The-Dream, the lawsuit also names Sony Music’s Epic Records as a defendant, arguing that the producer’s “depraved behavior” was facilitated by the company. The lawsuit claims Epic “benefited from facilitating his behavior to the extent it kept their relationship with the talented musician viable and ensured continued profit from his work.”
Reps for both Epic and parent company Sony Music did not immediately return requests for comment on Tuesday.
The lawsuit was filed by Douglas Wigdor, a New York attorney known for representing alleged sexual assault victims. Wigdor’s firm has filed numerous abuse cases against music industry figures in recent months, including the bombshell case against Sean “Diddy” Combs filed by his ex-partner Cassie.
Kanye West is facing a lawsuit from his former assistant over allegations of sexual harassment and wrongful termination, including claims that he masturbated in front of her.
In a complaint filed Monday in Los Angeles court, Lauren Pisciotta claims that she faced a “systematic” onslaught of “unlawful harassment” during her year of working for the embattled rapper, first as an executive assistant and later as chief of staff for his companies.
Pisciotta says West frequently sent her sexually explicit texts, including photos and videos of him having sex with other women, and that he repeatedly propositioned her for sex.
“Defendant would often tell plaintiff that he always wanted to have sex with her, and that he held these feelings for a very long time,” Pisciotta’s lawyers write. “Defendant also falsely boasted that he had sex with plaintiff or would insinuate to his friends, business partners and music and fashion collaborators that he was having sex with plaintiff.”
In one particularly graphic allegation, Pisciotta claims that West locked her in a room during a private jet flight and laid down in a bed in front of her: “Plaintiff sat in a chair across from defendant; he masturbated under the covers until he fell asleep. Plaintiff was unable to leave as the door had locked and jammed behind her.”
A rep for West, who now legally goes by the name Ye, did not immediately return a request for comment.
According to the lawsuit, West hired Pisciotta in July 2021 after they met while she was working in connection with his fashion line. She says she agreed to work for him as a “full time employee” in return for a $1 million salary.
At the time she was hired, Pisciotta says she maintained a successful page on OnlyFans – a social media site in which subscribers can pay to access sexually explicit content from individual creators. Pisciotta says the page was generating more than $1 million per year, and West “did not have any issue or objection to it” when she was hired.
But a year later, she says West told her that he wanted her to be “God like” and asked her to delete the page in return for a promise of a $1 million payment. Though she agreed to do so, her lawyers claim she didn’t see any of that money: “Ye never paid plaintiff as promised.”
Pisciotta’s lawsuit came with pages of texts allegedly sent by West, many of them sexually graphic. In one, he allegedly sent a video of him having sex and then asked “What u think of this vid.” In another, he referenced an earlier outing at a bowling alley: “I just thinking back to the bowling alley thinking of what the headline could have been,” the rapper wrote in one of the alleged texts. “Ye arrested for fucking the shit out of his assistant on the bowling alley floor.”
In another incident, the lawsuit says West told a male guest that he could have sex with Pisciotta in exchange for allowing West to have sex with another woman.
In October 2022, Pisciotta says she was terminated, shortly after she had been promoted to chief of staff and offered a huge raise. Though she was allegedly offered a $3 million severance payment, she claims West and his companies later “reneged on their commitment to pay the severance.”
In technical terms, the lawsuit includes claims of breach of contract, wrongful termination, sexual harassment, retaliation, gender discrimination, fraud and various other employment law violations.
Last week, Sean Kingston was arrested in California and signed papers waving his right to fight extradition to Florida. On Sunday, he was booked into Broward County jail, according to the Associated Press. Both the singer and his mother are charged with committing more than $1 million worth of fraud in his home state. Kingston […]
A Seoul court has barred K-pop giant HYBE from dismissing Min Hee-jin as CEO of its ADOR subsidiary label following HYBE’s internal audit and subsequent police report against the executive last month. The decision will keep Min in her role as CEO, by extension allowing her to stay in control of the label’s sole artist, girl group NewJeans.
As Bloomberg cites from local Korean coverage, “The Seoul Central District Court said HYBE’s evidence and rationale were not sufficient to back the company’s case for Min’s dismissal.” Despite HYBE’s 80% stake in ADOR (where Min has an 18% stake, with the last 2% retained by other executives), the company cannot vote to dismiss Min, which it was expected to do at a company shareholder meeting scheduled for Friday (May 31).
Trending on Billboard
“We urge HYBE to respect the court’s decision,” Min’s attorney said in a statement, per Bloomberg. “If Hybe takes any action to remove Min from her position as CEO, it will be in direct violation of the shareholders’ agreement.” The legal reps shared their hope that Min’s leadership team at ADOR would also stay intact.
In its own statement, HYBE acknowledged the court’s decision and said it would not utilize its voting rights but vowed to “follow up within the framework of the law.” The company noted that the court admitted Min had sought ways to weaken HYBE’s control over ADOR — efforts that could have led to Min independently running ADOR, taking NewJeans out of the HYBE system or pressuring HYBE to sell its shares in the subsidiary label. The company say sit still plans to pursue its breach of trust case after finding “substantial evidence to prove that Min deliberately led the plan to take over management control of the subsidiary.”
In the meantime, the 2023 Billboard Women in Music honoree will be able to continue directing NewJeans following ADOR’s release of two new singles from the group: “How Sweet” and “Bubble Gum.” The group’s debut Japanese single, “Supernatural” — which reportedly reinterprets a ’00s Pharrell single — is set to drop in June.
Despite the court ruling, the ongoing K-pop power struggle is hardly resolved, and in fact has only widened since HYBE’s initial audit in April.
Following HYBE’s request for her to exit her role as ADOR CEO, Min held an emotional two-hour press conference in which she detailed her concerns and struggles with other teams in the HYBE LABELS system. AsThe New York Times‘ Seoul reporter Jin Yu Young noted in her report, Min’s “pushback against HYBE and its founder, Bang Si-Hyuk, has resonated widely in South Korea, where corporate life can be punishingly hierarchal.”
Last week, HYBE label BELIFT LAB announced it had submitted a letter of complaint for obstruction of business and defamation against Min stemming from Min’s claims that BELIFT girl group ILLIT had copied NewJeans music, style and creative concept. The conflict has also involved the parents of NewJeans members, who have voiced worries about Minji, Hanni, Danielle, Haerin and Hyein’s reputation and treatment in a letter.
The court order follows last Friday’s release of new material from NewJeans and fellow HYBE artist RM, both of whom will likely make substantial bows on the Billboard charts next week.
Megan Thee Stallion is firing back at a lawsuit that claims the superstar forced a cameraman to watch her have sex with a woman inside a moving vehicle, calling them “false and fabricated” allegations filed by a “con artist.”
In a scathing first response to the April accusations, attorneys for Megan (Megan Pete) said that Emilio Garcia’s lawsuit “consists almost entirely of falsehoods, misrepresentations of fact, and outlandish claims that have no basis in fact or law and no merit.”
“Plaintiff is a con artist who is manipulating the judicial system to act as his publicist and bullhorn in a desperate attempt to boost his failed singing career while trying to tear down the successful career of Megan Thee Stallion,” wrote the star’s attorney, Alex Spiro.
Trending on Billboard
In his lawsuit last month, photographer Emilio Garcia accused the superstar and Roc Nation of subjecting him to a hostile work environment due to the alleged car-sex incident, which he says took place while on tour in Spain in 2022. Garcia claims the incident left him “embarrassed, mortified and offended,” and that Megan and Roc Nation later retaliated against him by reducing his work and eventually terminating him.
But in Thursday’s response, Spiro painted a very different picture — of a former contractor who was terminated after he repeatedly “falsified his invoices and overcharged Ms. Pete for services he never completed.”
“Angry at the loss of this high-profile gig and his exile from the inner circles of stardom, plaintiff filed a factually and legally frivolous Complaint,” Megan’s attorneys wrote. “Plaintiff took a run of the mill wage and labor dispute and trumped up his frivolous claims with sensationalist false allegations of sex, debauchery, and workplace harassment for the sole purpose of creating a media firestorm to tarnish the career and reputation of Ms. Pete.”
Beyond rebutting the lawsuit’s allegations, Megan’s attorneys also argued Thursday that the case was filed in entirely the wrong place. In a motion seeking to have the case moved to federal court, they argue the case has “absolutely no connection to California state court” — citing the fact that Garcia lives in Texas and Megan lives in Florida.
“Plaintiff was more concerned with staging his lawsuit in an improper forum than accurately pleading the facts underlying his claims,” Megan’s lawyers wrote.
Attorneys for both sides did not immediately return requests for comment on Thursday.
Madonna is facing another class action lawsuit over delayed concerts on her Celebration Tour, this time from a ticket buyer who also claims she forced fans to watch “pornography” during the show.
Like several previous cases, the new lawsuit claims that the Queen of Pop violated false advertising laws by taking the stage more than an hour later than expected, leaving fans to wait in an “uncomfortably hot” arena and get home later than expected.
But the new case, filed in Los Angeles on Wednesday (May 29) by a fan named Justen Lipeles, also includes a bold new accusation: that Madonna should have warned fans that the show would include “topless women” who were “engaging in simulated sexual acts.”
Trending on Billboard
“Forcing consumers to wait hours in hot, uncomfortable arenas and subjecting them to pornography without warning is demonstrative of Madonna’s flippant disrespect for her fans,” lawyers for the aggrieved fan wrote. “Plaintiff felt like he was watching a pornographic film being made.”
Madonna and promotor Live Nation are already facing similar cases in New York and Washington, D.C., over claims that late starts to her Celebration concerts broke the law. Both were filed as class actions, seeking to represent potentially thousands of other fans who also faced the alleged delays.
The New York case, focused on December shows at the Barclay Center, made headlines because it claimed the fans “had to get up early to go to work” the next day — a claim Madonna’s lawyers have since argued is not the kind of “cognizable injury” that can form the basis for a lawsuit. The D.C. case, targeting tour dates at the District’s Capital One Arena, added claims that the arena was “uncomfortably hot” and that she had lip-synched portions of the show.
In his new lawsuit, Lipeles echoed all of those claims about Madonna’s March 7 performance at the Kia Forum. He claims he paid more than $500 per ticket for a show that was supposed to start at 8:30 p.m. but that Madonna didn’t take the stage until after 10 p.m., leaving fans to wait in an arena that was overheated due to “Madonna’s requirement that venues not turn on air conditioning.”
“Plaintiff and members of the class were profusely sweating and became physically ill as a result of the heat,” his lawyers write. “When fans complained about the heat, Madonna unreasonably told them to take their clothes off.”
When the show finally did start, Lipeles claims, “it was apparent to plaintiff that Madonna was lip synching” during “most of the performance.” And he says he was given no warning that “there would be nudity and pornography on stage during Madonna’s concerts.”
In technical terms, the lawsuit accuses Madonna of breaching her contract with ticket buyers, negligent misrepresentation, false advertising and several other forms of legal wrongdoing under California law.
Spotify is facing a class action lawsuit over its recent decision to kill its short-lived “Car Thing” device, filed by angry consumers who say the streaming company’s move left them “with nothing more than a paperweight that cost between $50 and $100.”
The case came just days after Spotify announced that the Car Thing – a device launched in 2021 for playing music in a car but discontinued just a year later – would be rendered fully non-usable in December. Spotify has offered no refunds or trade-in options.
In a complaint filed Tuesday in Manhattan federal court, attorneys for the jilted customers accused Spotify violating state and federal laws by essentially of duping their clients into buying a “useless product.”
Trending on Billboard
“Had plaintiffs and other members of the class known that Spotify manufactured the Car Thing with the ability to brick the product at any point after its introduction to the marketplace and in Spotify’s total discretion, they would not have bought a Car Thing, or would have paid substantially less for them,” the lawsuit reads.
The lawsuit was filed by three Car Thing buyers — Hamza Mazumder, Anthony Bracarello and Luke Martin – but aims to represent thousands of other consumers who experienced “the forced obsolescence of their purchase.”
Spotify announced the Car Thing in April 2021, saying it would provide users with a “seamless and personalized in-car listening experience.” The product – a touch screen with a physical dial that still requires access to a smartphone — rolled out February 2022 at a price point of $89.99. But just months later, Spotify said it would cease production, telling investors that they “frankly haven’t seen the volume at the higher prices that would make the current product financially viable.”
Last week, Spotify alerted users last week that it would stop supporting the devices. Then this week, the company confirmed that the move, set to take effect Dec. 9, would render the devices fully inoperable. The company told users it was “not offering any trade-in options” and urged them to consider “safely disposing of your device following local electronic waste guidelines.”
“The goal of our Car Thing exploration in the U.S. was to learn more about how people listen in the car,” Spotify said in a statement. “In July 2022, we announced we’d stop further production and now it’s time to say goodbye to the devices entirely. Users will have until December 9, 2024 until all Car Thing devices will be deactivated.”
In the new lawsuit, Spotify’s customers say they couldn’t have expected that the company would shut down the devices just a few years after they were purchased. The decision to do so “unilaterally and without recourse” has left buyers nothing more than a paperweight that cost between $50 and $100.”
“Plaintiffs and class members would not have purchased a Car Thing if they knew that Spotify would stop supporting the product within just a few months or years of purchase,” attorneys for the users write.
In technical terms, the lawsuit includes allegations that Spotify violated state consumer protection and false advertising laws in New York, Florida and Pennsylvania, as well as the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and various other forms of civil wrongdoing.
A spokeswoman for Spotify did not immediately return a request for comment on the lawsuit’s allegations.
Read the entire complaint here:
A federal judge ruled Wednesday (May 29) that a sprawling copyright lawsuit can move forward with accusations that nearly 2,000 reggaeton songs — including hits by Bad Bunny, Karol G and dozens of others — all infringed a single 1989 song that allegedly spawned the so-called “dem bow” rhythm.
The huge infringement case, filed by Cleveland “Clevie” Browne and the heirs of Wycliffe “Steely” Johnson, claims that their 1989 song, “Fish Market,” was the source of dem bow — the boom-ch-boom-chick, boom-ch-boom-chick percussion featured in nearly every reggaeton song.
Demanding that the case be dismissed, Bad Bunny’s lawyers argued last year that Steely & Clevie’s massive case “seeks to monopolize practically the entire reggaetón musical genre for themselves” by claiming copyright control over “unprotectable” musical elements.
Trending on Billboard
But in the lawsuit’s first key decision, Judge André Birotte Jr. denied that motion on Wednesday, ruling that it was too early in the case to make those kinds of complex rulings and that Steely & Clevie had made a strong enough argument to move forward: “It is premature at this stage to find that the musical elements alleged are insufficiently original or indeed unprotectable.”
Notably, the judge also hinted that he might not be particularly receptive to such arguments when it’s time to rule on them. At one point, he warned that he “rejects” the idea that the massive success of a particular song could be used as a “double-edged sword” that would also void its copyrights.
“The court recognizes the practice of musical borrowing, and in doing so, cannot merely conclude that because the reggaeton genre (or artists) have purportedly borrowed significantly from attributes of plaintiffs’ work that those attributes are now in effect commonplace elements,” Judge Birotte wrote.
First filed in 2021 against just a handful of defendants, Steely & Clevie’s lawsuit has steadily grown to cover more and more artists and songs. In the latest iteration, the duo’s lawyers name more than 150 artists, also including Pitbull, Drake, Daddy Yankee, Luis Fonsi and Justin Bieber, plus units of all three major music companies.
Steely & Clevie’s lawyers claim that over 1,800 reggaetón songs featuring iterations of the dem bow rhythm were, at root, illegally copied from “Fish Market” — and that their clients deserve monetary compensation for them. Potentially damages are difficult to calculate, but could easily reach into the billions if the case is successful.
In Wednesday’s decision, Judge Birotte also rejected other arguments from the defendants beyond the core question of whether dem bow could be protected by copyright law.
For instance, in a June filing, attorneys for Daddy Yankee and the major labels argued that the case was so massive that it had become procedurally unfair. They called it a “shotgun pleading,” filled with so many vague accusations that it was “impossible for defendants to determine what each is alleged to have done.”
But in Wednesday’s decision, Judge Birotte said he was “unconvinced” by that argument — and that Steely & Clevie’s 228-page complaint had sufficiently laid out the case to satisfy procedural requirements.
Following Wednesday’s ruling, the case will proceed toward discovery, where both sides will exchange evidence, take depositions and seek expert testimony on complex questions relating to musicology. If the judge does not decide the case after discovery, the two sides will head to trial.
Neither side in the case immediately returned requests for comment.