Legal
Page: 48
Madonna’s management team and Live Nation responded Wednesday to a high-profile lawsuit claiming the music legend harmed her fans by starting New York City concerts later than scheduled, disputing some allegations and saying they plan to “defend this case vigorously.”
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
The response statement came after days of silence regarding the proposed class action lawsuit, in which two fans claim the star and the concert giant breached their contract with concertgoers and violated New York state laws by starting three December shows in Brooklyn more than two hours later than the scheduled.
In their joint statement, Madonna’s reps and Live Nation said that the just-completed European leg of her Celebration Tour had “received rave reviews” and vowed the fight back against the lawsuit’s allegations.
“The shows opened in North America at Barclays in Brooklyn as planned, with the exception of a technical issue December 13th during soundcheck,” Madonna’s reps and Live Nation said. “This caused a delay that was well documented in press reports at the time. We intend to defend this case vigorously.”
Ticket buyers Michael Fellows and Jonathan Hadden filed their case last week, claiming that the delays — starting at 10:30 pm rather than the scheduled 8:30 pm — caused real legal harm to ticket buyers who, among other things, “had to get up early to go to work” the next day.
“Defendants’ actions constitute not just a breach of their contracts … but also a wanton exercise in false advertising, negligent misrepresentation, and unfair and deceptive trade practices,” attorneys for the two men wrote in their complaint, filed in Brooklyn federal court.
The three concerts at Brooklyn’s Barclays Center, stops on Madonna’s Celebration Tour, were originally scheduled for July but rescheduled to December due to the singer’s illness. Fellows and Hadden said they expected their show (Dec. 13) to start on time, and “would not have paid for their tickets had they known that the concerts would start after 10:30 p.m.”
“Defendants failed to provide any notice to the ticketholders that the concerts would start much later than the start time printed on the ticket and as advertised,” attorneys for the two men wrote.
Leaving Barclays Center after 1:00 a.m., the two men claimed ticket buyers were “left stranded in the middle of the night,” some “confronted with limited public transportation” options and others with increased prices for ride-share services. They also pointed out that the concert took place “on a weeknight,” meaning they “had to get up early to go to work and/or take care of their family responsibilities the next day.”
Can fans really sue over that? When they formally respond in court, Madonna and Live Nation will probably challenge many of the lawsuit’s claims by arguing that concert fans are on notice that live events sometimes start a little later than scheduled. They could also point to contractual provisions in ticket contracts that could give performers some leeway for unexpected delays.
In addition to Madonna herself, the lawsuit also named Live Nation and Barclays Center as defendants. In technical terms, the complaint alleged breach of contract; violation of New York’s business practices and false advertising laws; and several other forms of wrongdoing, including unjust enrichment.
The lawsuit also included a claim of so-called negligent misrepresentation, saying the concert organizers “knew or should have known” that the concerts would not start at 8:30 because of alleged past instances of Madonna taking the stage late — and should have warned fans.
“Madonna has a long history of arriving and starting her concerts late, sometimes several hours late,” attorneys for Fellows and Hadden wrote. “This history occurred throughout her 2016 Rebel Heart Tour, her 2019-2020 Madame X Tour, and prior tours, where Madonna continuously started her concerts over two hours late.”
Attorneys for Fellows and Hadden did not return a request for comment on Wednesday’s response statement.
YFN Lucci pleaded guilty to a gang-related charge in a plea deal on Tuesday (Jan. 23).
After spending nearly three years behind bars, Lucci — born Rayshawn Bennett — pleaded guilty to one count of violating the Street Gang Terrorism and Prevention Act. He was indicted in Atlanta in 2021 on murder, gang and racketeering charges.
The plea deal included having 12 of the 13 counts against Lucci dropped — including felony murder, which comes with a life sentence — related to the 2020 shooting death of rival gang member James Adams in Atlanta.
YFN Lucci will serve 10 years behind bars, and another 10 years on probation.
“After three years of pretrial litigation, more than two weeks of jury selection and three years of incarceration waiting for his jury trial, today, the prosecution finally relented and dismissed the murder and RICO charges against Rayshawn Bennett,” Lucci’s attorney Drew Findling tells Billboard. “After the dismissal of 12 of the 13 counts against him, Mr. Bennett entered a plea to one gang-related count.”
The “Everyday We Lit” rapper surrendered to authorities in January 2021 and was part of a May 2021 sweeping indictment targeting alleged Bloods gang members.
He will be credited for time served, which means he can be eligible for parole in four months. If granted, Lucci is slated to serve out the rest of the sentence on probation.
The state of Georgia also agreed to not file anything that will object to his release later this year. According to Atlanta’s local ABC affiliate WSB-TV, the 32-year-old addressed the court and apologized to the victim’s family before his sentencing.
Findling also vehemently denied that his client would be cooperating in any case such as Young Thug’s YSL RICO trial following his plea deal.
“As he has maintained for three years now, Mr. Bennett will NOT cooperate in any other case,” the attorney tells Billboard. “By entering into this resolution, he will be eligible for parole in as early as four months from now. The prosecution has also agreed that he should be released early on parole and this will allow him to get back to his children, family and career.”
Billboard has reached out to the Fulton County Courthouse for additional comment.
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: Madonna is sued by angry fans over concerts that started later than scheduled; Michael Jackson’s estate faces a lawsuit after threatening to sue a Las Vegas tribute act; Ice Spice is sued over allegations that her “In Ha Mood” ripped off an earlier track; and much more.
Want to get The Legal Beat newsletter in your email inbox every Tuesday? Subscribe here for free.
THE BIG STORY: Madonna Fans Sue Over Delayed Concerts
Finally: a lawsuit for people who just want to get some sleep.
Madonna was hit with a proposed class action last week because the Material Girl allegedly started three New York City concerts later than scheduled, a delay that her accusers say caused real legal harm to ticket buyers who, among other things, “had to get up early to go to work” the next day.
Can you really sue over that? Madonna and Live Nation will probably argue that concert fans are on notice that shows sometimes start a little later than scheduled. But ticket buyers Michael Fellows and Jonathan Hadden claim that by making fans wait two extra hours beyond the listed start time, she not only breached her contract with them, but also committed a “wanton exercise in false advertising, negligent misrepresentation, and unfair and deceptive trade practices.”
For more, go read our full story, including Fellows and Hadden’s claims about “Madonna’s long history of arriving and starting her concerts late” and full access to the actual court docs filed against her.
Other top stories this week…
MJ TRIBUTE BATTLE – A long-running Michael Jackson tribute act in Las Vegas called “MJ Live” filed a preemptive lawsuit against the singer’s estate, asking a judge to rule that it could legally continue to perform the show. The organizers of MJ Live say the King of Pop’s attorneys have been unfairly threatening to sue even though the show has been running successfully for more than a decade. The estate called the case “beyond frivolous” and vowed to “vigorously” defend itself.
ICE SPICE COPYRIGHT CASE – The Bronx rapper was hit with a copyright lawsuit over allegations that her recent hit, “In Ha Mood,” was copied from an earlier track called “In That Mood” by a Brooklyn artist named D.Chamberz. The lawsuit claims the two songs share so many similarities — including beat, lyrics, hook, rhythmic structure, metrical placement and narrative context — that the overlap “cannot be purely coincidental.”
COULDN’T PICTURE THIS – The Notorious B.I.G.’s estate reached a settlement with the widow of late hip hop photographer Chi Modu, resolving years of litigation over merch bearing Modu’s famed image of the late rapper standing in front of the World Trade Center. A judge had ruled earlier in the case that Modu was entitled to reproduce and sell his image, but that slapping it onto products likely violated Biggie’s likeness rights.
MILES DAVIS TATTOO TRIAL – A trial is set to kick off this week over whether celebrity tattoo artist Kat Von D violated copyright law when she inked a photographer’s portrait of jazz legend Miles Davis onto the arm of a friend. He says she chose to “precisely replicate” every aspect of his image; she says it was a legal fair use.
INFRINGEMENT ON THE RADIO – Irving Azoff’s Global Music Rights (GMR), a boutique performance rights organization with a star-studded catalog, filed a copyright lawsuit claiming that a group of Vermont radio stations operated without a license for years. The allegations come after GMR spent years litigating against the Radio Music Licensing Committee, the group that negotiates music licensing deals for more than 10,000 radio stations.
TEKASHI 6IX9INE CHARGES – Authorities in the Dominican Republic arrested the embattled rapper on charges of domestic violence. This marks the latest in a long string of legal issues for the American rapper, who was arrested in October for a separate assault in the Dominican Republic, and faced federal gang charges in the United States before that.
JONAS-TURNER DIVORCE SETTLEMENT – Former Games of Thrones actress Sophie Turner dropped her “wrongful retention” lawsuit against ex-husband Joe Jonas over the custody of their two daughters after the former couple signed a co-parenting consent plan approved by a U.K. judge.
Country singer-songwriter Chris Young was arrested in Nashville on Monday night (Jan. 22) after an alleged incident at a downtown Nashville bar. Young was arrested on misdemeanor charges of disorderly conduct, resisting arrest and assaulting an officer, Billboard confirmed. Explore Explore See latest videos, charts and news See latest videos, charts and news Billboard has […]
Did a celebrity tattoo artist violate copyright law when she inked a photographer’s portrait of jazz legend Miles Davis onto the arm of a friend? A jury is set to the decide that question in a trial set to kick off Tuesday.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
Photographer Jeffrey B. Sedlik filed his lawsuit back in 2021 against Katherine Von Drachenberg – better known as Kat Von D, a celebrity tattoo artist who rose to prominence in the 2000s on her TLC reality show “fLA Ink.” He claimed she infringed his 1989 image of Davis by using it as the basis for a tattoo.
After years of litigation – and a U.S. Supreme Court case over Andy Warhol that changed the legal landscape midway through – attorneys for Sedlik and Von D will head to a Los Angeles federal courthouse Tuesday for a jury trial that will settle the dispute once and for all.
Sedlik, who calls his photo “world-famous,” has argued that Von D clearly broke the law when she chose to “precisely replicate every aspect of the iconic Miles Davis portrait in the form of a tattoo.” Von D, meanwhile, says she only used the image as a reference and that her tattoo is protected by copyright law’s so-called fair use doctrine, which allows people to re-use protected works in certain situations.
Initially, Judge Dale S. Fischer seemed inclined to side with Von D on a key question: Whether she had “transformed” the photo into something new. In a May 2022 ruling, the judge said Von D had “changed its appearance to create what she characterizes as adding movement and a more melancholy aesthetic.”
But the case got a legal shakeup a year later, when the U.S. Supreme Court issued a major ruling on fair use. In that decision, the justices said that the late Andy Warhol had violated a photographer’s copyrights years earlier when he used her images of Prince to create one of his distinctive screen prints – a decision that was widely interpreted as making it harder to prove fair use.
After the Warhol ruling came out, Judge Fischer ruled against Von D on that same key question of “transformative.” Citing the new Supreme Court precedent, the judge ruled that simply putting the same image in a new context and claiming new aesthetics was not enough to count as a fair use.
But even after that ruling, the overall question of fair use must still be decided by the jury at the trial set to kick off Tuesday. Jurors will be tasked with deciding whether Von D made “commercial” use of Sedlik’s image – a tough question, since she inked her friend free-of-charge but also promoted the work on her social media accounts. They must also decide whether her use of the image hurt Sedlik’s ability to license the image himself, another key question in any fair use case.
SiriusXM and Stitcher will not have to face a lawsuit from former Dawson’s Creek star James Van Der Beek accusing them of reneging on a $700,000 podcast deal.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Robert Broadbelt, in a tentative order issued on Friday, dismissed the suit, finding that the audio giant “did not enter into a contract” with the actor since they didn’t finalize the agreement.
Van Der Beek said he reached a deal over email with executives from SiriusXM to host 40 episodes in exchange for a $700,000 minimum guarantee and a 50 percent cut of the net ad revenue. He sued in 2022 after the company walked away from the agreement.
Ruling in favor of SiriusXM on summary judgment, the court concluded that the two sides aren’t bound by an April 2022 document outlining the terms of the deal. It pointed to the first page of the proposal, which states that it’s for “discussion purposes only, is not a binding commitment in any respect, and is not to be interpreted in any respect as a binding commitment to negotiate.”
There was extensive evidence presented to the court referencing the need to sign a definitive, longform agreement contemplated in the initial proposal. Included among them was an email from Stitcher’s Associate Director of Business Development Leah Reis-Dennis, who stated in an April 2022 email “we are ready to call terms officially closed and (finally!) get the longform started.”
Van Der Beek argued that the proposal constitutes a valid, binding contract because Reis-Dennis made various comments indicating that the terms were “closed.”
“However, in those emails, Reis-Dennis also stated that Defendants would be working to begin drafting the longform agreement or request that the longform be drafted,” stated the order, which noted that the actor’s transactional lawyer also discussed having to sign the document to lock down the deal.
Broadbelt also rejected arguments that SiriusXM should be bound by the April 2022 document because the company already started to fulfill some of its terms by beginning the process of hiring a senior producer and requesting Van Der Beek’s payroll information.
In a declaration to the court, Reis-Dennis testified that she requested “loanout info” in order to set up payments to the actor but clarified that she would pay him only “if that agreement was signed.”
The order explained, “Plaintiff has not presented any evidence or argument showing that Reis-Dennis’s request for information to set up payments in the future (1) is inconsistent with the earlier statements that the parties would be bound only upon the execution of a longform agreement, or (2) constitutes an outward manifestation that Defendants intended to be bound by the terms of the April 28 Proposal without such a longform agreement.”
Van Der Beek brought claims relating to breach of contract and sought damages exceeding the $700,000 agreement.
SiriusXM, which was represented by Jordan Susman of Nolan Heimann, didn’t respond to a request for comment.
This article was originally published by The Hollywood Reporter.
Notorious B.I.G.’s estate has reached a settlement with the widow of late hip hop photographer Chi Modu, resolving long-running litigation over other merch bearing Modu’s famed image of the late rapper standing in front of the World Trade Center.
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
Biggie’s estate sued in 2019, claiming Modu had illegally authorized the use of his 1996 photograph of the rapper (real name Christopher Wallace) on commercial products like skateboards and shower curtains. In 2022, a judge ruled that such merch likely violated the rapper’s likeness rights.
Terms of the settlement, first disclosed in a court filing on Thursday, were not made public. But the estate’s attorney, Staci Jennifer Trager of the law firm Nixon Peabody, said she and her client were “satisfied to bring this high-profile matter to an end.”
“Pictures of Christopher cannot be commercially exploited without a license from our client,” Trager said. “The settlement agreement is a testament to the dedication of our client as well as our team members in staying the course over several years.”
An attorney for Modu’s widow (the photographer himself passed away in 2021) did not immediately return a request for comment.
A longtime photographer for The Source, Modu captured images of some of hip-hop’s biggest names, including Tupac Shakur, Mary J. Blige, Mobb Deep and LL Cool J. In a 1996 cover shoot for the magazine, he snapped several images of Biggie standing in front of the Twin Towers – a year before the rapper was shot and killed, and five years before the towers were destroyed on Sept. 11, 2001.
In a 2011 interview, Modu said the shoot was partly inspired by the lyric in Biggie’s “Juicy,” in which he references the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center with the line “‘blow up like the World Trade.’”
“When the idea came to me to represent Notorious B.I.G as the King of New York, I thought what better setting than to have two of the quintessential New York City buildings in the background,” Modu said at the time. “This image remains fresh and can help to further immortalize these icons in the hearts and minds of a generation.”
But in 2019, Biggie’s estate took Modu to court over the image. In their complaint, they argued that he had moved beyond merely selling his image – and that he was instead trying to profit by exploiting the rapper’s likeness “in complete disregard for BIG’s rights.” The estate claimed that Modu had improperly licensed the image for use on snowboards, skateboards, shower curtains, NFTs and other goods.
“Unfortunately, when an artist’s work has touched people so significantly, there are often usurpers that want to capitalize on that connection,” the rapper’s lawyers wrote. “A strong brand attracts parasites that attempt to create profits through no work of their own.”
In June 2022, the federal judge overseeing the case granted a preliminary injunction to the estate. The judge was careful to rule that the photographer’s estate could continue to sell physical and digital reprints of his image, but that other merchandise likely violated Biggie’s likeness rights.
“Plaintiff’s use of Wallace’s image to promote and sell such merchandise constitutes an exploitation of his likeness on an unrelated product for that purpose, which extends beyond control of the artistic work itself,” the judge wrote at the time.
Since that ruling, the estate’s case against Modu’s estate and others had been moving toward a trial, with proceedings set to kick off next month.
The Michael Jackson estate is embroiled in a lawsuit with a Las Vegas tribute act called MJ Live, which claims that the King of Pop’s attorneys have unfairly begun threatening to sue over a show that’s been performed nightly on the Strip for more than a decade.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
In a complaint filed Wednesday in Nevada federal court, the organizers of MJ Live asked a judge to rule that they could continue to stage their concerts featuring a Jackson impersonator, which are held six nights per week at the Tropicana in addition to other venues around the country.
Despite the fact that the show has allegedly been performed more than 3,600 times since 2012, MJ Live says the Jackson estate has only recently begun threatening to sue – including sending cease-and-desist letters to other venues demanding that they cancel upcoming tour dates.
A rep for the Jackson estate did not immediately return a request for comment.
Wednesday’s lawsuit is primarily what’s known as a “declaratory judgment action” – a type of case aimed at proving that you’ve done nothing wrong. In their complaint, MJ Live’s lawyers argue that the group has not infringed any trademarks held by the estate, nor has it violated his likeness rights by impersonating him.
Notably, Nevada’s state likeness laws have an unusual carveout the allows for the legal use of a celebrity’s likeness by “impersonators in live performances” – likely a nod to the long-standing and beloved tradition of Elvis Presley look-alikes in Las Vegas. Citing that statute, as well as the First Amendment’s protections for free speech, MJ Live says it has a clear legal right “to impersonate Michael Jackson” in its shows.
But the group also goes further, boldly arguing that it’s actually the Jackson estate that’s infringing intellectual property. By using the “MJ Live” name for more than a decade, MJ Live’s lawyers say the group has developed its own trademark rights to that particular name – and that the estate’s recent use of “MJ The Musical” on a Broadway show is infringing of those rights.
“Over the past eleven and one-half years … plaintiff has spent millions of dollars advertising and promoting its MJ Live show,” MJ Live’s lawyers write. “Plaintiff estimates that over 2,500,000 audience members, clapping and singing in their seats, jumping to their feet, and dancing in the aisles, have experienced the joy, excitement, and thrill of MJ Live.”
The complaint also argues that the estate’s decision to send cease-and-desist letters to block future tour dates represents “intentional and wrongful interference” in MJ Live’s business. MJ Live says the letters, allegedly sent to six different venues in total, in California, Florida, Illinois, Ohio and Wisconsin, were “intended to harm Plaintiff.”
This isn’t the first time the estate of a famed artist has tried to crack down on Vegas impersonators. Back in 2022, Authentic Brands Group – the company that owns the rights to Elvis’ likeness – sent letters to a number of Las Vegas chapels where Presley impersonators officiate weddings, demanding that they obtain licenses. At the time, ABG said it was not seeking to shut down the impersonators, but partner with them to “safeguard his legacy.”
Authorities in the Dominican Republic have arrested U.S. rapper Tekashi 6ix9ine, who is scheduled to appear in court on Thursday on charges of domestic violence. The rapper, whose real name is Daniel Hernández, is being held at a jail in the capital of Santo Domingo, where he was arrested Wednesday, officials said. No further details […]
Madonna is facing a federal class action lawsuit because she allegedly started three New York City concerts later than scheduled, a delay that her accusers say caused real legal harm to ticket buyers who “had to get up early to go to work” the next day.
In a complaint filed Wednesday (Jan. 17) in Brooklyn federal court, ticket buyers Michael Fellows and Jonathan Hadden claim the Material Girl breached her contract with concertgoers and violated New York state laws by starting three December shows past 10:30 rather than the scheduled 8:30.
“Defendants’ actions constitute not just a breach of their contracts … but also a wanton exercise in false advertising, negligent misrepresentation, and unfair and deceptive trade practices,” attorneys for the two men write.
The three concerts at Brooklyn’s Barclays Center, stops on Madonna’s Celebration Tour, were originally scheduled for July but rescheduled to December due to the singer’s illness. Fellows and Hadden say they expected their show (Dec. 13) to start on time, and “would not have paid for their tickets had they known that the concerts would start after 10:30 p.m.”
“Defendants failed to provide any notice to the ticketholders that the concerts would start much later than the start time printed on the ticket and as advertised,” attorneys for the two men write.
Leaving Barclays Center after 1:00 a.m., the two men say ticket buyers were “left stranded in the middle of the night,” some “confronted with limited public transportation” options and others with increased prices for ride-share services. They also point out that the concert took place “on a weeknight,” meaning they “had to get up early to go to work and/or take care of their family responsibilities the next day.”
In addition to Madonna herself, the lawsuit also names Live Nation and Barclays Center as defendants. In technical terms, the complaint alleges breach of contract; violation of New York’s business practices and false advertising laws; and several other forms of wrongdoing, including unjust enrichment.
The lawsuit also includes a claim of so-called negligent misrepresentation, saying the concert organizers “knew or should have known” that the concerts would not start at 8:30 because of alleged past instances of Madonna taking the stage late — and should have warned fans.
“Madonna has a long history of arriving and starting her concerts late, sometimes several hours late,” attorneys for Fellows and Hadden write. “This history occurred throughout her 2016 Rebel Heart Tour, her 2019-2020 Madame X Tour, and prior tours, where Madonna continuously started her concerts over two hours late.”
Reps for Madonna and Live Nation did not immediately return requests for comment.
Read the entire lawsuit against Madonna here: