Legal
Page: 4
Post Malone is opposing an attempt by his ex to move their nearly three-year-old daughter permanently to California, saying in a new court filing that the child has lived in Utah most of her life and should remain a resident there.
The star (Austin Richard Post) filed a motion Monday (May 19) to dismiss the custody petition brought in Los Angeles court last month by his ex, Hee Sung “Jamie” Park. Post and Park share a child, referred to anonymously in court filings as “DDP,” who was born in May 2022.
According to the motion, the family lived together in Utah until Post and Park ended their relationship this past November. Park then decided to relocate to Los Angeles, and Post says he agreed to share custody and move the child between California and Utah every two weeks.
Trending on Billboard
In April, however, Post says he learned that Park was planning to file for primary physical custody and change their daughter’s residence to California. Park “rushed to enroll DDP in every type of activity she can” in Los Angeles to demonstrate the child’s residence there, Post claims, even though he says DDP’s nanny and doctor are in Utah and she has long attended daycare, music classes and swimming lessons there.
Post filed a paternity action in Utah on April 14 after learning of Park’s plans, he says. Park then brought her California petition for primary custody two days later, and the singer alleges Park’s petition “intentionally misleads” the Los Angeles judge by failing to mention that the child has lived in Utah nearly her whole life.
“I do intend to work cooperatively with Jamie to ensure that DDP has frequent and equal custodial time with her mother,” wrote Post in his declaration. “I do not consent to Jamie’s back door attempt to change DDP’s residence from Utah to California. I request that the California court admonish Jamie for her lack of candor, gamesmanship in attempting to forum shop, and her intentional action to try to mislead the court about DDP’s home.”
Post wants the California custody petition dismissed. He says the former couple’s dispute should be resolved in Utah, where he was the first to bring a custody action and where their daughter has spent nearly three years.
“Jamie’s conduct of attempting to forum shop to change DDP’s home state without Post’s consent or a Utah court order should not be condoned by the California court,” wrote Post’s attorney, Laura Wasser. “California law provides that, under the facts of this case, DDP’s home state is Utah, and subject matter jurisdiction over her custody remains with the Utah court.”
A judge in Los Angeles County Superior Court is scheduled to consider Post’s dismissal motion in late July. Park’s attorney did not immediately return a request for comment Monday.
Post is currently headlining his Big Ass Stadium Tour and is next scheduled to play U.S. Bank Stadium in Minneapolis on Tuesday (May 20).
Salt-N-Pepa is taking Universal Music Group (UMG) to court to regain control of the duo’s masters, alleging in a new lawsuit that the record label is refusing to honor copyright clawback rights and has instead “punished” the legendary hip-hop act by removing some of its music from streaming.
The lawsuit, filed Monday (May 19) in New York federal court, accuses UMG of ignoring Salt-N-Pepa’s so-called “termination rights” under Section 203 of the Copyright Act. This provision allows artists who sign over their master recordings to regain control of that intellectual property 35 years after a song’s release.
UMG owns Salt-N-Pepa’s masters per two contracts that the “Push It” singers, Cheryl “Salt” James and Sandra “Pepa” Denton, signed with UMG subsidiaries Next Plateau Records and London Records in 1986 and 1992.
Trending on Billboard
Salt-N-Pepa served UMG with a notice of termination rights in 2022, claiming its albums Hot, Cool & Vicious (1986) and A Salt With A Deadly Pepa (1988) were both up for copyright termination in 2024. The duo also said Blacks’ Magic (1990) and A Blitz of Salt-N-Pepa Hits (1990) are up in 2025 and that Very Necessary (1993) — which peaked at No. 4 on the Billboard Hot 100 — is up in 2026 alongside The Greatest Hits (1991).
But UMG allegedly rejected Salt-N-Pepa’s notice as “invalid and ineffective,” claiming termination rights do not apply because the albums were “works made for hire.” UMG then took Hot, Cool & Vicious and A Salt With A Deadly Pepa down from streaming, a move Salt-N-Pepa describes as “punishing” the group by holding their music “hostage.”
“UMG has, in fact, halted exploitation of the relevant sound recordings in the United States, thereby effectively demonetizing plaintiffs’ catalogue,” wrote Salt-N-Pepa’s attorneys from the law firm Blank Rome. “This is an effort by UMG to pressure plaintiffs into giving up on their effort to recoup their rights to their sound recordings. Plaintiffs are not willing to do so.”
Salt-N-Pepa’s lawyers say that contrary to what UMG is claiming, nothing in the duo’s original contracts with Next Plateau Records and London Records defined its music as “works made for hire.” UMG therefore “makes no legitimate argument against the effectiveness of the notices of termination,” alleges the lawsuit.
“UMG appears to take the position that it can unilaterally decide when and/or if a recording artist is entitled to termination,” wrote the Blank Rome team. “This is not the law, and UMG does not have this power.”
Salt-N-Pepa is asking the court to declare the duo’s termination rights valid and award it control of the masters. The duo is also seeking monetary damages for UMG’s alleged wrongdoing in an amount “believed to well exceed $1 million.”
The lawsuit comes just months before Salt-N-Pepa is due to become the second-ever female hip-hop act to be inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame this November. The group’s legal reps say in a statement, “This fight is about more than contracts — it’s about legacy, justice and the future of artist ownership.”
“In a stunning act of retaliation, UMG has pulled their songs from all major platforms in the U.S., punishing them for asserting those rights and silencing decades of culture-shifting work,” the reps add. “Like many artists, they’re challenging a system that profits from their work while denying them control.”
Representatives from UMG did not immediately return a request for comment.
This is not the first time UMG has been pulled into court over termination rights. The label and Sony Music Entertainment both inked class action settlements last year over years of closely-watched litigation, in which recording artists sought to win back control of their masters en masse.
Individual artists have also brought one-off lawsuits over termination rights, such as a case that 2 Live Crew won at trial against a small record label last year. The provision also played a significant role in Cher’s royalty battle with Sonny Bono’s widow, in which a judge ruled that termination rights didn’t trump the couple’s divorce settlement.
50 Cent continues to troll Diddy as his trial heads into its second week. Over the weekend, the Queens rapper and filmmaker posted a video that was floating around social media of a group of people wearing “Free Diddy” shirts outside Manhattan federal court and couldn’t help but comment on what he was watching. “Diddy […]
Danity Kane singer Dawn Richard continued her testimony Monday at Sean “Diddy” Combs’ sex-trafficking trial, telling jurors that the rapper would “frequently” assault Cassie Ventura — including once at a restaurant in front of Usher and other celebrities.
The testimony from Richard, who rose to fame on Combs’ MTV reality show Making the Band, kicked off the second week of Combs’ criminal trial, in which the music mogul is accused of coercing Ventura and others into participating in drug-fueled sex shows known as “freak-offs.”
Days after she told the jury that she witnessed Combs abusing Ventura — including once trying to attack her with a skillet — Richard recounted other alleged assaults, according to CNN, The New York Times and other media reports.
In one alleged incident, she testified that Combs punched Ventura in the stomach at a Los Angeles restaurant where Usher and other celebrities were present. “She immediately bent over, he [Combs] told her to leave,” Richard testified, according to People. “No one intervened.”
A rep for Usher did not immediately return a request for comment from Billboard. The New York Post reported that Richard’s testimony left it “unclear” if Usher and other A-listers present had actually witnessed the alleged attack.
Later on Monday (May 19), Richard was grilled by defense attorney Nicole Westmoreland over apparent inconsistencies in her testimony, including the infamous skillet statements. In one such exchange, defense attorney pressed Richard about changes in her recollections about Combs’ drug use.
“You would agree with me that as time progresses your story changes,” Ms. Westmoreland asked. “Yes,” Richard replied.
Combs was indicted in September, charged with running a sprawling criminal operation aimed at facilitating the freak-offs — elaborate events in which Combs and others allegedly pressured Ventura and other victims into having sex with escorts while he watched and masturbated. Prosecutors also say the star and his associates used violence, money and blackmail to keep victims silent and under his control.
Once one of the music industry’s most powerful men, Combs is accused of racketeering conspiracy (a so-called RICO charge), sex trafficking and violating a federal prostitution statute. If convicted on all of the charges, he faces a potential life prison sentence.
During opening statements last week, defense attorneys told jurors that Ventura and other women had consensually taken part in the sex parties. They admitted that Combs had committed domestic violence during his and Ventura’s “toxic” relationship and had unusual sexual preferences, but that he had never coerced her into participating in his “swinger” lifestyle.
Ventura, the prosecution’s star witness, spent four days on the stand last week detailing how Combs allegedly controlled and physically abused her during their 11-year relationship.
After Richard wrapped up on Monday, Ventura’s longtime friend Kerry Morgan took the stand, testifying about multiple incidents in which she says she saw Combs attack Ventura. In one, she said Combs entered a bathroom and that she could hear Ventura screaming.
“It was guttural, terrifying. I heard her screaming so I went to the long hallway, they were coming out of the master bedroom and he was dragging her by her hair,” Morgan said, according to NBC News.
Later in the afternoon, jurors heard from David James, a former assistant to Combs, who testified that he once told Ventura she should leave the superstar, but that she felt she was unable to do so.
“I can’t. I can’t get out,” James said Ventura told him, citing the fact that he controlled her music career, paid for her lodgings and was her source of income: “I just didn’t think that she could easily leave.”
The trial is expected to pick up again on Tuesday (May 20) with more testimony from James. The proceedings are expected to last until early July.
Jennifer Lopez is facing copyright infringement claims for allegedly posting two paparazzi pictures of herself outside a Golden Globes pre-party in January without paying to license the photos.
Lopez was hit with a pair of federal court lawsuits on Saturday (May 17) from photographer Edwin Blanco and photo agency BackGrid USA. They say they co-own the two images of the pop singer and actress standing outside the Amazon MGM Studios x Vanity Fair Party at Los Angeles’ swanky Bar Marmont the night before this year’s Golden Globe Awards on Jan. 4.
A lawyer for Blanco and BackGrid alleges Lopez posted the photos to her Instagram and X accounts on Jan. 5 without permission. This supposedly set off a spate of reposts from fan pages and fashion brands, including the designer of a faux fur coat Lopez was wearing in the photos.
Trending on Billboard
“Ms. Lopez’s unauthorized use of the Images is commercial in nature, intended for the purpose of self-promotion,” wrote attorney Peter Perkowski. “For example, Ms. Lopez used the images to spotlight the designer of her clothing and jewelry, leveraging the publicity from the event to promote her fashion affiliations and brand partnerships.”
According to the lawsuits, a representative for BackGrid and Blanco contacted Lopez’s team about the alleged copyright infringement the next week. Perkowski says the two sides had “fruitful discussions” and orally agreed to a monetary settlement, but Lopez never signed a written settlement agreement and has not paid the promised money.
The lawsuits also note that Lopez was previously sued in 2019 for posting an unauthorized paparazzi image of herself and her then-boyfriend Alex Rodriguez to her Instagram account. That case, also brought by Perkowski, was ultimately dismissed voluntarily in 2020.
“This prior litigation placed Ms. Lopez on notice regarding the legal requirements and potential consequences associated with the use of copyrighted images without proper authorization,” continued Perkowski. “Despite this, Ms. Lopez has continued to engage in similar conduct, demonstrating a willful disregard for BackGrid’s copyrights through a pattern of behavior that undermines the rights of content creators.”
BackGrid and Blanco are accusing Lopez of willful infringement under the federal Copyright Act, which could entitle them to damages of up to $150,000 per photo.
Lopez’s reps did not immediately return a request for comment on Monday (May 19).
While seemingly strange, it’s quite common for celebrities to be sued for posting paparazzi photos of themselves to social media. Artists including Miley Cyrus, Dua Lipa and Justin Bieber have all faced similar lawsuits in the last few years.
As Billboard wrote in 2022, U.S. copyright law is on the side of photographers and image licensers. Though it may seem unfair, celebrities do not automatically co-own images of themselves and therefore don’t have the right to repost them for free.
Ed Sheeran wants the U.S. Supreme Court to finally end one of the long-running lawsuits claiming his “Thinking Out Loud” infringed Marvin Gaye‘s “Let’s Get It On,” calling a recent appeal to the high court “baseless.”
The star’s accuser — a company that owns a partial stake in Gaye’s 1973 song — asked the justices earlier this year to revive the case, which was dismissed in November after a lower court ruled that the two tracks share only basic “musical building blocks.”
In a response Friday (May 16), Sheeran’s attorneys said the “Thinking” case is not the kind of precedent-setting case that’s worth the Supreme Court’s time — but that the accusers are using a “false premise” and “baseless assertions” as it “pretends” that it is.
Trending on Billboard
“The question which petitioner purports to present is not actually presented by this case but has been fabricated in effort to attract this court’s attention,” Sheeran’s lawyers wr0te. “The petition should be denied.”
Sheeran has faced multiple lawsuits over “Thinking,” a 2014 track co-written with Amy Wadge that reached No. 2 on the Billboard Hot 100 and ultimately spent 58 weeks on the chart.
He was first sued by the daughter of Ed Townsend, who co-wrote the famed 1973 tune with Gaye. That case ended in a high-profile jury verdict that cleared Sheeran of any wrongdoing.
Thursday’s petition came in a separate case filed by a company called Structured Asset Sales (SAS), an entity owned by industry executive David Pullman that controls a different stake in Townsend’s copyrights to the legendary song. That suit was rejected in November by the federal Second Circuit appeals court, which said the lawsuit was essentially seeking “a monopoly over a combination of two fundamental musical building blocks.”
“The four-chord progression at issue — ubiquitous in pop music — even coupled with a syncopated harmonic rhythm, is too well-explored to meet the originality threshold that copyright law demands,” the appeals court wrote. “Overprotecting such basic elements would threaten to stifle creativity and undermine the purpose of copyright law.”
In a petition to the Supreme Court in March, SAS argued that the appeals court’s ruling had unfairly restricted its allegations to written sheet music rather than all elements included in Gaye’s iconic recorded version. That thorny issue, which has also cropped up in other major cases over “Blurred Lines” and “Stairway To Heaven” in recent years, must finally be resolved by the high court, the company said at the time.
“The rights of thousands of legacy musical composers and artists, of many of the most beloved and enduring pieces of popular music, are at the center of the controversy,” SAS’s lawyers wrote.
In Friday’s response, Sheeran’s lawyers said the stakes of the case had been vastly overstated — that the case law was clearly settled, that there was no controversy among the lower courts, and that it was SAS that was threatening to upend the law: “The self-serving free-for-all petitioner posits would foment vast uncertainty and encourage rampant speculation, decades after the fact.”
Appeals to the Supreme Court, known as petitions for writ of certiorari, face extremely long odds. The court takes less than 2% of the roughly 7,000 cases it receives each year, hearing only the disputes it deems most important to the national legal landscape.
Lil Nas X can’t be sued by an Instagram user who claimed the superstar stole his distinctive “poses” and used them in his own posts, federal appeals court says – ruling that the dispute images “share few similarities” and Lil Nas likely never saw them anyway.
Rodney Woodland, a freelance artist and model, claimed in his 2022 lawsuit that the “Old Town Road” rapper (Montero Lamar Hill) had illegally replicated several provocative photos in which Woodland struck elaborate poses while partially nude.
But in a ruling Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit says that the dueling sets of Instagram posts share only a few scattered similarities that didn’t legally add up to copyright infringement.
Trending on Billboard
“Hill’s photograph shares almost nothing in common with Woodland’s,” Judge Kenneth K. Lee writes, analyzing two of the images. “The photos both depict a Black man folded in on himself, but the similarities stop there. The objective elements in the photos—the men’s poses, colors, lighting, backgrounds, etc.—are different.”
The appeals court also rejects Woodland’s lawsuit for an even simpler reason: That Lil Nas had likely never seen the images he was accused of copying. That issue – known as “access” in copyright law – is a crucial component in any infringement lawsuit.
“It is not enough to simply allege that [Lil Nas] is an active user of Instagram and thus had a reasonable possibility of viewing Woodland’s photos,” Lee writes for a three-judge panel. “There are over a billion users and many more posts on Instagram. The mere fact that Hill uses Instagram and that Woodland’s photos are on Instagram raises no more than a bare possibility that Hill viewed Woodland’s photos.”
Attorneys for both sides did not return requests for comment on the ruling on Monday.
Woodland sued Lil Nas in June 2022, claiming the rapper had ripped off 11 of his copyrighted photographs, illegally copying “original and unique elements” of them including “poses, colors, lighting and coloring.” The images all feature Woodland and Nas naked with their genitals obscured, either by their pose or the use of editing elements.
A federal judge dismissed the case in 2023, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed that ruling on Friday. In its written opinion, the appeals court included side-by-sides of each disputed pair of photos and detailed why each of Nas’ posts were not improper.
“The commonalities go no further than the depiction of a man reclining on his side with certain body parts strategically covered — a common pose in photos of male models and actors,” the court wrote about one set of images.
Several of the disputed photos featured both Woodland and Nas “draped in chains.” The court said that was a clear similarity, but not one that trigger’s copyright law’s protections for creative expression.
“The idea in each of the photos is the same — the provocative image of a Black man in chains,” the court wrote. “But that idea is not protected — indeed, it is a common motif in many pieces of art. Only the expression through the selection and arrangement of objective elements receives copyright protection.”
Friday’s ruling carries added importance because it is a so-called precedential ruling, offering new case law on the issue of copyright “access” in the era of social media.
The court said the rules had involved in an analog world and that Instagram and other platforms had made it “easier than ever” for copyright works to be widely disseminated. But the court also warned that accusers would still need to prove that an alleged infringer had a good chance of seeing their work — and that none of Woodland’s posts had recieved more than 75 “likes” on Instagram.
“Social media and other digital-sharing platforms could make it easier for plaintiffs to show that defendants had access to their materials —but only if they can show that the defendants had a reasonable chance of seeing their work under that platform’s algorithm or content-sharing policy,” the appeals court wrote. “That is a big “if”— and, as explained below, Woodland has fallen short here.”
A fellow musician and friend of Chris Brown has been charged alongside the Grammy-winning singer on allegations they beat and seriously injured a music producer at a London nightclub in 2023, police said Saturday (May 17).
Omololu Akinlolu, 38, who performs under the name HoodyBaby, was due to appear in Manchester Magistrates’ Court on a charge of causing grievous bodily harm with intent.
Brown, 36, was jailed without bail on the same charge Friday (May 16), throwing his upcoming tour into question. He is scheduled to appear at Southwark Crown Court in London on June 13, which is the third day of his world tour.
Trending on Billboard
Akinlolu is a rapper from Dallas, Texas, who has collaborated with Brown and Lil Wayne. He also goes by the names Fat Leopard and Super Hood.
Police gave no details on what role Akinlolu played in the alleged assault but said he was charged in connection with the same incident as Brown.
Brown was on tour in the U.K. in February 2023 when he launched an unprovoked attack on producer Abe Diaw, striking him several times with a bottle at the Tape nightclub in the swanky Mayfair neighborhood in London, prosecutor Hannah Nicholls said in court Friday.
Brown then chased Diaw and punched and kicked him in an attack caught on surveillance camera in front of a club full of people, she said.
Brown did not enter a plea and only spoke to confirm his name, birth date and gave his address as the Lowry Hotel, where he was arrested in Manchester early Thursday and taken into custody.
Brown’s representative has not responded to multiple requests for comment from The Associated Press.
Brown, often called by his nickname Breezy, burst onto the music scene as a teen in 2005 and has become a major hitmaker over the years with notable songs such as “Run It,” “Kiss Kiss” and “Without You.”
He won his first Grammy for best R&B album in 2011 for F.A.M.E. and then earned his second gold trophy in the same category for 11:11 earlier this year.
He is scheduled to launch an international tour next month with artists Jhene Aiko, Summer Walker and Bryson Tiller, opening with a European leg on June 8 in Amsterdam before starting North America shows in July.
Aubrey O’Day has confirmed she will not be taking the stand in Sean “Diddy” Combs‘ federal sex-trafficking trial.
The former Danity Kane member made the announcement on Friday (May 16) during the premiere episode of Amy Robach & T.J. Holmes Present: Aubrey O’Day, Covering the Diddy Trial, an iHeartRadio podcast recorded in New York City.
“I’m not here to testify for the Diddy trial, that I know of,” O’Day said, according to People.
The 41-year-old singer suggested her involvement could still evolve, revealing she had been “contacted by Homeland Security” and had a meeting with the agency, which led March raids on Diddy’s homes in Los Angeles and Miami.
Earlier in the week, O’Day — who appeared on MTV’s Making the Band under Diddy’s mentorship — sparked speculation about a possible court appearance after sharing a cryptic Instagram post from New York City.
“Hey New York!!! Where y’all think I should head first?” she wrote on May 14, including a scale emoji. Us Weekly also reported that a source claimed O’Day was subpoenaed to testify at the trial.
During the podcast episode, O’Day clarified the post’s intent. “I posted on my Instagram that I was here in New York and enjoying myself because I wanted to make it clear to everyone that I am not here testifying,” she said.
Diddy is currently facing multiple federal charges, including sex trafficking and racketeering. His trial is set to resume Monday (May 19). If convicted on all counts, he could face life in prison.
O’Day previously spoke out after Diddy’s September 2024 arrest. “The purpose of Justice is to provide an ending and allow us the space to create a new chapter. Women never get this. I feel validated. Today is a win for women all over the world, not just me. Things are finally changing,” she wrote on X at the time.
Danity Kane, the girl group formed in 2005 on Making the Band, was signed to Diddy’s Bad Boy Records. O’Day was removed from the group in 2008 and later claimed on the Call Her Daddy podcast in 2022 that her exit stemmed from her refusal to comply with non-music-related requests from the music mogul.
Cassie’s husband, Alex Fine, has spoken out in defense of his wife’s harrowing testimony recounting her alleged abuse at the hands of Diddy during the Bad Boy mogul’s trial.
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
Fine released a statement on Friday (May 16) as Cassie’s four-day stint on the stand came to a close via his wife’s attorney, Doug Wigdor.
“I have felt tremendous pride and overwhelming love for Cass,” he said. “I have felt profound anger that she has been subjected to sitting in front of a person who tried to break her. You did not break her spirit nor her smile.”
Fine continued: “I did not save Cassie, as some have said. To say that is an insult to the years of painful work my wife has done to save herself. Cassie saved Cassie. She alone broke free from abuse, coercion, violence, and threats. She did the work of fighting the demons that only a demon himself could have done to her.”
Alex Fine was present in court for all four days his wife was on the stand this week, as day five of the trial wrapped up on Friday.
“All I have done is love her as she has loved me. Her life is now surrounded by love, laughter and our family,” he added. “This horrific chapter is forever put behind us, and we will not be making additional statements. We appreciate all of the love and support we have received, and we ask that you respect our privacy as we welcome our son into a world that is now safer because of his mom.”
The first week of Diddy’s trial finished on Friday as Cassie was cross-examined by Combs’ attorneys and grilled about various horrifying events and alleged abuse she recalled throughout her four-day testimony.
Looking to put this chapter of her life behind her once and for all, Cassie also released a statement via her attorney about the “challenging” yet “empowering and healing” week she experienced on the stand while digging up painful memories.
“This week has been extremely challenging, but also remarkably empowering and healing for me. I hope that my testimony has given strength and a voice to other survivors, and can help others who have suffered to speak up and also heal from abuse and fear,” she said via Wigdor. “For me, the more I heal, the more I can remember. And the more I can remember, the more I will never forget.”
Cassie continued: “I want to thank my family and my advocates for their unwavering support, and am grateful for all the kindness and encouragement that I have received. I am glad to put this chapter of my life to rest as I turn to focus on the conclusion of my pregnancy, I ask for privacy for me and for my growing family.”
The “Me & U” singer’s testimony ended with Cassie sobbing as she thought about how life would be if she never participated in the alleged days-long “freak-offs” allegedly orchestrated by Diddy.
Cassie and Diddy started dating on and off in 2007 and broke up for good in 2018, bringing the tumultuous relationship to a close. Cassie married Alex Fine in 2019, and the couple is expecting their third child together in the coming weeks.
Diddy is facing charges of sex trafficking and racketeering. Combs’ trial will resume in court on Monday (May 19). If found guilty on all counts, he potentially faces life in prison.