Legal
Page: 5
As of January, Warner Music Group (WMG) executive vp/general counsel Paul Robinson has worked in the legal department of the company for 30 years. During that time, he has seen “three different owners, seven CEOs and we’ve gone private and public two different times,” he says. “There also have been all of these macro changes in the music business” — which is something of an understatement. What hasn’t changed much, he says, is the culture of the company: “It’s always been an artist- friendly, songwriter-friendly culture, and we’ve always had a great relationship between recorded music and publishing.”
Robinson was slated to receive the 2025 Entertainment Law Initiative Service Award on Jan. 31 at the organization’s annual Grammy Week luncheon at the Beverly Wilshire Hotel. But since the event was canceled in the wake of the Los Angeles wildfires, he will receive the honor at next year’s gathering.
Trending on Billboard
Robinson started at WMG in 1995 after working at Mayer Katz Baker Leibowitz, which at the time did a significant amount of the label group’s legal work. Robinson got the top job in 2006 and helped steer the company through the worst years of the music business, to its 2013 acquisition of Parlophone Label Group from Universal Music Group, and into the streaming-led recovery and a successful 2020 initial public offering.
Like the rest of the industry, WMG is now at a point where streaming growth in developed markets is slowing and the challenges of artificial intelligence (AI) loom — and in a way that will especially test it as the smallest of the three majors. Which is why, Robinson says, “From my point of view, it’s important to be perceived as, and to be, the most artist-friendly, songwriter-friendly company” — a message that WMG sent by being the first major to adopt artist-friendly policies on “digital breakage” in 2009 and on sharing gains from equity sales, such as with Spotify in 2016. “Jac Holzman, when he started Elektra, used to have this love-and-affection clause in his contracts that said the label will treat artists with love and affection and the artist will treat the label with a modicum of respect,” Robinson recalls. “And it’s great because it brings to mind the imbalance: Artists will not always love their labels, but we always have to love them and we hope that they at least respect us.”
Your father is Irwin Robinson, the prominent publishing executive who ran Chappell/Intersong and then EMI Music Publishing. Did you purposefully decide to follow him into the same business?
That was how it ended up, but they say there are no accidents. In some ways, I was afraid to go into the music business. There were huge shoes for me to step into. I thought I wanted to be a doctor, and then I worked at a hospital one summer and I decided, “Maybe I don’t want to be a doctor.” I was a huge music fan as well as a singer, and I thought, “I’ll just go to law school and see what happens.” Maybe I was avoiding it.
Robinson’s father gave him this 1956 letter from legendary songwriter-composer Cole Porter to his lawyer, John Wharton, at Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison. “I like it because in a single letter, he talks about the relatively important issue of assigning his renewal rights to Chappell and the relatively unimportant issue of a songbook being able to stay on a piano rack,” he says. “God is in the details.”
Krista Schlueter
Billboard can reveal that you were the singer in a new wave band.
I was one of the singers. We were called The Doctors. The musicians in the band all wore scrubs, and we were the hit of Williams College campus for a year. In fact, they asked The Doctors to play at my college reunion and we’re doing it.
You’re one of the few people who has been in the same department at the same company since the Napster era. Any lessons from then on how the industry should deal with AI?
Probably to lean into change. Maybe there were people in 1999 at Warner Music Group who saw peer-to-peer coming, but I feel like we were caught very much off guard, and I don’t think that’s been the case with AI. Also, with peer-to-peer, there wasn’t a great deal around until iTunes in 2003, so we’re also in a better place that way. There are services we can strike deals with now.
What are the best- and worst-case scenarios for the industry for generative AI?
[That’s] probably less of a general counsel question than [one for] business development, but I think the worst-case scenario is that somehow it’s determined that you don’t need permission to train an AI model and the market is flooded with a huge volume of content that dilutes legitimate music, in the same way services are flooded now with music that very few people listen to — but in turbo. The best case is that AI becomes an incredible tool for artists and songwriters and lets them up their game and release content in languages they don’t speak.
“This is a 1994 photo from my wedding of
my then-partners from Mayer Katz Baker Leibowitz & Roberts and their wives,” he says. “WMG was Mayer Katz’s biggest client.”
Krista Schlueter
The streaming model seems to be evolving. There’s talk of “Streaming 2.0.” What kind of terms are you looking for now in streaming deals?
Trying to lock in per-subscriber minimums and reduce discounts for family plans and so on. That’s where we are focused.
When you started in the music business, there were six major labels. Now there are three. Does that change the nature of competition?
Even though there are only three majors, it feels like it’s never been more competitive. All you have to do is look at the change in artist deals over time.
I’m assuming you mean that deals now favor artists? Is it harder to invest in them under these circumstances?
No. Every year, our A&R spend increases. When I started, we were getting eight-album deals, but we were signing artists where, because there was no internet, their following was probably their hometown and they needed a huge amount of development. Today, we hardly ever sign an artist that doesn’t have a significant social media presence, and those artists don’t need as much development.
“Believe it or not,” Robinson says, he has had the same office chair for 30 years. “It definitely looks like a chair from 1995, but I just can’t seem to let go of it.”
Krista Schlueter
Now you also compete with distribution deals.
From an artist’s point of view, there’s a trade-off. In a distribution deal, you’re getting a bigger piece of the pie, but you’re getting less development and it’s a shorter-term relationship, so there’s probably not going to be as much investment. If you sign a frontline label deal, you’re committing to more albums and you’re getting a smaller piece of the pie, but you are getting a whole team of people behind you to develop your career. The great thing is that artists have more choice than ever.
How do you make sure artist contracts feel like win-win deals?
Deals get renegotiated all the time if they’re out of sync. If there’s an artist with a small record deal that has tremendous success, the economics of their next albums are going to look different. We’re in the personal services business and we’re in the relationship business. We want to maintain the best relationships with artists and songwriters.
Is there a deal you did that you’re especially proud of?
When we bought Parlophone Label Group, that was a huge regulatory fight, and I would say it was a win-win. UMG had to sell Parlophone, we were the best buyer, and they were looking for a good price, which today looks like a really low price. We paid about $800 million, probably about a seven-and-a-half times multiple, which at the time was huge. We were much more U.S. weighted in our revenue, and we bought a bunch of European assets. So it rebalanced us in terms of geography, and we acquired great repertoire and some great artists.
What has been some of the most memorable litigation that you have overseen? The case in which Led Zeppelin was sued for copyright infringement by a trustee for the estate of Spirit frontman Randy Wolfe comes to mind.
The exciting thing about the Zeppelin case was not only winning, after having been dealt a bunch of blows — we won in trial court and we were reversed — but changing the trajectory of copyright infringement litigation. It was a beat-back of what was, I think, the bad law of the “Blurred Lines” case.
Robinson never met Prince, but he is such a big fan that two people gave him signed limited-edition lithographs of the New Yorker cover commemorating the artist’s death. “He was an incredibly distinctive artist. For his first album, Warner Records let him do everything. They basically said, ‘Go in the studio and do it.’ That didn’t happen much in 1977.”
Krista Schlueter
This story appears in the Jan. 25, 2025 issue of Billboard.
Spotify won a ruling Wednesday dismissing a lawsuit from the Mechanical Licensing Collective that accused the streamer of unfairly slashing royalty rates, with a federal judge ruling that Spotify’s move was supported by “unambiguous” regulations.
The MLC sued last year, claiming Spotify had “unilaterally and unlawfully” chosen to cut its music royalty payments nearly in half through bookmaking trickery – namely, by claiming that the addition of audiobooks to the platform entitled the company to pay a lower “bundled” rate.
But in her decision on Wednesday, Judge Analisa Torres said that federal royalty rate rules clearly allowed Spotify to legally claim the lower rate, rejecting MLC’s argument that the company was not actually offering a “bundle” of services.
Trending on Billboard
“Audiobook streaming is a product or service that is distinct from music streaming and has more than token value,” the judge wrote, alluding to the specific wording of the federal rule. “Premium is, therefore, properly categorized as a Bundle.”
A spokeswoman for the MLC did not immediately return a request for comment on the ruling.
The MLC, which collects streaming royalties for songwriters and publishers, filed its lawsuit in late May — a week after Billboard estimated that Spotify’s move would result in the company paying roughly $150 million less over the next year. In its complaint, the MLC claimed Spotify was “erroneously recharacterizing” the nature of its streaming services to secure the lower rate.
“The financial consequences of Spotify’s failure to meet its statutory obligations are enormous for songwriters and music publishers,” the group’s attorneys wrote at the time. “If unchecked, the impact on songwriters and music publishers of Spotify’s unlawful underreporting could run into the hundreds of millions of dollars.”
At issue in the lawsuit is Spotify’s recent addition of audiobooks to its premium subscription service. The streamer believes that because of the new offering, it’s now entitled to pay a discounted “bundled” royalty rate under the federal legal settlement that governs how much streamers pay rightsholders.
In Wednesday’s ruling, Judge Torres agreed. She said the rules required only that Spotify offered a different service and that it provided users with more than “token value” – and that the addition of audiobooks was clearly covered by those terms.
MLC’s attorneys had argued that audiobooks were that kind of “token” non-factor, since Spotify didn’t raises prices when it added them and only a small proportion of subscribers actually listen to them. MLC had claimed Spotify added the books was merely a “pretext” to cut rates for music.
Spotify moved to dismiss the case in August, calling it “nonsensical” and “wasteful.” The company’s attorneys blasted the MLC’s argument that the audiobooks were aimed at a legal loophole, saying it “profoundly devalues the contributions of the tens of thousands of book authors.”
In her decision on Wednesday, Judge Torres sided with Spotify’s argument. Though she said the new offering might strike ordinary consumers as more of a “two-for-one deal” than a traditional bundle, she said Spotify’s addition of the books had clearly brought more than nominal value to its users.
“MLC cannot plausibly claim that having access to audiobooks is not something of intrinsic and monetary value to many, even if only a fraction of Spotify’s millions of Premium subscribers may take advantage of it,” the judge wrote. “The court can draw only one conclusion: that 15 hours of monthly audiobook streaming is a product or service that has more than token value.”
If anything, Judge Torres said, Spotify had “likely paid more in royalties to MLC than it was otherwise required to pay” because it did not immediately claim bundled status after introducing the audiobook feature.
In addition to dismissing the lawsuit, Judge Torres did not give MLC a chance to refile the case, saying the law was clear and that amending the accusations would be futile. The group can still challenge the ruling at a federal appeals court, however.
In a statement to Billboard on Wednesday, a Spotify spokesperson said the company was “pleased” with the court’s decision: “Bundle offerings play a critical role in expanding the interest in paying for music and growing the pie for the music industry. We know the regulations can be complex, but there’s plenty of room for collaboration—and our recent deal with [Universal Music Publishing Group] shows how direct licenses can create flexibility and additional benefits.”
A Detroit rapper is suing Lyft for discrimination over allegations that one of the company’s drivers told her she was too large to fit inside his car.
In a lawsuit filed in Michigan court Monday (Jan. 27), Dank Demoss (Dajua Blanding) says the driver of a black Mercedes sedan told her during the Jan. 18 incident that she was “too big” for the backseat of his car and that “his tires were not capable of supporting plaintiff’s weight.”
“Defendant Lyft … unlawfully discriminated against plaintiff based on her weight,” Blanding’s attorneys write in the lawsuit, which was obtained by Billboard. Blanding, who has described herself as a “Big Beautiful Woman” on social media, says she was embarrassed, humiliated and suffered “mental anguish.”
The lawsuit comes after Blanding posted an alleged video of the incident to TikTok and other platforms, showing her arguing with the driver over his seeming refusal to take her.
Trending on Billboard
In the video, she can be heard telling the driver, “I can fit in this car,” after which he quickly responds, “Believe me, you can’t.” After telling Blanding that he’s “been in this situation before,” the driver can be heard saying that she needs to order a pricier “Uber XL” to accommodate her size.
Blanding’s post on TikTok has been viewed more than 345,000 times; another clip on Instagram has been liked more than 7,000 times.
In her complaint filed Monday, Blanding says the driver’s refusal violates Michigan’s civil rights laws, which prohibit any discrimination for public accommodations based on a variety of factors, including a person’s weight.
“Plaintiff’s weight was at least one factor that made a difference in defendants’ treatment of plaintiff and subjected her to a hostile environment,” her lawyers write.
In a statement to Billboard, a Lyft spokesperson declined to comment on the specifics of a pending legal action, but stressed that its driver regulations “explicitly prohibit harassment or discrimination.”
“Lyft unequivocally condemns all forms of discrimination — we believe in a community where everyone is treated with equal respect and mutual kindness,” the company said.
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: Limp Bizkit suffers a setback in its $200 million lawsuit against Universal Music Group; A$AP Rocky’s assault trial kicks off in Los Angeles; a deep-dive into the legal teams representing Drake and UMG in their legal battle over Kendrick Lamar’s diss track; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: Limp Bizkit’s UMG Lawsuit Hits A Snag
A lawsuit from Limp Bizkit says Universal Music Group (UMG) used “systemic” and “fraudulent” policies to deprive the band of millions in royalties. But a judge ruled last week that there was a big legal flaw in the blockbuster case.
Trending on Billboard
The lawsuit, filed last year and seeking $200 million in damages, claims that frontman Fred Durst and the band have “not seen a dime in royalties” due to “fraudulent” policies by UMG. The lawsuit argued the label’s conduct was so egregious that the band was entitled to “rescission” — a legal term for a ruling that would void its entire decades-long deal with UMG.
Rescission is not Limp Bizkit’s only legal angle, but it’s crucial to the band’s case. Without it, the group can’t pursue its separate allegations of copyright infringement — claims that would carry a huge damages award if proven. Such a claim could only succeed if the band’s contracts are voided and it legally regains its ownership of the copyrights.
It turns out Friday (Jan. 24) was just one of those days. In a ruling on UMG’s motion to dismiss the case, Judge Percy Anderson rejected the rescission claim — noting that, despite the band’s claim to have never been paid, it had in fact been “paid millions in advances” and that UMG had fronted “substantial sums” to produce its albums.
“Plaintiffs seek rescission of contracts that have governed the parties’ relationship beginning in 1996 — nearly 30 years — [but] plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged the type of ‘substantial’ or ‘total failure’ in the performance of the contracts that could support rescission,” the judge wrote.
The ruling isn’t a total defeat. Judge Anderson didn’t reach conclusions on many of the lawsuit’s other legal claims, including fraudulent concealment and intentional misrepresentation, and gave Limp Bizkit’s lawyers a chance to fix the rescission claim. But the judge’s wording suggested he will be skeptical of revoking a contract when “millions in royalties were advanced and paid under decades-old agreements.”
Following Friday’s decision, Limp Bizkit has until early next month to refile an amended version of the lawsuit. We’ll keep you posted at Billboard when they do so.
Other top stories this week…
A$AP SHOOTING TRIAL – A criminal trial in Los Angeles kicked off for rapper A$AP Rocky over accusations that he fired a gun at former friend A$AP Relli on a Hollywood street in 2021. The star (Rakim Meyers), charged with two felony counts of assault with a firearm, faces 24 years in prison if convicted after turning down a plea deal for just 180 days in county jail. In opening statements, prosecutors told jurors Rocky fired a 9mm pistol and revealed that they had recovered a loaded magazine from such a gun during a search of his home. Defense attorneys responded by arguing that Rocky carried only a “prop gun” and had fired it as a warning to “scare” Relli because he was attacking another A$AP crew member. Stay tuned: Rihanna, Rocky’s wife, is expected to appear in court on Wednesday (Jan. 29).
LAWYER UP – With Drake’s lawsuit against UMG over Kendrick Lamar’s diss track “Not Like Us” still in the earliest stages, I wrote a deep-dive on the high-powered legal teams each side has hired. For Drake, that meant turning to a veteran litigator who has made a name for himself representing the alleged victims of conspiracy theories on the internet. For UMG, it meant hiring one of the biggest law firms in the world — and one that the music giant has repeatedly used in major cases over the years.
MICHAEL MOVIE DELAY – An upcoming Michael Jackson biopic has been delayed for months due to a recently revealed, decades-old legal agreement that will require costly re-shoots of key scenes. First reported last week by the news site Puck, the agreement barred any portrayal of the family of Jordan Chandler, a then-13-year-old boy who accused the superstar singer of molestation in the 1990s — but the movie featured the family prominently anyway. A source with knowledge of the film’s production told Billboard that re-shoots are already scheduled and that the movie’s ultimate release — now scheduled for October — is not in jeopardy.
THERE GOES GRAVITY – Eight Mile Style, the publishing company that owns the copyrights to Eminem’s “Lose Yourself,” filed an infringement lawsuit against a Ford dealership near the rapper’s native Detroit, accusing the company of using the iconic track in TikTok videos that warned viewers they “only get one shot” to buy a special edition truck. The case is just the latest over social media videos allegedly featuring uncleared music — a problem that has recently led to litigation against Chili’s, Marriott and a slew of NBA teams.
SPEIDI SUIT – Spencer Pratt and Heidi Montag joined more than 20 other property owners in suing the city of Los Angeles over the recent devastating fires in Southern California. Attorneys for Montag — whose 2010 album recently re-charted after going viral — claim the city’s decision to “drain” a local reservoir left firefighters without enough water to battle the blaze effectively.
CHRIS BROWN SUES – The R&B star filed a defamation case against Warner Bros. Discovery over a 2024 documentary claiming he had a long history of sexually abusing women. Brown’s attorneys say Warner’s ID network released the movie in “their pursuit of likes, clicks, downloads and dollars” even though they knew it contained false and damaging claims about him: “They did so after being provided proof that their information was false.”
ROCK & ROLL FAIR USE – The Rock & Roll Hall of Fame asked a federal judge to dismiss a copyright lawsuit over an image of Eddie Van Halen snapped by Neil Zlozower, a prolific rock photographer who has filed dozens of such cases in recent years. In seeking to toss the case, the Rock Hall argued that it made legal “fair use” of the Van Halen pic, saying it was part of a museum exhibit designed to “educate the public about the history of rock and roll music.”
MANSON NOT CHARGED – Los Angeles prosecutors announced that Marilyn Manson (Brian Warner) won’t face criminal charges following a four-year investigation into allegations of domestic violence and sexual assault. The city’s newly-elected DA praised the “courage and resilience of the women who came forward,” but said that the statute of limitations had expired for any domestic violence charges against the rocker and that his office simply could not prove a sexual assault charge in court.
“BRAZEN THIEVERY” – Independent label and publisher Artist Partner Group (APG) filed a copyright lawsuit against Create Music Group, claiming that the digital distributor uploaded and monetized songs on YouTube that it didn’t actually own. “Create’s ‘business model’ is to steal the intellectual property and contractual rights of innocent rightsholders,” APG’s attorneys wrote.
DIDDY DEFAMATION – Sean “Diddy” Combs lodged a defamation lawsuit over allegations that a man named Courtney Burgess falsely claimed to have videos of the embattled hip-hop mogul committing sexual assault. The lawsuit, which also names Burgess’ attorney Ariel Mitchell as a defendant, claims the fake reports about the videos caused him “profound reputational and economic injury and severe prejudice” ahead of his looming criminal trial on sex trafficking and racketeering charges.
The company that owns the copyrights to Eminem’s “Lose Yourself” is suing a Ford dealership near the rapper’s native Detroit for using the iconic track in TikTok videos that warned viewers they “only get one shot” to buy a special edition truck.
In a lawsuit filed on Monday (Jan. 27) in Michigan federal court, Eight Mile Style accuses LaFontaine Ford St. Clair — which owns several dealerships near Eminem’s hometown — of blasting the song in the social media videos even though “at no time” did it get a license to do so.
“This is an action for willful copyright infringement … against LaFontaine for its unauthorized use of the composition in online advertisements for one or more car dealerships in blatant disregard of the exclusive rights vested in Eight Mile,” the company’s attorneys write.
Trending on Billboard
The lawsuit says the videos, which allegedly appeared on TikTok, Instagram and Facebook in September and October, used “Lose Yourself” to boost a special Detroit Lions-themed Ford truck, telling viewers: “With only 800 produced, you only get one shot to own a Special Edition Detroit Lions 2024 PowerBoost Hybrid F-150.”
Social media platforms like TikTok and Instagram provide huge libraries of licensed music for users to easily add to their videos. But there’s a key exception: The songs can’t be used for commercial or promotional videos posted by brands. That kind of content requires a separate “synch” license, just like any conventional advertisement on TV.
That crucial distinction has led to numerous lawsuits in recent years. The restaurant chain Chili’s has been sued twice for using copyrighted songs in social videos, including once by the Beastie Boys over “Sabotage” and again by Universal Music Group for allegedly using more than 60 songs from Ariana Grande, Justin Bieber and many others. The hotel chain Marriott and more than a dozen NBA teams have also recently faced copyright lawsuits over the same thing.
In the current case, Eight Mile Style pointedly noted that it had previously approved car commercials involving “Lose Yourself” — something of a natural fit, given the song’s connections to the Motor City.
“The composition was licensed and featured in a two-minute Chrysler television commercial that aired during the 2011 Super Bowl,” Eight Mile’s lawyers write. “Chrysler generated millions of dollars of new and used automobile sales across the world from this use of the composition.”
But LaFontaine’s decision to use the song without approval “usurped Plaintiffs’ exclusive rights to determine when and under what terms the composition may be used for commercial endorsements and advertising,” the company’s lawyers write.
As the legal battle over Kendrick Lamar’s diss track “Not Like Us” gets underway, both sides have retained top attorneys – with Drake hiring a lawyer who battles conspiracy theories and Universal Music Group turning to one of its favorite law firms.
Filed last week, Drake’s case accuses UMG of defaming him by boosting Lamar’s track, which attacks Drake as a “certified pedophile” and has become a chart-topping hit in its own right. The star says his own label “waged a campaign against him,” spreading a “malicious narrative” that it knew was false.
The courtroom showdown has drawn intense publicity, and it’s not hard to see why: It pits one of the world’s biggest stars against the world’s biggest music company after a lucrative, decade-plus partnership, over a smash hit song by a critically-adored rapper – one who’s set to perform at the Super Bowl next month, by the way. It also represents something of an unprecedented move in the history of hip hop: A lawsuit over a rap beef that allegedly went too far.
Trending on Billboard
To handle that kind of high-profile case, Drake has hired Michael Gottlieb, a former federal prosecutor who once served as a former associate counsel in the Obama White House. Gottlieb is currently a partner at the law firm Willkie Farr & Gallagher, a national firm with a well-known music industry practice that has repeatedly been featured on Billboard‘s yearly Top Music Lawyers.
Based on his recent work, Gottlieb is unlikely to be intimidated by the media attention surrounding Drake’s lawsuit. He’s currently representing two Georgia poll workers in efforts to collect a huge verdict against Rudy Guiliani over his lies about election fraud, a case that just settled last week after high-profile court hearings in New York. He’s also repping Blake Lively in her battles against “It Ends With Us” co-star Justin Baldoni, including her harassment case as well as Baldoni’s libel countersuit – cases that have transcended the courtroom and crossed firmly into the messier world of public relations.
In Lively’s suit, she says she was the victim of a sophisticated “digital retaliation campaign” centered “manipulation” of social media designed to destroy her reputation across the internet. Those kinds of claims are nothing new for Gottlieb, who has made a name for himself in recent years filing defamation lawsuits on behalf of alleged victims of online disinformation.
In 2023, he won the $148 million defamation verdict against Giuliani. Before that, he represented the brother of Seth Rich, a Democratic staffer whose murder became grist for right-wing conspiracy theories, as well as the owners of the D.C. pizzeria at the center of Pizzagate — an infamous online hoax centered on false claims of child sex trafficking that later sparked a real-life shooting.
In bringing Drake’s case to court, Gottlieb has raised similar allegations against UMG. He argues that the label used secret payments and bot streams to help spread a “dangerous conspiracy theory” about his client on the internet, putting the rapper at risk of serious physical harm. He even cites the Pizzagate shooting by name, calling a shooting at Drake’s house the “2024 equivalent” of that earlier incident: “UMG’s greed yielded real world consequences.”
Defending against those claims, court records show that UMG has retained the law firm Sidley Austin — one of the largest of the country’s elite “BigLaw” firms, and one that has repeatedly repped the music giant in past legal battles.
Sidley attorneys represented UMG when the label was the named as a defendant in the copyright lawsuit filed by Marvin Gaye’s heirs over Robin Thicke and Pharrell’s chart-topper “Blurred Lines” – a case that transfixed the music industry for years. The firm also handled certain stages of a long-running copyright case filed by UMG’s Capitol Records against the video sharing site Vimeo over internet takedown rules.
More recently, Sidley defended UMG against a class action accusing the label of unfairly refusing to allow hundreds of artists win back control of their copyrights — eventually winning a key ruling that effectively gutted the case. The firm also won a decision last year killing another case filed by the hip hop duo Black Sheep, who accused UMG of securing its stake in Spotify by giving the streamer a “sweetheart” licensing rate that left artists underpaid by millions.
The firm has also handled numerous music matters outside the UMG orbit. Sidley attorneys have also repped Warner Music Group – including in transactional work like the label’s joint venture deal with Elliot Grainge’s label 10K Projects and its $400 million acquisition of 300 Entertainment, as well as defending the company against litigation like a copyright termination case filed by Dwight Yoakam.
As of Monday, the only Sidley attorney to formally appear in Drake’s case is Nicholas P. Crowell, a New York attorney focused on complex commercial litigation, though he’ll almost certainly be joined by other firm attorneys as the case progresses. Top members of the music team at Sidley include litigator Rollin A. Ransom and deals attorney Matthew C. Thompson – both of whom have also repeatedly been named to Billboard’s list of Top Music Lawyers.
If recent work is any indication, the attorneys at Sidley will take an aggressive approach to a lawsuit that UMG itself has already publicly blasted as “illogical” and “frivolous.”
Ransom and other Sidley attorneys are currently defending UMG against Limp Bizkit’s $200 million royalties lawsuit, a case filed in October that claims the band had “not seen a dime in royalties” because of “systemic” and “fraudulent” policies. The lawyers filed a motion to dismiss the case just a month later, ripping the lawsuit’s “entire narrative” as “fiction” and “based on a fallacy.” Last week, a judge sided with those arguments and rejected core aspects of the band’s case.
The firm will file its first response to Drake’s lawsuit in March.
Evan Rachel Wood issued a strong statement supporting survivors of domestic and sexual assault following Los Angeles County DA Nathan J. Hochman’s announcement last week that his office would not file domestic abuse and sexual assault charges against her ex-fiancé, shock rocker Marilyn Manson.
“My lawyer and I were advised by the Deputy District Attorneys and the Sheriff deputies who investigated the case that there was compelling evidence to support our claims, but that the statute of limitations prevents many of those crimes from being prosecuted,” Wood wrote on her private Instagram on Friday, according to People magazine. “We always knew that the statute of limitations would be a barrier, which is why we created the Phoenix Act so that other victims wouldn’t have to experience this outcome.”
Working with legislators and domestic violence survivors, Wood helped write the 2019 Phoenix Act, a California law that extended the statute of limitations for domestic violence felony crimes from three to five years. She was among a number of women who accused Manson (born Brian Warner), 56, of sexual, physical and emotional abuse, allegations the musician has denied.
On Friday, Hochman said his office decided that that statute of limitations had expired on any domestic violence charges against Manson and that they could not prove a sexual assault charge in court. In a statement, Hochman said prosecutors, “recognize and applaud the courage and resilience of the women who came forward,” thanking them for their “cooperation and patience… While we are unable to bring charges in this matter, we recognize that the strong advocacy of the women involved has helped bring greater awareness to the challenges faced by survivors of domestic abuse and sexual assault,” Hochman said.
In her statement, Wood — who had alleged that Manson “started grooming me when I was a teenager and horrifically abused me for years” — added, “Unfortunately, the Phoenix Act cannot help in cases which occurred before it was passed, but I hope this shines a light on why it’s so important to advocate for better laws. Evidence of violent crimes should not have an expiration date. I am grateful for the work law enforcement has done, and I am endlessly proud of all the survivors who risked everything to protect others by speaking the truth.”
Game of Thrones actress Bianco accused Manson of abuse in 2021 and reached an undisclosed settlement with the musician in 2023 after alleging that he had “used drugs, force and threats of force to coerce sexual acts” and had “locked Ms. Bianco in the bedroom, tied her to a prayer kneeler and beat her with a whip that Mr. Warner said was utilized by the Nazis.”
Bianco also issued a statement following Hochman’s ruling, writing on Instagram: “Whilst I am deeply disappointed by the decision of the District Attorney to not bring charges in the case against Brian Warner, I am sadly not surprised. Within our toxic culture of victim blaming; a lack of understanding of coercive control, the complex nature of sexual assault within intimate partnerships, and statutes of limitations that do not support the realities of healing; prosecutions face an oftentimes insurmountable hurdle.”
She added, “Once again, our justice system has failed survivors. Not the individual prosecutors and detectives who worked for years on this case, but the system that made them do so with one hand tied behind their collective backs. Seven years ago when I was faced for the first time with that failure, it set me out on a journey of advocacy and activism, but with that came a very clear directive. My healing and peace could not be reliant upon the outcome of a desperately broken system. I know the truth of what happened to me. It sits deeply rooted in my belly, unshakable, mine. No-one and nothing can take that away. And so to all the survivors reading this, who are being hit by yet another piece of stinging news and feeling hopeless or discouraged, let me remind you: you know your truth also. Let that be your anchor, for it is stronger than the bars of any prison.”
With truth as her guide, Bianco vowed to continue fighting for justice reform and to “shine our light onto dark realities of sexual violence and intimate partner abuse, so that we can not only understand it, but end it.” She also had a blunt personal message to Warner, writing, “By you dragging me through hell, I discovered the unstoppable force of my own power. I learnt how strong, and brave and bold I really am. I emerged as a Phoenix from the ashes that you left of my life. You also know the truth, and may you endeavor to find peace with that.”
Manson has strongly denied all the allegations, at one point filing a motion to dismiss the case filed by Bianco, in which he accused her of “cynically and dishonestly seeking to monetize and exploit the #MeToo movement.” He also filed a defamation lawsuit against Wood, claiming she had “secretly recruited, coordinated, and pressured prospective accusers to emerge simultaneously” with false allegations against the rocker. Wood denied the counter-allegations and Manson dropped the suit in November 2024, agreeing to pay $327,000 of her legal fees.
If you or someone you know has been a victim of sexual abuse, text “STRENGTH” to the Crisis Text Line at 741-741 to be connected to a certified crisis counselor.
Paul McCartney is speaking out against proposed changes to copyright laws, warning that artificial intelligence could harm artists.
The British government is currently considering a policy that would allow tech companies to use creators’ works to train AI models unless creators specifically opt out. In an interview with the BBC, set to air on Sunday (Jan. 26), the 82-year-old former Beatle cautioned that the proposal could “rip off” artists and lead to a “loss of creativity.”
“You get young guys, girls, coming up, and they write a beautiful song, and they don’t own it, and they don’t have anything to do with it. And anyone who wants can just rip it off,” McCartney said. “The truth is, the money’s going somewhere… Somebody’s getting paid, so why shouldn’t it be the guy who sat down and wrote ‘Yesterday’?”
The U.K. Labour Party government has expressed its ambition to make Britain a global leader in AI. In December 2024, the government launched a consultation to explore how copyright law can “enable creators and right holders to exercise control over, and seek remuneration for, the use of their works for AI training” while also ensuring “AI developers have easy access to a broad range of high-quality creative content,” according to the Associated Press.
Trending on Billboard
“We’re the people, you’re the government. You’re supposed to protect us. That’s your job,” McCartney told the BBC. “So you know, if you’re putting through a bill, make sure you protect the creative thinkers, the creative artists, or you’re not going to have them.”
The Beatles’ final song, “Now and Then,” released in 2023, utilized a form of AI called “stem separation” to help surviving members McCartney and Ringo Starr clean up a 60-year-old, low-fidelity demo recorded by John Lennon, making it suitable for a finished master recording.
As AI becomes more prevalent in entertainment, music and daily life, the debate around its impact continues to grow. In April 2024, Billie Eilish, Pearl Jam and Nicki Minaj were among 200 signatories of an open letter directed at tech companies, digital service providers and AI developers. The letter criticized irresponsible AI practices, calling it an “assault on human creativity” that “must be stopped.”
Marilyn Manson will not face criminal charges from Los Angeles prosecutors following a four-year investigation into allegations of domestic violence and sexual assault, the city’s District Attorney said Friday.
Nathan J. Hochman, elected in November, said his office had decided that the statute of limitations had expired for any domestic violence charges against the rocker (Brian Warner), and that they simply could not prove a sexual assault charge in court.
In a brief statement, Hochman said prosecutors “recognize and applaud the courage and resilience of the women who came forward” and thanked them for their “cooperation and patience.”
“While we are unable to bring charges in this matter, we recognize that the strong advocacy of the women involved has helped bring greater awareness to the challenges faced by survivors of domestic abuse and sexual assault,” Hochman said.
In a statement to Billboard, Manson’s attorney Howard King said: “We are very pleased that, after a thorough and incredibly lengthy review of all of the actual evidence, the District Attorney has concluded what we knew and expressed from the start – Brian Warner is innocent.”
Manson has faced a slew of allegations of sexual wrongdoing over the past several years, including from his ex-fiance Evan Rachel Wood, who alleged that the rocker “started grooming me when I was a teenager and horrifically abused me for years.” He also faced claims from former assistant Ashley Walters, model Ashley Morgan Smithline and two Jane Doe accusers.
Manson has denied all of the allegations, and many civil lawsuits filed against him have since been dropped, dismissed or settled. He later sued Wood for defamation over her accusations, but a judge dismissed much of the case in 2023. Manson eventually dropped the case in November and agreed to pay Wood $327,000 in legal fees.
In early 2021, Los Angeles County detectives said they were conducting a criminal investigation and eventually served a search warrant on Manson’s West Hollywood home. The identities of Manson’s accusers in the criminal case have not been disclosed, but Game of Thrones actor Esmé Bianco publicly shared last year that her allegations against him were part of the criminal probe.
In October, then-District Attorney George Gascón said that “new evidence has emerged within the last few weeks” and that his office was pursuing “new leads” that would add to the “already extensive” case file they had amassed. But just weeks later, Hochman was elected.
An upcoming Michael Jackson biopic is delayed due to a recently-revealed, decades-old legal agreement barring any portrayal of the family of one of his abuse accusers, according to a report by the news site Puck, requiring costly re-shoots of key scenes.
Michael – a musical biopic from director Antoine Fuqua starring Jackson’s nephew Jaafar Jackson in the title role – was delayed in November by studio Lionsgate, pushing the movie’s 2025 release back from April to October. No explanation was offered at the time.
Now, according to the Thursday report by Puck, there’s an answer: Filmmakers have been forced to scrap key portions of the movie because they would potentially violate a legal contract reached with the family of Jordan Chandler, a then-13-year-old boy who accused the superstar singer of molestation in the 1990s.
In the agreement, Jackson’s team reportedly promised not to dramatize the Chandlers in any capacity. That’s a huge problem, according to the report, because the Michael script portrays Jackson as a “naïve victim of the money-grubbing Chandlers” and features a scene of the boy’s father “threatening to leverage his son’s accusations to ‘destroy’ his ex-wife and Jackson’s career.”
A representative for the Jackson estate did not immediately return a request for comment on Friday.
The existence of the agreement with the Chandlers was not disclosed to filmmakers until after shooting was completed on the $150 million film, according to Puck. Estate executor John Branca reportedly informed producers about the problem around the time that the Financial Times reported in September that the estate had paid out hush-money to other accusers in never-before-reported settlements.
The estate is reportedly funding the necessary re-shoots to the movie, and the filmmakers will seek Lionsgate’s approval for a revised script and shooting strategy for “as early as this week.” Lionsgate is reportedly “hopeful” about the October release date and producer Graham King is “confident that his team can fix the movie.”
A source with knowledge of the film’s production told Billboard on Friday that re-shoots are already scheduled and that the movie’s ultimate release is not in jeopardy, but declined to go further into details.
Jackson, who died suddenly in 2009, was never convicted or held legally liable on any accusation of child molestation, but is still dogged by such allegations. Two men, Wade Robson and James Safechuck, continue to claim Jackson sexually abused them as children, spending the last decade pursuing civil lawsuits. And their allegations were amplified in 2019 by HBO docuseries Leaving Neverland, which laid out their claims in disturbing detail.
The Jackson estate has always vehemently denied all such claims, pointing out that the singer was acquitted in a 2005 criminal trial and arguing that his accusers are simply seeking monetary gain from an artist who cannot defend himself because defamation law does not extend to dead individuals.
The allegations have not dampened the value of Jackon’s legacy. Though the estate was nearly $500 million in debt at the time of his death, it has since generated billions from royalties, theatrical productions and other revenue streams – including a recent $600 million deal to sell half of his music catalog to Sony Music.