Legal
Page: 43
Earth, Wind & Fire has won its trademark lawsuit against a tribute act that used the legendary R&B group’s name without permission, with a federal judge ruling that the evidence pointed “overwhelmingly” in the band’s favor.
In a decision released on Monday, a Miami federal judge ruled that the tribute group infringed Earth, Wind & Fire’s intellectual property rights by calling themselves “Earth, Wind & Fire Legacy Reunion.” He called the band’s marketing “deceptive and misleading.”
In particular, the judge cited angry social media posts and emails from fans who attended the “Reunion” shows because they thought it was the original band – proof of the kind of “actual confusion” that’s crucial evidence in a trademark lawsuit.
Trending on Billboard
“It is not a far cry to think that an average consumer looking for an Earth, Wind & Fire concert would believe that they could acquire that experience from either plaintiff or defendants,” Judge Federico A. Moreno wrote.
Earth, Wind & Fire has continued to tour since founder Maurice White died in 2016, led by longtime members Philip Bailey, Ralph Johnson and White’s brother, Verdine White. The band operates under a license from an entity called Earth Wind & Fire IP, a holding company controlled by Maurice White’s sons that formally owns the rights to the name.
Last year, that company filed the current lawsuit, accusing Legacy Reunion of trying to trick consumers into thinking it was the real Earth, Wind & Fire. Though it called itself a “Reunion,” the lawsuit said the tribute band contained only a few “side musicians” who had briefly played with Earth, Wind & Fire many years ago.
“Defendants did this to benefit from the commercial magnetism and immense goodwill the public has for plaintiff’s ‘Earth, Wind & Fire’ marks and logos, thereby misleading consumers and selling more tickets at higher prices,” the group’s lawyers wrote at the time.
Tribute acts — groups that exclusively cover the music of a particular band — are legally allowed to operate, and they often adopt names that allude to the original. But they must make clear that they are only a tribute band, and they can get into legal hot water if they make it appear that they are affiliated with or endorsed by the original.
In Monday’s decision, Judge Moreno ruled that Legacy Reunion had done exactly that – particularly with its references to a “Reunion” and claims that the performers were former members of Earth, Wind & Fire. The judge said the later addition of “Alumni” and other reformulations of the name were not enough.
“While the court understands there is dispute on how prominent of a role the musicians performing in [Legacy Reunion] played in the Earth, Wind & Fire group, defendants advertisements draw a close, unmistakable association with Earth, Wind & Fire to a degree unwarranted by the historical record,” the judge wrote.
“Regardless of if defendants’ musicians were technically sidemen or members, the advertisement and marketing were still deceptive and misleading as to whether the main (or most prominently known) members of the band would be performing,” Judge Moreno wrote.
The judge cited numerous complaints from Earth, Wind & Fire fans who had allegedly been confused by Legacy Reunion’s name. In one email, a fan said the name was “misleading” because they had attended the show “in the hopes of seeing Philip Bailey, Verdine White and others from the original band.” Another email complained that the tribute band was a ‘bait and switch.’ In a Facebook post, another fan said: “If the three remaining original members are not in this tour, this is basically a rip-off!”
In technical terms, Monday’s ruling decided that Legacy Reunion had violated Earth, Wind & Fire’s trademarks, but did not decide how much they must now pay in damages. That issue will be left for a future trial, which is currently scheduled for May. In the meantime, Judge Moreno said that Legacy Reunion would be barred from doing anything that would infringe Earth, Wind & Fire’s trademarks.
Neither side’s attorneys immediately returned request for comment on Monday.
Federal prosecutors are accusing NBA YoungBoy (a.k.a. YoungBoy Never Broke Again) of violating the terms of his house arrest by using unspecified drugs — and of telling his supervising officers that he has “no intentions” of stopping. In a filing Thursday (Feb. 29), prosecutors asked a Louisiana federal judge to set a hearing to deal […]
A federal judge ruled Thursday (Feb. 29) that an unnamed woman suing Sean “Diddy” Combs over allegations that he “sex trafficked” and “gang raped” her must reveal her identity as the case moves forward.
The judge acknowledged that disclosing the accuser’s identity “could have a significant impact on her” due to the “graphic and disturbing allegations in this case,” but said the woman had failed to prove that she could proceed anonymously.
“While the court does not take plaintiff’s concerns lightly, the Court cannot rely on generalized, uncorroborated claims that disclosure would harm plaintiff to justify her anonymity,” Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke wrote.
Trending on Billboard
The judge cited previous lawsuits against Kevin Spacey and Harvey Weinstein in which John Doe and Jane Doe accusers, respectively, had been denied anonymity and said that allowing cases to proceed under a pseudonym in the U.S. court system was “the exception and not the rule.”
The ruling will not take effect immediately; instead, the accuser will not be revealed until after the judge rules on Diddy’s pending motion to dismiss the lawsuit. It’s unclear when that ruling might come. If the case survives, the Jane Doe will be forced to reveal her name.
Thursday’s decision came in one of several abuse cases filed against the hip-hop mogul late last year. In the current case, the unnamed Jane Doe accuser claims that Combs and former Bad Boy Records president Harve Pierre “plied” her with drugs and alcohol before raping her in a Manhattan recording studio when she was a high school junior.
Combs has strongly denied those allegations, saying: “I did not do any of the awful things being alleged. I will fight for my name, my family and for the truth.” Last week, he formally responded to the lawsuit, arguing that that the allegations are “fictional” and violate his constitutional right to due process.
For months, the two sides have wrangled over whether the Jane Doe accuser could proceed anonymously. She argued that the media attention she would face would result in fresh trauma, adding to what she already allegedly suffered. Diddy’s attorneys argued strongly the other way, saying it would be unfair to let his accuser proceed under a pseudonym while his name was dragged through the mud.
On Thursday, the judge sided clearly with Diddy’s argument, ruling that she had failed to show the kind of “particularized harm or current vulnerabilities” that would necessitate such special status.
“Although this case involves highly sensitive allegations and Doe has not publicly revealed her identity, all other factors weigh against Plaintiff’s motion should this case survive Defendants’ dispositive motions,” the judge wrote.
A woman who once appeared “obviously intoxicated” in a Kanye West music video cannot sue for defamation after the footage was used in the Kanye-focused Netflix documentary jeen-yuhs, a federal judge says, even if she later got sober and “turned her life around.”
Cynthia Love sued last year, claiming jeen-yuhs filmmakers Coodie Simmons and Chike Ozah defamed her by including the footage in the 2022 Netflix series. The clip, which showed Love dancing and slurring her words at a Chicago barbecue spot, was originally shot for the 2003 music video for Kanye West’s debut single, “Through The Wire.”
Love’s argument was unusual. She admitted that the footage was authentic — normally the death knell for a libel lawsuit. But she argued that because she had later gotten sober, it had become false and defamatory to use it in the present day.
Trending on Billboard
In a ruling Tuesday (Feb. 27), Judge Steven Seeger sharply rejected that argument, ruling that the footage was “historically accurate” and shows a “a past truth,” even if it was a truth that Love did not want to remember.
“Holding up a mirror isn’t defamation. Holding up a 20-year-old picture isn’t defamation, either,” the judge wrote. “They both reflect reality, like it or not.”
It did not matter that Love had later “turned things around,” the judge wrote, or that the Netflix doc depicts her at her “darkest moments” years ago: “The ‘Jeen-yuhs’ video accurately portrays Love in a moment of time several decades ago. The video does not suggest that Love remains in an intoxicated state, or anything of that sort.”
Directed by Coodie & Chike (the moniker used by the filmmakers), jeen-yuhs depicted West’s career through unreleased archival footage, much of it filmed by Coodie over decades of working with the rapper. After landing at Netflix for a reported $30 million, the series was released in February 2022 — just months before West would receive widespread condemnation for a string of antisemitic statements.
Years earlier, Love had briefly appeared in the “Through The Wire” video, which was directed by Coodie & Chike in one of their first projects. The video showed Love drunkenly dancing in Chicago eater Original Leon’s Bar-B-Q. That footage, plus additional unused footage showing her interacting with West, later appeared in jeen-yuhs, making up about two minutes of footage total across two episodes.
Love sued last year, accusing Coodie & Chike and Netflix of defamation and a wide range of other wrongdoing. (West was not named or accused of any wrongdoing). She claimed they had “recklessly disregarded the truth” that she had made “an amazing transformation” since the ugly footage was filmed, hurting her reputation among present-day peers: “Neighbors, co-workers, and family cannot help but view and treat her as someone less worthy of their respect, esteem and trust,” her lawyers wrote.
But in Tuesday’s order dismissing those allegations, Judge Seeger pointedly noted that “sometimes the truth hurts, and when the truth hurts, it isn’t defamation.” Summarizing her argument as “the footage was true then, but it isn’t true now,” the judge told her that’s simply not how defamation law works.
“Plain and simple, any allegations about Love in the ‘Jeen-yuhs’ docuseries are true,” the judge wrote. “The docuseries includes real-world clips of Love, without doctoring the content or adding any false material. It shows true clips of a real event.”
Attorneys for both sides did not immediately return a request for comment.
Following the guilty verdicts handed down by a jury on Tuesday (Feb. 27) in the trial of the 2002 murder of hip-hop luminary Run-DMC’s Jam Master Jay, the fallen legend’s family issued a statement via his son TJ Mizell to Billboard on Wednesday, extending his appreciation to everyone involved in bringing justice and accountability.
“We extend our deepest gratitude to the prosecutors, law enforcement officials and all involved in bringing these individuals to justice. Their unwavering dedication has ensured a measure of accountability for the tragic loss of Jam Master Jay,” the family said. “As we pause to reflect, we are reminded of the profound impact and influence Jay had on countless lives. His legacy endures through his music, his spirit and the cherished memories we hold dear. We remain committed to honoring his memory and celebrating the enduring legacy he leaves behind.”
Trending on Billboard
“To all who have supported us throughout this challenging journey, we offer our heartfelt thanks. Your love, kindness, and steadfast support have been a source of strength during our darkest moments. We ask that you continue to honor Jay’s memory through his music and the positive impact he made on the world,” the statement continues. “While the pain of our loss will always remain, we find solace in the knowledge that justice has been served. Our family believes in God’s plan and that faith is what helped provide closure for us long ago. We thank all that continue to support Jay’s legacy by honoring his life’s achievements.”
The two men convicted of the murder, Karl Jordan, Jr., 40, and Ronald Washington, 59, each face a minimum of 20 years in prison. They’ll have the option of challenging the verdict with the judge as well as a federal appeals court.
Jay, a renowned member of the legendary rap group Run-DMC, was killed in October 2022 in Queens, NY. His death remained one of hip-hop’s most famous cold cases until 2020, when detectives generated sufficient leads that prompted prosecutors to launch a case against Jordan and Washington.
The three-week trial included more than 30 witnesses who testified against Jordan and Washington, accusing them of murdering the rap pioneer as payback after the DJ cut them out of a cocaine deal.
Following the guilty verdict, U.S. Attorney Breon Peace issued a statement: “More than two decades after they killed Jason Mizell in his recording studio, Jordan and Washington have finally been held accountable for their cold-blooded crime driven by greed and revenge.”
Washington’s attorney, Susan G. Kellman, had a different stance on the matter, as she believed her client wasn’t given the justice he deserved during his trial.
“They made up a motive and they rejected hard facts,” Kellman said to Billboard in a statement. “That they just didn’t give a d–n speaks volumes about where our country is — truth is no longer a consideration — we truly live in a world of ‘alternative facts.’ And that’s not justice.”
Sony Music has reached a settlement to resolve a lawsuit filed by New York Dolls singer David Johansen and other artists in an effort to regain control of their masters, finally ending years of closely-watched class-action litigation against major record labels over copyright law’s termination right.
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
The tentative agreement, announced in court papers last week, will resolve a case in which artists claimed Sony had unfairly rejected their efforts to invoke termination – a federal law that’s supposed to let authors take back control of their works decades after they sold them away.
Trending on Billboard
The exact terms of the settlement, which attorneys for Sony called “an agreement in principle to settle all claims in this case,” were not disclosed. Neither side immediately returned request for comment on the agreement.
Johansen, along with fellow artists John Lyon and Paul Collins, filed the case against Sony in 2019, claiming the company had essentially refused to approve any termination requests from its recording artists. The case, filed as a proposed class action that aimed to represent hundreds of others in a similar situation, was lodged the same day as a closely-related case against Universal Music Group.
Taken together, the two lawsuits represented a sweeping critique of how the two music giants were allegedly approaching termination rights, which were created in the 1970s as a means of helping correct the imbalance of power between large entertainment companies and individual creators. In the case of the music business, if a musician sold away the rights to a song that later became a smash hit, termination theoretically allows them to get those lucrative copyrights back decades later — between 35 and 56 years later, depending on when the song was sold.
According to the lawsuits against Sony and UMG, the music companies had imposed an across-the-board rule that sound recordings (separate from the underlying musical compositions) were effectively never subject to the termination. The labels allegedly argued that most recordings were “works for hire,” in which the company simply hires artists to contribute to them; if true, that would mean the label was the legal author, and performers had no rights to win back in the first place.
But the lawsuits were dealt a serious blow last year, when a federal judge ruled that the UMG case could not proceed as a class action. Though he noted that the artists “raise issues of fairness in copyright law that undoubtedly extended beyond their own grievances,” the judge said that each of the individual musician’s circumstances were different, meaning each would need to file their own case against UMG.
That ruling did not decide the merits of the case, but it presented a severe logistical hurdle. Such lawsuits are extremely expensive, and artists typically lack the same kind of legal resources as the major labels who have allegedly denied their termination requests. A class action would have allowed the artists to pool their resources and secure a sweeping decision with only a single set of legal costs.
Following that ruling – and the judge’s subsequent rejection of the artists efforts to quickly appeal it – the two sides began moving toward a settlement. “Missing You” singer John Waite, one of the artists who filed the case against UMG, settled out in May; the remaining defendants in that case reached a settlement with UMG in December.
The UMG ruling was not directly binding on the lawsuit against Sony, which was being handled by a different judge in the same federal district court. But the two cases were filed by the same lawyers and were largely identical, meaning the UMG ruling certainly did not bode well for the Sony case’s chances to be approved as a class action.
Before last week, the Sony case had long been paused while the two sides worked on a settlement. In Friday’s motion announcing such an agreement, Sony asked to extend that pause until May, allowing them time to finalize the settlement in writing and submit it to the judge. The request was approved Monday, putting the case on track to be closed out this spring.
Attorneys for Sony and the plaintiffs both did not return requests for comment on Wednesday.
A U.S. District Court judge is allowing a shareholder lawsuit against Live Nation to move forward, denying the concert promotion giant’s motion to dismiss it in a decision handed down Friday (Feb. 27).
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
The case involves how much the company should have to disclose about ongoing public pressure from federal authorities and how much of its financial success it should attribute to its dominant market share in the concert industry — as opposed to demand for concert tickets or the strength of its business.
Shareholders Brian Donley and Gene Gress are suing Live Nation over drops in its share price from February 2022 to November 2023 that they say were brought on by the company’s “false and misleading statements and omissions” within its annual earnings reports — specifically regarding the company’s alleged “anticompetitive behavior and cooperation with regulators.”
Trending on Billboard
The lawsuit did not reveal any new antitrust allegations against Live Nation, nor did it detail any new antitrust investigations into the company by regulators. Attorneys for the shareholders instead focused on boilerplate language within the company’s shareholder report and argued that it should have spent more time talking about the threat a federal antitrust investigation posed.
In siding with the shareholders, Judge Kenly Kiya Kato took issue with how the company described its success, noting in a 13-page ruling that she believed that Live Nation’s “failure to include specific facts and details about their presence and control of the live entertainment industry” in its annual report didn’t paint the full picture. Kato wrote in her ruling that the company’s claim that 2022 revenue growth “was a reflection of the quality of the Ticketmaster platform and its continued popularity with clients across the globe” was “misleading” because it failed to mention that “Ticketmaster controls ticket distribution for over 70% of major concert venues,” and “77% of the top 100 amphitheaters worldwide.”
Kato also wrote that Ticketmaster’s claims that its success was based on the superiority of its ticketing systems was in part a false claim because it omitted criticism from competitors who testified against the company in front of the U.S. Senate in early 2023.
Since it merged with Ticketmaster in 2010, Live Nation has faced antitrust complaints over the company’s size and market share from competitors, politicians including Senators Amy Klobuchar and Richard Blumenthal, and consumer advocates. Scrutiny of the company increased in 2019 when officials with the Department of Justice opted to extend a decade-old consent decree against it, and then ramped up again following the high-profile 2022 crash of Taylor Swift’s Ticketmaster sale for her Eras Tour.
Since 2022, Live Nation has not been notified that it’s the subject of any legal action by the Department of Justice and has written in its annual disclosures that it cooperates with all federal and state authorities, operates in a highly competitive marketplace and attributes its revenue growth at the end of 2021 to an increase “in events and higher ticket sales.”
Attorney Laurence M. Rosen, representing several shareholders in the class action lawsuit, said Live Nation’s answers contradict June 2023 reports from Politico and CNBC that the company was “allegedly stonewalling” a Senate subcommittee led by Senator Blumenthal that was seeking documents from the company about how it operated its concerts division.
Live Nation countered that Blumenthal was misrepresenting the dispute, that it had already handed over thousands of documents and was contesting demands for confidential information that included private details about how much artists earned from touring. In its response to the Senate committee, the company argued it would only hand over the documents if confidentiality protections were put in place. While Live Nation’s attorneys viewed the disagreement as insignificant, Rosen argued that the objection meant the company was “not cooperating fully with the ongoing DOJ and Senate Subcommittee investigations,” an attorney for the shareholders wrote.
Live Nation declined to comment for this story.
The estate of Donna Summer filed a copyright lawsuit against Kanye West on Tuesday (Feb. 27), accusing him of “shamelessly” using her 1977 hit “I Feel Love” without permission in his song “Good (Don’t Die).” Explore See latest videos, charts and news See latest videos, charts and news In a complaint filed in Los Angeles […]
A federal jury in Brooklyn on Tuesday (Feb. 27) found two New York City men guilty in the 2002 murder of Run-DMC‘s Jam Master Jay, setting the stage for potential decades-long prison sentences.
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
Following a three-week trial, the jury returned guilty verdicts against both Karl Jordan, Jr., 40, and Ronald Washington, 59, who were charged in 2020 with the rap pioneer’s long-unsolved killing in Queens.
The convictions came after prosecutors called more than 30 witnesses to the stand to prove their case, in which they accused Jordan and Washington of killing the rapper as payback after he cut them out of a cocaine deal. The defense called just one witness of their own: an expert on memory.
Trending on Billboard
“This case is not complicated,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Artie McConnell said during his closing arguments last week. “It’s about greed, it’s about money, it’s about jealousy.”
Following Tuesday’s conviction, Jordan and Washington each face a minimum sentence of 20 years in prison. They will be able to challenge the verdict, first to the judge and then to a federal appeals court, but such appeals face long odds.
Attorneys for both defendants and the prosecution did not immediately return requests for comment on the verdict.
Run-DMC, a trio consisting of Jason “Jam Master Jay” Mizell, Joseph “Rev. Run” Simmons and Darryl “DMC” McDaniels, is widely credited as one of the most influential early acts in hip-hop history. The trio’s 1985 release, King of Rock, was hip-hop’s first platinum album, and the group’s 1986 cover of Aerosmith’s “Walk This Way” reached No. 4 on the Billboard Hot 100.
Jay’s shocking killing, on Oct. 30, 2002, had long been one of hip-hop’s famous cold cases, joining the unsolved murders of Tupac Shakur and The Notorious B.I.G. Though witnesses were in the room when the murder happened and police generated a number of leads, no charges were filed until August 2020, when prosecutors finally unveiled the case against Washington and Jordan.
Over the three-week trial, prosecutors told jurors that Jay had turned to the drug trade as Run-DMC’s popularity had waned. They argued that Washington, a childhood friend, and Jordan, Jay’s godson and neighbor, had helped Jay sell the drugs, but eventually plotted his murder after he allegedly cut them out of a deal.
Jurors heard testimony from two alleged eyewitnesses, Uriel “Tony” Rincon and Lydia High, who say they were in the studio on the night of the shooting. Rincon identified both men and named Jordan as the shooter; High identified Washington and said he had been joined by an unknown shooter. Both said they had withheld such information from investigators for years for fear of retaliation.
As is common in criminal cases, neither Washington nor Jordan testified in their own defense. Their attorneys called only an expert witness to testify on human memory, who told the jury that memories can fade and change over time and can be affected by stress.
The jury began deliberating on Thursday (Feb. 22) before being dismissed for a three-day weekend. They initially resumed deliberations on Monday (Feb. 26), but then were ordered to restart from scratch after a juror was excused because they claimed they could not be impartial.
Sentencing and post-trial motions will take place in future proceedings. Jay Bryant, a third man allegedly involved in the killing who prosecutors charged with murder last May, will have a separate trial later this year.
Beyond Tuesday’s guilty verdict, the case over Jay’s killing could have a lasting effect on the law.
In a ruling near the beginning of the trial, the federal judge overseeing the case ruled that prosecutors could not cite violent rap lyrics written by Jordan as evidence against him. Warning that “music artists should be free to create without fear that their lyrics could be unfairly used against them,” the judge said such materials should only be used as evidence if they have a clear and direct connection to the crime at issue in the case.
The ruling came amid a broader debate over the use of rap lyrics in criminal trials, a controversial practice that has drawn backlash from the music industry and efforts by lawmakers to stop it. A high-profile gang trial in Atlanta, in which prosecutors are using Young Thug’s lyrics against him, has drawn particular scrutiny to the issue.
This is The Legal Beat, a weekly newsletter about music law from Billboard Pro, offering you a one-stop cheat sheet of big new cases, important rulings and all the fun stuff in between.
This week: A federal appeals court overturns a $1 billion verdict won by the major labels over internet piracy; Kanye West blasts Adidas for selling “fake Yeezys” while also “suing” him; Aerosmith singer Steven Tyler wins the dismissal of one of his sexual abuse cases; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: Billion-Dollar Piracy Verdict Gone – For Now
One billion dollars – with a “B.” Back in 2019, that’s the massive sum that a federal jury ordered Cox Communications to pay to Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment and Warner Music Group after concluding that the internet service provider had turned a blind eye to infringement by its users.
Piracy is no longer the existential threat it was once for the music industry. But in the mid-2010s, it was still a big deal — so much so, that music companies began suing ISPs to force them to take action. In 2018, the Big Three filed such a case against Cox, claiming that it had essentially helped its subscribers illegally share more than 10,000 of their copyrighted songs.
Trending on Billboard
ISPs are usually shielded from lawsuits over infringing conduct by their users, thanks to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and its system of so-called safe harbors. But the judge overseeing the case ruled that Cox had forfeited the DMCA’s protections by failing to terminate subscribers who had repeatedly pirated music. Stripped of immunity, Cox was ordered to pay the labels more than $99,000 for every song its users infringed — one of the largest ever awards in an intellectual property lawsuit.
Cox appealed the case, arguing that it was “unprecedented in every way” and would require ISPs to cut off vital internet access based on unproven accusations of piracy. The labels said it was a fair punishment for a company that had allegedly avoided the problem for fear of losing money.
After more than four years of waiting for a ruling (so long that file-sharing has become something of antique topic) a federal appeals court finally weighed in this week — overturning the huge verdict, but leaving Cox still facing the potential for massive damages. Go read the full story to find out more.
Other top stories this week…
IS ADIDAS SUING YE? – Kanye West took to Instagram to blast Adidas for “suing him” at the same time that it was selling “fake Yeezys” to consumers: “Not only are they putting out fake colorways that are non-approved, they’re suing me for $250 million.” So is Adidas really suing him? The answer is … complicated.
MORE DIDDY ALLEGATIONS – Sean Combs was hit with another abuse lawsuit, this time by a producer named Rodney “Lil Rod” Jones Jr. who says the rapper sexually assaulted and harassed him. But the case also includes more bizarre allegations, claiming that Diddy and others participated in a “RICO enterprise” – civil allegations under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, a federal law that’s more often used in criminal cases against mobsters and drug cartels. Combs’ lawyer Shawn Holley told Billboard that the claims were “pure fiction” filed by a man “shamelessly looking for an undeserved payday.”
…AND A NEW RESPONSE – Days earlier, Combs also filed his first legal response to one of his earlier abuse cases, in which a woman claims that he “sex trafficked” and “gang raped” her when she was a 17-year-old girl in 2003. In the filing, Combs told a federal court that the allegations are “fictional”; among other things, Diddy’s lawyers said the case was filed so late that it violates his constitutional right to defend himself.
EAGLES’ STOLEN NOTES TRIAL – Don Henley took the stand in an ongoing criminal trial of three memorabilia sellers who prosecutors claim tried to sell stolen draft lyrics to “Hotel California” and other Eagles hits. The accused defendants claim Henley willingly gave the pages to a journalist decades ago, meaning they were never stolen. But in his testimony, the rock legend said he only gave the writer access, not possession: “You know what? It doesn’t matter if I drove a U-Haul truck across country and dumped them at his front door. He had no right to keep them or to sell them.”
STEVEN TYLER RULING – A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit accusing Aerosmith singer Steven Tyler of sexually assaulting a teenage girl in 1975, ruling that she had waited too long to bring her case. Jeanne Bellino sued the rocker in November under New York’s “lookback” law that allows abuse victims to sue over decades-old claims. But the judge ruled that her allegations — forcible kissing and groping — were not covered by the law because they did not present a “serious risk of physical injury.”
NICKELBACK CASE DISMISSED – A federal appeals court rejected a copyright lawsuit that claimed Nickelback ripped off its 2006 hit “Rockstar” from an earlier song called “Rock Star,” ruling that the band can’t be sued simply for using “clichés” and “singing about being a rockstar.”
IDOL PRODUCER SUED AGAIN – Former American Idol producer Nigel Lythgoe was hit with another sexual assault lawsuit, this time by an unidentified woman who claims he forcibly touched her in 2016. Lythgoe was already facing an earlier lawsuit from Paula Abdul over two separate alleged incidents of sexual assault.