Legal
Page: 37
A new law in Tennessee aimed at protecting artists from AI-powered voice mimicry has won widespread acclaim from the music industry, but some legal experts are worried such laws might be an “overreaction” that could have unintended consequences.
Less than a year after a fake Drake song created using new artificial intelligence tools took the music world by storm, Tennessee lawmakers enacted first-in-the-nation legislation last month aimed at preventing exactly that scenario — the use of a person’s voice without their permission. The ELVIS Act (Ensuring Likeness Voice and Image Security) does that by expanding the state’s protections against the unauthorized use of a person’s likeness, known as publicity rights.
The passage of the new law was hailed across the music business. Mitch Glazier of the Recording Industry Association of America called it an “incredible result.” Harvey Mason Jr. of the Recording Academy described it as a “groundbreaking achievement.” David Israelite of the National Music Publishers’ Association called it “an important step forward.” Any musical artist who has had their voice used without permission likely shares those sentiments.
Trending on Billboard
But legal experts are more divided. Jennifer Rothman, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania and one of the country’s top experts on publicity rights, rang alarm bells last week at a panel discussion in Nashville, warning that Tennessee’s new statute had not been necessary and had been “rushed” into law.
“We don’t want a momentary overreaction to lead to the passage of laws that would make things worse, which is currently what is happening,” Rothman told her fellow panel members and the audience. “The ELVIS Act has a number of significant concerns that are raised, particularly with the broad sweep of liability and restrictions on speech.”
In an effort to combat AI voice cloning, the ELVIS Act makes a number of key changes to the law. Most directly, it expands the state’s existing publicity rights protections to explicitly include someone’s voice as part of their likeness. But the new law also expands the law in ways that have received less attention, including adding a broader definition of who can be sued and for what.
According to Joseph Fishman, a law professor at Vanderbilt University who has been closely tracking the legislation, that broader wording “sweeps in innocuous behavior that no one seriously thinks is a problem that needs solving” — potentially including tribute bands, interpolations, or even just sharing a photo that a celebrity didn’t authorize.
“The range of acts that trigger liability is vast,” Fishman tells Billboard. “All the press around this law is focused on deepfakes and digital replicas — and those would indeed be covered — but the law as written goes so much further.”
Here’s why: Historically, publicity rights in the U.S. have been mostly limited to commercial contexts — like advertisements that use a celebrity’s likeness to make it appear they’re endorsing a product. The singer Bette Midler once famously sued the Ford Motor Co. over a series of commercials featuring vocals by a Midler impersonator.
The new law effectively gets rid of that commercial limitation; under the ELVIS Act, anyone who knowingly “makes available” someone’s likeness without authorization can face a lawsuit. It also broadly defines protected voices as any sound that’s “readily identifiable and attributable to a particular individual.”
Those are great changes if you’re a musical artist trying to sue over a song that’s using a fake version of your voice, since the old conception of publicity rights likely wouldn’t apply to that scenario. But Fishman says they have serious potential for collateral damage beyond their intended target.
“There’s nothing that would limit it to AI outputs, nothing that would limit it to deceptive uses,” Fishman said. “The lead singer in an Elvis tribute band who sings convincingly like The King certainly seems to fall under the definition. So do Elvis impersonators.”
In an “even more extreme” hypothetical, Fishman imagined an “unflattering” photo of Elvis that he knew the Presley estate didn’t like. “The law seems to say I’d be liable if I sent that photo to a friend. After all, I’m transmitting his likeness, knowing that the rightsholder hasn’t authorized the use. Stop and think about that for a moment.”
The ELVIS Act does contain exemptions aimed at protecting free speech, including those that allow for the legal use of someone’s likeness in news coverage, criticism, scholarship, parody and other “fair use” contexts. It also expressly allows for “audiovisual works” that contain “a representation of the individual as the individual’s self” — a provision likely aimed at allowing Hollywood to keep making biopics and other films about real people without getting sued in Tennessee.
But confusingly, the law says those exemptions only apply “to the extent such use is protected by the First Amendment.” That wording, according to Rothman, means those exemptions essentially “don’t exist” unless and until a court rules that a specific alleged activity is a form of protected free speech, a costly extra step that will mostly benefit those who want to be in court. “This specific law creates great work for lawyers,” Rothman said. “So much work for lawyers.”
Those lawyers are going to be filing real lawsuits against real people — some of whom are the scary, voice-cloning bad actors that the music industry wants to crack down on, but also some of whom are likely just regular people doing things that used to be legal.
“The law could absolutely lead to lots of lawsuits,” Fishman says. “There’s plenty of room here for people to test how far the statute can go, whether because they object to how they’re being depicted or because they see an opportunity for an extra licensing stream.”
Though it only applies to Tennessee, the importance of the ELVIS Act is magnified because it is the first of likely many such legislative efforts aimed at addressing AI mimicry. At least five other states are currently considering amending their publicity rights laws to address the growing problem, and lawmakers on Capitol Hill are also weighing federal legislation that would create a national likeness statute for the first time.
At last week’s roundtable, Rothman said those efforts were misguided. She said that laws already on the books — including federal trademark law, existing publicity rights laws, and numerous other statutes and torts — already provide avenues to stop voice cloning and deepfakes. And she warned that the proposed federal bills posed even more serious problems, like allowing someone to sign away their likeness rights in perpetuity.
For other legal experts critical of the ELVIS Act, including Harvard University law professor Rebecca Tushnet, the hope is that any subsequent legislation, whether at the state or federal level, can be more directly tailored to the actual AI-fueled deceptions they’re supposed to address.
“Any new laws need to be far more targeted at specific harms,” says Tushnet, who has written extensively about the intersection of intellectual property and free speech. “Right now, this statute and other proposals are dramatically overbroad, and threaten legitimate creative conduct.”
Jelly Roll is facing a federal lawsuit from a well-known Philadelphia wedding band called Jellyroll, claiming that the rapper’s stage name violates the group’s trademark rights.
In a complaint filed Monday in federal court, attorneys for Kurt Titchenell accused the rapper-turned-country singer (Jason DeFord) of infringing his trademark to Jellyroll — the name he’s used for decades for an act the Philadelphia Inquirer has labeled as “Philly’s favorite wedding band.”
The lawsuit claims that Jelly Roll’s increasing popularity — his “Need A Favor” reached No. 13 on the Hot 100 in November — has flooded the market with his name, making it difficult for prospective clients to find Titchenell’s band.
Trending on Billboard
“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.”
News of the lawsuit against Jelly Roll was first reported by Court Watch.
Titchnell claims 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 awards at this year’s Country Music Awards.
In Monday’s lawsuit, Titchenell’s attorneys say they sent a cease-and-desist letter to Jelly Roll in February, which led to “several conversations” over the naming issue. But they say no resolution was reached – and they even suggested that they felt insulted in the process: “At one point defendant’s counsel inquired as to whether defendant really was in competition with plaintiff.”
Now, they’re seeking an immediate court order that would stop him 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 and continues to use plaintiff’s registered service mark knowing that it continues to irreparably harm plaintiff but has nevertheless callously disregarded the rights of plaintiff to his own service mark,” Titchenell’s attorneys write.
An attorney for Jelly Roll did not immediately return a request for comment on Friday.
When licensing negotiations between TikTok and the Universal Music Group collapsed at the end of January, many official recordings from UMG artists vanished from the platform. UMG chief digital officer/executive vp Michael Nash told financial analysts in February that the company had been “providing notices to effectuate the muting of millions of videos every day for the last two weeks.” Yet a number of songs connected to UMG — or its publishing wing, Universal Music Publishing Group — remain available on TikTok anyway.
Some are user uploads, which might theoretically be harder to find and take down or mute. Others are official tracks, including recent releases from prominent stars and fast-moving viral hits. And much of Taylor Swift’s catalog returned to TikTok on Thursday (April 11), raising the question of how other artists may be able to find workarounds while the licensing dispute continues.
Trending on Billboard
One possible reason that some songs are staying on TikTok: Several artist lawyers tell Billboard they are devising contractual carve-outs to allow their clients to keep their music on the platform. Others note that even though they haven’t added these clauses to recording agreements yet, it has become a topic of conversation with their clients.
“Some labels are allowing some of their artists to exclude newly created music from the grant of rights until the label has a deal in place” with TikTok, says David Fritz, founding partner at Boyarski Fritz. “Because the issue is so new, we are developing on the fly to meet the needs of talent — songwriters and artists — that want their music on TikTok. This is an issue, and workaround, that came about solely as a result of UMG taking down its catalog from TikTok.”
Reps for UMG and TikTok declined to comment.
Some artists have invested years of their life building a following on TikTok. (Predecessor Musical.ly was acquired by Bytedance in 2017 and then relaunched in the United States as TikTok the year after.) For more than two months now, they’ve been unable to share official recordings with those fans on the platform — the same fans who may have earned them their major-label deal in the first place.
“Some artists are concerned about this,” says Josh Binder, founding partner at Rothenberg Mohr & Binder. “They don’t want to be uncompetitive, unable to use TikTok to muster up an audience.”
“TikTok is mostly used as a new-music discovery tool — discover a clip on TikTok, listen to it on a DSP,” Fritz adds. “So those who are trying to get their music discovered are the most concerned” about being unable to promote new songs on the app.
In 2022, MIDiA Research found that TikTok was the second-biggest driver of music discovery for Gen Z, after YouTube. In recent months, TikTok popularity has helped little-known acts like Dasha, Good Neighbours and the Red Clay Strays explode at streaming services — leading to major-label deals — and contributed to breakout hits for Djo, Flo Milli and Benson Boone, among others.
UMG pushed back against the idea that TikTok has a lock on discovery during its most recent earnings call. Chairman/CEO Lucian Grainge told financial analysts that TikTok was “not a material part of the multidisciplinary jigsaw where we promote and market our music globally.” And UMG CFO/executive vp Boyd Muir said that UMG would “focus on accelerating [its] partnerships” with other social media platforms, including Meta, Snap and YouTube, to provide alternative promotional avenues for its artists.
But the job of an artist lawyer — a good one, at least — is to help their client get what they want. Labels typically aim to control as many rights as they can for as long as they can. In the modern music business, artists have more ability to push back; because they can generate momentum on their own, without a record company’s help, more aspects of a record deal are negotiable. “You can cherry-pick what you want to be in your contract to some degree,” Scott Booker, the longtime manager of The Flaming Lips, recently told Billboard.
As with any negotiation, artists’ ability to get their preferred terms comes down to their leverage — for stars especially, there are few rules that can’t be bent — and the skill of the lawyers involved. “If you successfully reserve the right to license to TikTok directly in your contract with UMG, you would be able to do so directly or via a third-party service,” says Leon Morabia, a partner at Mark Music & Media Law. “It would be a difficult point to win in a deal, but it is contractually feasible.”
Josh Love, partner at Reed Smith, says he has been able to get “a carve-out” in the past that allowed an artist “to do a direct license with a DSP” — a digital service provider like TikTok or another social media or streaming service — “if the label or distributor is ever not licensed with that DSP and [the artist] wants to remain on the platform.” This is meant to act as interim coverage for an artist; if the label or distributor were to form a new licensing agreement, that would likely supersede that deal made between the artist and the DSP in the meantime.
Some clauses that are already in record deals could also be expanded by artist attorneys to ensure their clients’ music remains available on TikTok. “Release commitments,” for example, are put in place to “force the label to guarantee that a record will be released within certain months after delivery so that the artist’s record doesn’t get ’shelved,’ with the artist stuck in the deal,” says Gandhar Savur, a music attorney.
These clauses have become increasingly comprehensive, stretching “to cover commitments by the label over more specific aspects of the release — the exact countries in which the album will be distributed, formats that the album will be released in such as vinyl and digital, and even including specific major DSPs by name like Spotify and Apple Music.” After negotiations between UMG and TikTok unraveled, Savur continues, “it would be a natural response that artist attorneys will gradually start to require release commitments to cover all platforms generally so that if a label is not licensed with a particular platform for any reason, the artist can deal with that platform directly.”
Savur believes that artists who are signed to labels that are distributed by UMG, rather than signed directly, probably have more latitude to try to deal with platforms like TikTok on their own. “Although I believe that what Universal is doing overall is a good thing for the industry, Universal-distributed labels might be more sympathetic to their artists’ desire to stay on TikTok because the increased streaming and ticket sales [that] result from any tracks going viral on the platform can be a big win for the artist and label alike,” Savur says.
If the UMG-TikTok deadlock rolls on, Fritz says, “smart lawyers” with leverage will find “a workaround that enables their clients to continue to use the most popular discovery tool while the large-scale license gets worked out.”
NewJeans is asking an American court to force Google to unmask an anonymous YouTube user so that the person can be criminally prosecuted under South Korea’s strict libel laws for posting “false and defamatory videos” about the K-pop band.
In court documents filed last month, attorneys for NewJeans requested that a California federal judge issue a subpoena requiring Google to reveal the user’s identity. The band wants the info because they are seeking criminal charges in South Korea – a far more serious penalty for defamation than exists under U.S. law.
“The applicants are members of a female K-Pop group, who have come under attack by an anonymous individual posting false and defamatory videos on YouTube,” the group’s lawyer wrote in the March 27 petition, which was obtained by Billboard. “Unfortunately, without the YouTuber’s personally identifiable information the criminal case cannot be fully prosecuted.”
Trending on Billboard
The band’s target is the anonymous owner of a YouTube account called “7th Grade in Middle School,” which attorneys for NewJeans say has “engaged in name-calling or other mocking behavior” and has posted as many as 33 defamatory videos that have been viewed more than 13 million times. They cited one particularly “derogatory” post, which allegedly claimed that NewJeans member Min-ji Kim was the “eldest daughter of a Vietnamese farmer.”
HYBE, the parent company of NewJeans’ label ADOR, did not immediately return a request for comment on the legal proceedings. The recent court filings, which were refiled in court last week, were first reported by The New York Times.
The case illustrates striking differences between U.S. and South Korean protections for free speech. Under American law, defamation is a civil wrong that can lead to damages, but one that’s sharply limited by the First Amendment. To win such a case, public figures like the members of NewJeans would need to prove that the YouTube user knowingly made false statements, a burden that’s intentionally difficult to satisfy.
In South Korea, on the other hand, defamation is a criminal offense that can be “punished by imprisonment with labor for up to seven years,” and even fully true statements can face criminal penalties. In 2015, a United Nations watchdog called out South Korea‘s “increasing use of criminal defamation laws to prosecute persons who criticize government action.” In 2022, a U.S. State Department report warned that public figures in Korea had used the country’s libel laws to “restrict public discussion and harass, intimidate, or censor private and media expression.”
NewJeans isn’t the first K-pop group to use those laws. In 2019, HYBE (then Big Hit Entertainment) filed criminal defamation cases over BTS, alleging the targets had behind “personal attacks” on the band. In 2022, Big Hit did so again over “malicious postings” about BTS, asking the group’s famous fan “army” to help gather evidence. YG Entertainment, the label behind Blackpink, has also filed its own complaint against “internet trolls,” accusing them of “spreading groundless rumours about our singers.”
According to the recent U.S. court filings, NewJeans’ label ADOR filed a criminal complaint with police in Seoul in March, but the case has stalled because they cannot identify the actual person behind the YouTube account. The group’s attorneys say they sent a request for such information to Google, but that the American tech giant has refused to hand it over.
A spokesman for Google declined to comment when reached by Billboard on Thursday. In a policy statement regarding government requests for personal information, the company says: “Google carefully reviews each request to make sure it satisfies applicable laws. If a request asks for too much information, we try to narrow it, and in some cases we object to producing any information at all.”
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: Mary J. Blige’s 1992 “Real Love” draws a new copyright case over an oft-sampled funk song with a long history in both hip hop and music law; Madonna strikes back against angry fans who sued over delayed concerts; Morgan Wallen is charged with multiple felonies after allegedly throwing a chair from the roof of a Nashville bar; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: Sampling Saga
If you’ve listened to any significant amount of rap music over the past 30 years, you’ve probably heard “Impeach the President” by the Honey Drippers — a legendary piece of hip-hop source material with a drum track that’s been sampled or interpolated literally hundreds of times, including by Run-DMC, Biggie, Tupac, Dr. Dre and many others.
Trending on Billboard
And, allegedly, by Mary J. Blige.
In a lawsuit filed last week, Tuff City Records claimed that Blige’s 1992 classic “Real Love,” which spent 31 weeks on the Hot 100 in 1992, featured an unlicensed sample from “Impeach.” The case claims that Universal Music Publishing has “repeatedly refused” to pay for the underlying composition, even though UMG Recordings has already agreed to a deal covering the master.
The new lawsuit is the latest chapter in a story dating back several decades, starting with a seminal 1991 case over an LL Cool J song that also featured “Impeach” – a legal battle that would ultimately prove to be the beginning of fundamental changes to how the music industry and the courts treated sampling.
Other top stories this week…
MADONNA CONCERT CLASH – The Material Girl fired back at a class action lawsuit filed by New York City fans who are angry that her concerts started later than scheduled, asking for the case to be dismissed. Madonna’s attorneys argued that needing to “wake up early the next day for work” is not the kind of “cognizable injury” someone can sue over, and that “no Madonna fan” has a “reasonable expectation” that her shows will start on time.
LAST NIGHT (ALLEGEDLY) – Morgan Wallen was arrested in Nashville and charged with three felony counts of reckless endangerment over accusations that he threw a chair off the six-story roof of a popular bar on the city’s bustling Broadway street, allegedly narrowly missing several police officers. He was later released on bond, and his lawyer told Billboard he was “cooperating fully with authorities.”
RAMONES MOVIE LAWSUIT – Joey Ramone‘s brother (Mickey Leigh) responded to a lawsuit filed by Johnny Ramone’s widow (Linda Cummings-Ramone) over a planned Netflix movie about the pioneering punk band, calling the case “baseless and flimsy” and arguing that she actually signed off on such a project years ago.
AI COPYRIGHT DISCLOSURE BILL – Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) introduced new legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives that would require AI companies to disclose which copyrighted works were used to train their models, or face a financial penalty. The measure would not directly require payment to artists, but would certainly make it easier for copyright owners to file infringement cases against AI companies demanding such compensation.
NEW DIDDY ABUSE CASE – Sean “Diddy” Combs was hit with yet another sexual abuse case, this time centering on allegations that his son Christian “King” Combs assaulted a staffer on a luxury yacht in the Caribbean. The case, one of many against Diddy over the past six months, claimed that he “encouraged an environment of debauchery” that enabled his son’s behavior.
ACCUSER’S LAWYER CRITICIZED – Tyrone Blackburn, an attorney who has filed two of the pending sexual abuse cases against Combs, could be facing potential discipline himself. In a scathing ruling last week, a federal judge in an unrelated lawsuit referred him to the court’s grievance committee over his “pattern of behavior” in which he allegedly “improperly files cases in federal court to garner media attention, embarrass defendants with salacious allegations, and pressure defendants to settle quickly.”
ROD WAVE ARRESTED OVER SHOOTING – The rapper was arrested on gun charges in Florida over alleged connections to a shooting last month at a sports bar in St. Petersburg. At a press conference after the arrest, police claimed that the alleged assailants used a getaway car registered to Wave and fled to a house he had rented, where they later discovered two assault rifles and other evidence.
MORE BIZARRE DONDA CLAIMS – Kanye West was hit with another lawsuit filed by a former employee at his Donda Academy, this time accusing him of discriminating against Black staffers. Like the several previous cases from former staffers, the case included bizarre allegations about conditions inside the school – including that West told students to “shave their heads” and that he “intended to put a jail at the school” where students could be “locked in cages.”
The highly publicized trial kicked off in November 2023.
Morgan Wallen was arrested and jailed on Sunday night (April 7) in Nashville after the chart-topping country singer allegedly hurled a chair off the six-story roof of a popular bar on the city’s bustling Broadway street. On Monday morning (April 8), Billboard received a statement from Wallen’s attorney, Worrick Robinson of Worrick Robinson Law, confirming […]
Universal Music Group (UMG) is facing a lawsuit that claims a 1992 Mary J. Blige hit featured an unlicensed sample from a 1973 funk song that’s famous for being sampled in dozens of other tracks, including releases from Biggie and Tupac as well as a recent Doja Cat tune.
In a complaint filed Thursday (April 4) in Manhattan federal court, Tuff City Records accused Universal Music Publishing Group (UMPG) of copyright infringement over Blige’s “Real Love,” which spent 31 weeks on the Hot 100 in 1992 and reached a peak of No. 7 on the chart.
The allegedly-copied song? “Impeach the President” by the Honey Drippers — a legendary piece of hip-hop source material with a drum track that’s also been sampled or interpolated by Run-DMC, Dr. Dre and many others. Most recently, it was featured in Doja Cat’s 2023 track “Can’t Wait.”
Trending on Billboard
In the complaint, Tuff City’s attorneys say they have “advised defendant repeatedly of the presence of the uncleared sample” in “Real Love” but that Universal has done nothing about it.
“Defendant has repeatedly refused to engage plaintiff in substantive negotiations to rectify the foregoing, let alone agreed to compensate Plaintiff for the past infringement or on an ongoing basis,” wrote Tuff City’s attorney Hillel Parness in the complaint.
Blige herself is not named in the lawsuit nor accused of any wrongdoing.
In a bizarre wrinkle, Tuff City claims that UMG Recordings — a subsidiary of UMG and the owner of the master to “Real Love” — has already reached an agreement regarding the use of the uncleared sample on the sound recording. But they say the music giant’s publishing arm has refused to do the same as it relates to the underlying composition.
“Defendant’s refusal to cooperate with plaintiff is difficult to reconcile with the fact that plaintiff reached an agreement with UMG Recordings,” Tuff City’s attorneys write.
Tuff City, which owns a large catalog of old songs, is no stranger to copyright litigation. Over the past fifteen years, the company has sued over tracks by Jay-Z, Beastie Boys, Christina Aguilera, Frank Ocean and others, typically alleging that they featured unlicensed samples or interpolations.
That process has not always gone smoothly. In 2014, a judge dismissed a case over Jay-Z’s “Run This Town” on the grounds that any alleged sample was “barely perceptible” after multiple listens. In 2018, another judge ordered Tuff City to repay hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees spent by Beastie Boys defending a case that was “clearly without merit.”
The new case is also not the first time Tuff City has sued over “Impeach the President.” Way back in 1991, the company sued Sony Music and Def Jam over claims that producer Marley Marl had illegally sampled the track on LL Cool J tracks “Around the Way Girl” and “Six Minutes of Pleasure.”
At the time, the lawsuit was a novel legal attack on sampling, which had long been at the core of hip-hop but had rarely involved paying for licenses or seeking authorization. In a 1992 article, the New York Times warned that Tuff City’s lawsuit over “Impeach the President” could fundamentally change hip hop, forcing rappers and producers to clear every element used in their albums — a formidable idea at the time.
“A single rap album can include dozens of samples, from single drumbeats to full musical phrases,” the New York Times article reads. “Finding the copyright owners, negotiating fees or royalties and gaining legal clearance is time consuming and can add tens of thousands of dollars to the production costs.”
Tuff City’s case eventually settled on confidential terms, but it proved to be a sign of things to come. In the years since, federal courts have ruled that nearly any amount of sampling of sound recordings counts as copyright infringement. As a result, labels and artists today attempt to clear almost any direct sampling in their songs and will typically remove those elements if a deal can’t be reached.
Of course, Blige’s “Real Love” came out just months after Tuff City filed its case against LL Cool J, and well before such practices had become universal. It’s unclear why the company waited more than 30 years to sue over it, but copyright law has a so-called “rolling” statute of limitations that allows for such long-delayed actions.
A spokesman for UMG did not immediately return a request for comment.
Sean “Diddy” Combs and his son Christian “King” Combs are facing a new lawsuit claiming the younger Combs sexually assaulted a staffer on a luxury yacht in the Caribbean.
In a complaint filed Thursday in Los Angeles court, Grace O’Marcaigh says that she was working as a stewardess on a superyacht charted by the Combs family in December 2022 when an intoxicated Christian served her “spiked tequila shots” and then assaulted her.
“Prior to being sexually assaulted by defendant Christian Combs, plaintiff planned to work the entirety of her career in hospitality and the yachting industry,” O’Marcaigh’s attorneys write. “Unfortunately, those plans have been derailed due to the trauma plaintiff continues to have as a result of the assault.”
The new lawsuit was filed by the same attorney, Tyrone Blackburn, who filed a similar case against Combs in February on behalf of producer Rodney “Lil Rod” Jones. The new complaint claims that Jones was present for the alleged attack, and that he recorded some of the incident.
Trending on Billboard
In addition to those two cases, Combs has been hit with a slew of other allegations of sexual assault and other wrongdoing over the past six months, including a quickly-settled case filed by his ex-girlfriend Cassie and a still-pending lawsuit filed a woman who claims Combs raped her when she was 17. The rapper is also facing an apparent federal criminal investigation, which led to raids of his homes last month. Combs has strongly denied all allegations of wrongdoing.
In the new lawsuit, O’Marcaigh claims that Christian Combs arrived to the chartered yacht via smaller boat at 5 am on Dec. 28, 2022. She says he then “insisted” that she take shots of tequila, which she quickly came to suspect had been spiked with drugs. After she attempted to exit the situation, O’Marcaigh says he “violently” grabbed her and began to grope and assault her.
Because Jones was present and recording, O’Marcaigh says she has a recording in which she tells the younger Combs “excuse me, you don’t touch my legs like that” and “you can take your hand off my ass.”
Later in the same evening, O’Marcaigh says Combs demanded that she find him a place to sleep. When she took him to the yacht’s cinema, she says he “blocked her from exiting,” then “became physical and aggressive” even as she “pushed him back constantly.”
“Defendant C. Combs then took off all of his clothes,” O’Marcaigh’s attorney says. “His penis was erect, and he grabbed her arms and was trying to force plaintiff to perform oral copulation on him.”
The lawsuit does not claim that the elder Combs participated in the assault. But she says he orchestrated a “coverup” that resulted in her eventual firing from her job. And she says he bears ultimate responsibility for his son’s actions because he chartered the yacht.
“Defendant S. Combs fostered and encouraged an environment of debauchery,” O’Marcaigh’s attorneys write. “He intentionally created an unsafe environment that gave license to [Christian] to believe that he was free to sexually assault plaintiff.”
A representative for Sean Combs did not immediately return a request for comment.
An attorney who filed one of the several sexual abuse lawsuits against Sean “Diddy” Combs is now facing potential discipline himself after a federal judge in another case sharply criticized him for filing suits designed to “garner media attention” and “embarrass defendants.”
In an order issued Wednesday (April 3) in a separate lawsuit, Judge Denise Cote referred Tyrone Blackburn to the grievance committee for New York’s federal court district – an entity that decides whether attorneys have violated court rules. She cited his conduct in five different lawsuits, saying Blackburn’s filings in those cases had featured “glaring deficiencies.”
“A reasonable inference from Blackburn’s pattern of behavior is that he improperly files cases in federal court to garner media attention, embarrass defendants with salacious allegations, and pressure defendants to settle quickly,” Judge Cote wrote. “Indeed, his submissions to this court have been rife with disturbing allegations against the defendants and defense counsel.”
Trending on Billboard
The order, which came in a legal malpractice lawsuit Blackburn filed last year, referred him to the grievance committee for the Southern District of New York for “such action as it deems appropriate.”
Judge Cote’s ruling is notable because Blackburn is currently serving as lead counsel to Rodney “Lil Rod” Jones, a producer who filed a sweeping abuse lawsuit against Combs in February. The lawsuit is one of several such cases filed against Combs, in addition to a federal criminal investigation that led to raids of his homes last month. Combs has strongly denied all allegations of wrongdoing.
In an email to Billboard on Thursday, Blackburn said: “Not sure how this is at all relevant to Rodney Jones’ case, or any other case I have. This will not have any impact on my ability to proceed in Mr. Jones’ case. Although Judge Cote’s decision was a referral to the SDNY’s grievance committee, and not a sanction, I plan on appealing the decision.”
In his lawsuit last month, Jones accused Combs of repeated sexual assault and harassment while Jones was working as a producer on the rapper’s 2023 The Love Album. But he also went further, claiming that Diddy and others had violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the federal RICO statute best known for criminal cases against the Mafia. As part of those claims, he named several other prominent people as members of that alleged illegal conspiracy, including Universal Music Group CEO Lucian Grainge and former Motown CEO Ethiopia Habtemariam.
Blackburn has already faced scrutiny over those accusations filed on Jones’ behalf. In her response to the lawsuit, Combs’ attorney, Shawn Holley, took the unusual step of calling out her opposing counsel by name, saying that Blackburn had “ignored” evidence of Combs’ innocence before filing the case.
“Our attempts to share this proof with Mr. Jones’ attorney, Tyrone Blackburn, have been ignored, as Mr. Blackburn refuses to return our calls,” Holley said at the time. “We will address these outlandish allegations in court and take all appropriate action against those who make them.”
Last week, attorneys for UMG took similar aim at Blackburn. Arguing that Grainge had “utterly nothing to do” with the allegations against Diddy, the label’s lawyers said the claims were so “offensively false” that they would seek to punish Blackburn himself for filing them.
“A license to practice law is a privilege,” wrote Donald Zakarin, a longtime music industry litigator who represents UMG and Grainge. “Mr. Blackburn, plaintiff’s lawyer, has misused that license to self-promote, gratuitously, falsely and recklessly accusing the UMG defendants of criminal behavior.”
UMG’s filing last week said the company would seek legal sanctions against Blackburn under federal Rule 11, which requires lawyers to make a “reasonable inquiry” into allegations they file in court. That’s the same rule that Judge Cote cited Wednesday in her ruling against Blackburn, saying “his actions in this and prior cases indicate a repeated failure to meet his Rule 11 obligations.”
In arriving at that conclusion, the judge cited multiple instances in which Blackburn allegedly filed cases in the wrong court without properly investigating whether it was the right jurisdiction, as well as an incident in which he called a defense attorney “a disgusting racist” amid a dispute over picking a mediator. The judge also cited an allegation from an opposing lawyer that Blackburn had specifically filed a case in federal court, rather than state court, “because doing so would make the press more likely to pick up on it.”
“Significant resources have been spent by judges of the court and defendants named in actions he has filed to address glaring deficiencies in his filings,” Judge Cote wrote in her ruling on Wednesday. “A referral to this court’s Grievance Committee is warranted.”
It’s unclear how long such a case will take before the grievance committee renders a decision, or what kind of disciplinary measures the body might hand down.