Legal
Page: 53
Veteran entertainment attorney Kendall A. Minter, whose diverse range of past and present clients included songwriter-producers Jermaine Dupri, Bryan-Michael Cox and D’Mile, MC Lyte, Kirk Franklin, Lena Horne and the Backstreet Boys, has died. He passed away suddenly from medical complications on Dec. 6 in Atlanta. He was 71.
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
Minter, a longtime social advocate who also represented politicians, religious leaders, churches, authors and sports figures, was also the general counsel and an officer of the Living Legends Foundation. In 2015 Minter was presented with the 32-year-old organization’s Chairman’s Award.
“Kendall and I have been friends and colleagues for more than 30 years,” said Living Legends chairman David C. Linton in a statement released by the organization. “Kendall is one of the reasons why the Living Legends Foundation has maintained and survived as one of the leading and one of the few Black music organizations. We’re still standing because of his guidance. He helped us sustain the organization through some turbulent times, especially during the transition from the old model of the recording industry to today’s model, providing us with steady and sound legal counsel. We’re forever grateful for his service and leadership, not only to the Living Legends Foundation, but to the other Black organizations that he helped build during the past 40 years as well as his commitment to a long list of Black music and entertainment executives that he mentored and counseled.”
Before his death, Minter was Of Counsel with the entertainment & sports practice group at Greenspoon Marder LLP in Stone Mountain, Georgia. At Greenspoon Marder, he represented clientele in the areas of entertainment, corporate, intellectual property, sports and new media matters.
He also led and maintained his 43-year law practice, now known as Minter & Associates, based in Atlanta. Over the course of that period, his varied clientele past and present also included Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Miriam Makeba, Peter Tosh, Musiq Soulchild, Goodie Mob, Montell Jordan, Ashanti, Tasha Cobbs Leonard, Teddy Riley, Heavy D & The Boyz, radio pioneer Frankie Crocker, boxer Evander Holyfield, the Government of Jamaica and The Central Park Five, now known as The Exonerated Five, among others.
Minter also co-founded and served as the first executive director of the Black Entertainment and Sports Lawyers Association (BESLA) and was the former chairman of the Rhythm & Blues Foundation. He served as a board member as well for Sound Exchange, Georgia Music Partners and the DeKalb Entertainment Commission.
Born May 24, 1952 and raised in the Flushing section of Queens, NY, Minter earned his B.A. in political science from Cornell University in 1974 and his law degree from Cornell Law School in 1976. His first job out of law school was as association general counsel and corporate representative for broadcasting at Fairchild Industries. Over the course of his law career, Minter practiced with firms in Georgia, New York and the District of Columbia. He launched his first solo practice, the Law Firm of Kendall A. Minter, in 1980 and later opened affiliated offices in Los Angeles and London.
Minter’s other accomplishments include writing the book Understanding and Negotiating 3600 Ancillary Rights Deals: An Artist’s Guide to Negotiating 3600 Record Deals. He served as well as an adjunct professor at Georgia State University in the School of Music and the College of Law, where he taught copyright and music publishing.
Details about funeral services for Minter will be announced shortly.
Lil Durk is facing a lawsuit that claims he signed deals with two different entities for the same song rights — a move that one of the buyers now calls a “manifest fraud.”
In a complaint filed Wednesday (Dec. 6) in Manhattan federal court, a fintech firm called Exceed Talent Capital says Durk (real name Durk Derrick Banks) agreed to grant the company the recording royalties from his song “Bedtime” even though he had already signed an exclusive deal with Sony’s Alamo Records.
“Despite defendants’ unambiguous contractual representations and warranties regarding their rights in the Banks recording, Exceed has now learned that Banks previously had assigned to a third party the exact same rights,” the company’s lawyers wrote.
The lawsuit claims that the move by Durk — who reached No. 2 on the Hot 100 earlier this year with his “All My Life” — caused Exceed to incur more than $12 million in damages.
“As defendants have failed and refused to acknowledge any responsibility for their intentional misrepresentations and material contractual breaches, let alone take action to rectify the same, Exceed was compelled to bring the present action to obtain legal redress,” the company wrote.
According to the complaint, Exceed agreed to pay Durk $600,000 for the recording rights to “Bedtime.” The company says it wanted to package Durk’s track into a fractional investment vehicle, which would allow investors to buy the right to receive ongoing royalties to the song.
“Where I’m from, few own anything,” the rapper said in a press release announcing Exceed’s royalties investment product. “As The Voice of the Trenches and for my label OTF, I’m always looking for ways to expand and give back to my people. Exceed makes it possible for my fans to become part of my team and share in our success together.”
But in May, Exceed received a cease-and-desist from Alamo. The label informed the fintech firm that Durk was “signed to an exclusive recording agreement with Alamo” and that he did not possess the right to sell his recording royalties to anyone.
“Rather, as Alamo informed Exceed, Alamo possesses those (and a number of further) exclusive rights pursuant to an agreement that Alamo entered into with Banks [in 2021], well over a year before defendants entered into, respectively, the [agreement with Exceed].”
Exceed says it demanded that Durk either fix the situation or refund $450,000 that had already been paid, but that he “utterly ignored” those requests. The lawsuit says the debacle forced Exceed to cancel the sale after it had already “expended significant time, effort and financial resources” in getting it approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
“Exceed was compelled … to return the funds that had been invested by third parties in the Offering, further significantly damaging Exceed’s reputation and relationships with its partners and investors,” the company wrote.
Trigger warning: The following story contains descriptions of sexual abuse and rape. Following a fourth allegation of sexual assault against Bad Boy Records founder Sean “Diddy” Combs, 50 Cent announced in a tweet on Thursday morning (Dec. 7) that proceeds from his upcoming documentary about Combs’ alleged misdeeds will go to victims of sexual violence. […]
Former Grammys CEO Mike Greene and the Recording Academy are facing a lawsuit alleging Greene sexually assaulted an Academy employee in the 1990s.
In a complaint filed Wednesday (Dec. 6) in Los Angeles court, Terri McIntyre claims that during her tenure at the Academy from 1994 to 1996, she was “forced to endure pervasive, incessant and routine sexual harassment and/or sexual assault” from Greene, who oversaw the Grammys ceremony for 14 years.
The lawsuit accuses Greene of sexual assault and battery and accuses the Academy itself of negligence and other forms of wrongdoing for allegedly enabling the abuse, including by trying to “actively cover-up, conceal and/or repeatedly excuse Greene’s sexual misconduct.”
Greene did not immediately return a request for comment. In a statement, the Academy said: “In light of pending litigation, the Academy declines to comment on these allegations, which occurred nearly 30 years ago. Today’s Recording Academy has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to sexual misconduct and we will remain steadfast in that commitment.”
The new case comes just weeks after another former Recording Academy CEO, Neil Portnow, was sued by an unnamed female musician who says he drugged and sexually assaulted her in 2018. That case, which also named the Academy as a defendant, was filed by the same law firm as Wednesday’s new suit.
Greene, who transformed the Grammy Awards from an industry ritual into a global television event, abruptly resigned from the Academy in 2002 amid accusations of sexual harassment. Though an internal Academy investigation cleared him of wrongdoing and he was paid an $8 million severance, Greene had long been dogged by criticism that ran the organization “almost as a personal fiefdom.”
In Wednesday’s lawsuit, McIntyre says that shortly after starting her “dream job” as the Academy’s Los Angeles chapter executive director in 1994, Greene began to sexually harass her — including by allegedly telling her directly that “he expected plaintiff to perform sex acts for defendant Greene in order to remain employed and progress at defendant Academy.”
“Defendant Greene repeatedly told plaintiff that she needed to ‘give some head to get ahead’,” her lawyers write in the complaint.
According to the lawsuit, harassment then progressed into assault. McIntyre claims that after she drank champagne with Greene and others in his hotel room during a May 1994 work trip to Hawaii, she “quickly began to feel unwell and began to lose control of her physical movements.” She says she then awoke nude in his bed the next morning.
“Plaintiff knew what defendant had done to her,” her lawyers write. “Plaintiff felt wetness between her legs and smelled of intercourse.”
McIntyre says she did not report the incident because Greene “held the power to effectively block her from any further positions in the music industry.” But she claims that he continued to subject her to harassment and unwanted touching, including “groping her buttocks” and breasts.
In another incident, McIntyre says Greene brought her to his home under the guise of a work meeting but then forced her to perform oral sex on him, including by grabbing her by the back of the head and forcing her to continue as she “tried to get away.”
When she finally reported Greene’s behavior to her supervisor, McIntyre says she was told that she “should just find a way to get along” with Green and that if she could not do so, she “would not be successful, or employed, at defendant Academy for very long.”
The lawsuit says McIntyre later resigned and was forced to quit the music industry entirely, moving to her hometown and applying for entry-level jobs. “Plaintiff came to understand that her hopes, dreams, and aspirations to work in the music industry were defunct and unreachable,” her lawyers say, after she spent two years “being prey to a predator that defendant Academy could have stopped.”
McIntyre’s case was filed under California’s AB 2777, a state law that created a temporary window for survivors of sexual assault to file lawsuits that would normally be barred by the statute of limitations. The law, which doesn’t expire until 2026, is similar to New York’s Adult Survivors Act, which led to a flurry of sexual abuse cases in that state over the past month.
Following four lawsuits filed against Sean “Diddy” Combs alleging sexual assault, the rapper and Bad Boy Records founder is speaking out in a statement posted to Instagram on Wednesday (Dec. 6). “ENOUGH IS ENOUGH,” he wrote. “For the last couple of weeks, I have sat silently and watched people try to assassinate my character, destroy my […]
Another woman – the fourth in three weeks – is suing Sean “Diddy” Combs over allegations of sexual assault.
In a lawsuit filed Wednesday in New York federal court, an unnamed Jane Doe accuser claims she was “sex trafficked” and “gang raped” by Combs, former Bad Boy Records president Harve Pierre and another man in 2003 when she was 17 years old.
“Ms. Doe has lived with her memories of this fateful night for 20 years, during which time she has suffered extreme emotional distress that has impacted nearly every aspect of her life and personal relationships,” the woman’s lawyers write. “Given the brave women who have come forward against Ms. Combs and Mr. Pierre in recent weeks, Ms. Doe is doing the same.
The new case comes just weeks after Combs was hit with explosive allegations of rape by R&B singer and longtime romantic partner Cassie. That case quickly settled, but Combs was then sued by two other women who say they were sexually assaulted by the hip hop mogul. Combs has strongly denied all of the allegations. Another case was filed against Pierre and Bad Boy, alleging sexual assault.
In the complaint filed in court Wednesday, the accuser’s lawyer Douglas Wigdor (the same attorney who represented Cassie) says the new allegations “are in many ways even more egregious” than the prior cases. “Given the brave women who have come forward against Ms. Combs and Mr. Pierre in recent weeks, Ms. Doe is doing the same.”
In a public statement in response to the new allegations, Combs said: “ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.”
“For the last couple of weeks, I have sat silently and watched people try to assassinate my character, destroy my reputation and my legacy,” Combs wrote. “Sickening allegations have been made against me by individuals looking for a quick payday. Let me be absolutely clear: I did not do any of the awful things being alleged. I will fight for my name, my family and for the truth.”
Pierre could not immediately be reached for comment.
The new lawsuit contains graphic allegations of sexual assault.
The alleged victim claims that she met Pierre at a Detroit club in 2003, when she was just a junior in high school. After he “smoked crack cocaine” and “sexually assaulted Ms. Doe by forcing her to give him oral sex,” she says she flew to New York on Combs’ private jet to visit him in his Manhattan recording studio.
While at the studio, the lawsuit claims that Combs, Pierre and an unnamed third man “plied Ms. Doe with drugs and alcohol” until she was so inebriated that she “she could not possibly have consented to having sex with anyone, much less someone twice her age.”
“While at the studio, Ms. Doe was gang raped by Mr. Combs, the Third Assailant and Mr. Pierre, in that order,” Wigdor writes in the lawsuit. The lawsuit claims the unnamed man “raped Ms. Doe as she told him to stop,” and that Pierre “violently forced her to give him oral sex, during which Ms. Doe was choking and struggling to breathe.”
After the attack, the lawsuit says the accuser “could barely stand up” and “had to be helped to walk out of the building and back into a car.” She says she was then flown back to Michigan.
“Defendants preyed on a vulnerable high school teenager,” Wigdor said in a statement announcing the lawsuit. “The depravity of these abhorrent acts has, not surprisingly, scarred our client for life.”
The previous cases against Combs – as well as the flurry of other high-profile sexual assault cases filed over the last month – were brought under New York’s Adult Survivors Act, a law that temporarily suspended the statute of limitations for bringing such cases.
Wednesday’s case was not filed under the ASA, because that law expired on Thanksgiving. Instead, it was filed under the Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Law, a New York City provision that created a similar “lookback” window that doesn’t expire until 2025.
A federal appeals court has sided with Vans and ruled that Tyga‘s “Wavy Baby” sneakers – a parody of the company’s classic Old Skool – likely violate the shoe company’s trademarks.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
Released last year by a New York art collective called MSCHF, the sneakers were a clear riff on the Vans shoe – a warped, surreal version of the Old Skool. Vans filed a lawsuit calling it “blatant trademark infringement, but the creators claimed that it was legal parody protected by the First Amendment, designed to criticize “sneakerhead” consumerist culture.
In a ruling Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit didn’t buy that argument, upholding an earlier ruling that banned MSCHF from selling any more pairs of Wavy Baby. The court said that “no special First Amendment protections apply” and that the sneaker likely violates Vans’ trademark rights.
“If a parodic use of protected marks and trade dress leaves confusion as to the source of a product, the parody has not ‘succeeded’ for purposes of the [federal trademark law], and the infringement is unlawful,” the court wrote.
Tyga announced the Wavy Baby in April 2022, sparking plenty of buzz but also immediate comparisons to Vans. Footwear News said the shoe “appears to be loosely based on the classic Vans Old Skool” that had been altered with a “wave-like aesthetic.” The site HighSnobiety went with a bolder headline: “MSCHF & Tyga’s Insane Skate Shoes Look Like Liquified Vans.”
Three days before the shoes were set to drop on April 18, Vans filed a lawsuit – claiming MSCHF’s sneakers violated its trademark rights and demanding an immediate restraining order. (The lawsuit did not name Tyga, whose real name is Micheal Stevenson, as a defendant.) Legal trouble was nothing new for MSCHF: the group had previously partnered with Lil Nas X to release a “Satan Shoe” that looked like a pair of Nikes – and had been promptly hit with a similar infringement lawsuit from that sneaker giant.
In the case over Tyga’s sneaker, Vans that consumers would think Wavy Baby was an authorized product artist endorsement deal rather than a parody by a separate company. The company cited previous partnerships with A$AP Rocky, Metallica and Foo Fighters.
“Given Vans’ history of collaborations with musical artists, on information and belief, the collaboration between MSCHF and Michael Stevenson is intended to deceive consumers into believing they arepurchasing a product made by, sponsored by, approved by, or otherwise associated with Vans,” the company’s lawyers wrote at the time.
MSCHF fired back with the First Amendment. It admitted that the Wavy Baby was based on the Old Skool, but said it had a legal right to use the shoe as “the cultural and physical anchor when creating its art.” The company said it wanted to critique “consumerism inherent in sneakerhead culture” and “the phenomenon of sneaker companies collaborating with anyone to garner clout and shoe sales.”
Weeks later, a federal judge rejected those arguments and issued a restraining order banning MSCHF from selling any more Wavy Babys. In issuing his ruling, Judge William F. Kuntz said that he – and, more importantly, consumers – didn’t quite get the joke.
“Whatever the actual artistic merits of the Wavy Baby shoes, the shoes do not meet the requirements for a successful parody,” the judge wrote at the time. “While the manifesto accompanying the shoes may contain protected parodic expression, the Wavy Baby shoes and packaging in and of themselves fail to convey the satirical message.”
On Tuesday, the Second Circuit upheld Judge Kuntz’s ruling and injunction. Among other reasons, the court cited a recent Supreme Court ruling in which the justices ruled that Jack Daniels could sue over dog toys that parodied its whiskey bottles – a decision that lowered First Amendment protections for such parodies.
Attorneys for both sides did not immediately return requests for 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: A judge issues a ruling in the Hall & Oates lawsuit after the dispute turns public and personal, Young Thug’s RICO trial gets underway in Atlanta with opening statements and witness testimony, Kelly Clarkson wins a California labor law ruling against her ex-husband, and much more.
THE BIG STORY: Hall v. Oates Goes Public
The mysterious legal battle among Hall & Oates got a lot clearer last week – with detailed filings from each artist, a hearing in open court, and a judge’s ruling on how the case will proceed.
To catch you up: After a decades-long, highly-lucrative musical partnership, Daryl Hall sued John Oates last month in Nashville court. The case was initially filed under seal, leading to days of speculation about why the beloved duo had become a house divided. Eventually, unsealed documents showed that Hall had sued Oates to block him from selling part of their joint venture to Primary Wave.
Last Wednesday, the case burst fully into the open. First, Hall filed court papers accusing partner John Oates of leaving him “blindsided” by secretly arranging the Primary Wave deal – an act he called the “ultimate partnership betrayal.” Oates responded hours later, saying he was “tremendously disappointed” that Hall had chosen to make “inflammatory, outlandish, and inaccurate statements about me.”
The filings were packed with new details – not just about the exact contours of the legal dispute, but also about the duo’s broader “divorce,” about Hall’s problems with Primary Wave in particular, and about each man’s personal feelings toward his former partner. Go read our full story here.
A day later, attorneys for the pair headed to court for their first showdown. Hall was repped by Christine Lepera of Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp, who urged a judge to extend a restraining order preventing Oates from completing the Primary Wave sale until an arbitrator can hear Hall’s objections. Oates was repped by Derek Crownover from Loeb & Loeb LLP, who argued that no such order was necessary.
On Thursday afternoon, Chancellor Russell Perkins agreed to extend the restraining order, blocking Oates from selling to Primary Wave until February or until the arbitrator tackles the case – whichever comes first. Go read our full story explaining why.
The case will now head to private arbitration, for which an arbitrator has already been selected but an initial hearing has not yet been scheduled. Stay tuned…
THE OTHER BIG STORY: YSL RICO Trial Begins
More than 18 months after chart-topping rapper Young Thug was indicted on accusations that he ran a violent Atlanta street gang, he finally headed to trial last week.
In their opening statements, Atlanta prosecutors claimed that Thug was “King Slime,” a powerful boss operating his “Young Slime Life” gang like a “pack” of wolves – even reading a passage from The Jungle Book for jurors. And they defended their controversial use of his music to help prove it.
“We didn’t chase any lyrics to solve any murders,” Adriane Love told jurors. Instead, she said prosecutors in this case “chased the murders and found the lyrics” that pointed to true, specific events.
A day later, Thug’s lawyer responded by telling jurors that his client had been “born into a society filled with despair” and had merely rapped about violent crime because “these are the stories he knew” — and that prosecutors had cherry-picked lyrics that matched the crimes they hoped to pin against him.
“This is the environment he grew up in. These are the people he knew, these are the stories he knew. These are the words he rhymed,” Brian Steel told the jury. “This is art. This is freedom of speech.”
After opening statements concluded, prosecutors began presenting witnesses – a process that is expected to last months.
Other top stories this week…
SINCE U BEEN GONE – Kelly Clarkson won a legal ruling in California that said her ex-husband Brandon Blackstock owes her more than $2.6 million in commissions she paid to him while he serving as her manager. The decision, issued by California’s labor commissioner, said Blackstock had “unlawfully procured” a number of business deals for Clarkson, including her lucrative role as a judge on The Voice, that should have been handled by her talent agents at Creative Artists Agency (CAA).
‘FICTITIOUS’ CONCERTS? – Rapper Polo G sued a European tour booking firm over canceled plans for a string of concerts, claiming that the company continued to advertise the shows anyway — actions he calls “a shocking and outrageous fraud.”
YOUTUBER SLAPPS BACK – YouTube personality Spencer Cornelia — known for his investigative video series on the music industry — prevailed in a defamation lawsuit filed by wealth coach Derek Moneyberg. The case, which concerned YouTube interviews in which Moneyberg was termed a “Charlatan,” was tossed out under California’s anti-SLAPP law – a statute aimed to quash lawsuits that threaten free speech.
TIKTOK BAN BLOCKED – Montana’s first-in-the-nation law banning the video-sharing app TikTok in the state was blocked by a federal judge who ruled that the statute likely violates the First Amendment. The judge ruled that the law “oversteps state power and infringes on the Constitutional right of users and businesses.”
ARETHA ESTATE BATTLE – A judge overseeing the estate of Aretha Franklin awarded real estate to the late star’s sons, citing a handwritten will from 2014 that was found between couch cushions. The ruling came months after a Detroit-area jury said the document was a valid will under Michigan law, despite scribbles and many hard-to-read passages. Franklin had signed it and put a smiley face in the letter “A.”
In April, Grimes encouraged artists to make music using her voice — as replicated by artificial intelligence-powered technology. Even as she embraced a high-tech future, however, she noted that there were some old-fashioned legal limitations. “I don’t own the rights to the vocals from my old albums,” she wrote on X. “If you make remixes, they may get taken down.”
Artificial intelligence has dominated the hype cycle in 2023. But most signed artists who are enthusiastic about testing out this technology will have to move cautiously, wary of the fact that preexisting contracts may assert some level of control over how they can use their voice. “In general, in a major label deal, they’re the exclusive label for name, likeness and voice under the term,” says one veteran manager who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “Labels might be mad if artists went around them and did a deal themselves. They might go, ‘Hey, wait a minute, we have the rights to this.’”
On the flip side, labels probably can’t (or won’t) move unilaterally either. “In our agreements, in a handful of territories, we’ve been getting exclusive name, image, likeness and voice rights in connection with recordings for years,” says one major label source. That said, “as a practical matter, we wouldn’t license an artist’s voice for a voice model or for any project without the artists being on board with it. It would be bad business for us.”
For the moment, both sides are inching forward, trying to figure out how to “interpret new technology with arcane laws,” as Arron Saxe, who manages several artists’ estates, puts it. “It’s an odd time because the government hasn’t stepped in and put down real guidelines around AI,” adds Dan Smith, general manager of the dance label Armada Music.
That means guidelines must be drawn via pre-existing contracts, most of which were not written with AI in mind, and often vary from one artist to the next. Take a recent artist deal sent out by one major label and reviewed by Billboard: Under the terms, the label has the “exclusive right to record Artist Performances” with “performance” broadly defined to include “singing, speaking… or such performance itself, as the context requires.” The word “recording” is similarly roomy: “any recording of sound…by any method and on any substance or material, whether now or hereafter known.”
Someone in this deal probably couldn’t easily go rogue and build a voice-cloning model on newly recorded material without permission. Even to participate in YouTube’s recently announced AI voice generation experiment, some artists needed to get permission in form of a “label waiver,” according to Audrey Benoualid, a partner at Myman Greenspan Fox Rosenberg Mobasser Younger & Light. (In an interview about YouTube’s new feature, Demis Hassabis, CEO of Google Deepmind, said only that it has “been complicated” to negotiate deals with various music rights holders.) Even after an artist’s deal ends, if their recordings remain with a label, they would have to be careful to only train voice-cloning tech with material that isn’t owned exclusively by their former record company.
It’s not just artists that are interested in AI opportunities, though. Record labels stand to gain from developing licensing deals with AI companies for their entire catalogs, which could in turn bring greater opportunities for artists who want to participate. At the Made on YouTube event in September, Warner Music Group CEO Robert Kyncl said it’s the label’s “job” to make sure that artists who lean into AI “benefit.” At the same time, he added, “It’s also our job together to make sure that artists who don’t want to lean in are protected.”
In terms of protections, major label deals typically come with a list of approval rights: Artists will ask that they get the chance to sign off on any sample of their recordings or the use of one of their tracks in a movie trailer. “We believe that any AI function is just another use of the talents’ intellectual property that would take some approval by the creator,” explains Leron Rogers, a partner at Fox Rothschild.
In many states, artists also have protection under the “right of publicity,” which says that people have control over the way others can exploit their individual identities. “Under that umbrella is where things like the right to your voice, your face, your likeness are protected and can’t be mimicked because it’s unfair competition,” says Lulu Pantin, founder of Loop Legal. “But because those laws are not federal, they’re inconsistent, and every state’s laws are slightly different” — not all states specifically call out voices, for example — “[so] there’s concern that that’s not going to provide robust protection given how ubiquitous AI has become already.” (A lack of federal law also limits the government’s ability to push for enforcement abroad.)
To that end, a bipartisan group of senators recently introduced a draft proposal of the NO FAKES act (“Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe”), which would enshrine a federal right for artists, actors and others to take legal action against anyone who creates unauthorized “digital replicas” of their image, voice, or likeness. “Artists would now gain leverage they didn’t have before,” says Mike Pelczynski, who serves on the advisory board of the company voice-swap.ai.
While the entertainment industry tracks NO FAKES’ progress, Smith from Armada believes “we will probably start to see more artist agreements that are addressing the use of your voice.” Sure enough, Benoualid says that in new label deals for her clients, she now asks for approval over any use of an artist’s name, likeness, or voice in connection with AI technology. “Express written approval should be required prior to a company reproducing vocals, recordings, or compositions for the purpose of training AI platforms,” agrees Matthew Gorman, a lawyer at Cox & Palmer.
Pantin has been keeping an eye on the way other creative fields are handling this fast-evolving tech to see if there are lessons that can be imported into music. “One thing that I’ve been trying to do and I’ve had success in some instances with is asking the rights holders — the publishers, the labels — for consent rights from the individual artists or songwriter before their work is used to train generative AI,” she says. “On the book publishing side, the Authors Guild has put forth language they recommended are included in all publishing agreements, and so I’m drawing from that and extending that to songwriting.”
All these discussions are new, and the long-term impact of AI-driven technology on the creative fields remains unclear. Daouda Leonard, who manages Grimes, is adamant that in the music industry’s near future, “the licensing of voice is going to become a valuable asset.” Other are less sure — “nobody really knows how important this will be,” the major label source says.
Perhaps Grimes put it best on X: “We expect a certain amount of chaos.”
An appeals court upheld the disorderly conduct convictions Friday (Dec. 1) of actor Jussie Smollett, who was accused of staging a racist, homophobic attack against himself in 2019 and lying about it to Chicago police.
Smollett, who appeared in the TV show Empire, challenged the role of a special prosecutor, jury selection, evidence and many other aspects of the case. But all were turned aside in a 2-1 opinion from the Illinois Appellate Court.
Smollett had reported to police that he was the victim of a racist and homophobic attack by two men wearing ski masks. The search for the attackers soon turned into an investigation of Smollett himself, leading to his arrest on charges he had orchestrated the whole thing.
Authorities said he paid two men whom he knew from work on Empire, which filmed in Chicago. Prosecutors said Smollett told the men what slurs to shout, and to yell that he was in “MAGA Country,” a reference to Donald Trump’s presidential campaign slogan.
A jury convicted Smollett in 2021 on five felony counts of disorderly conduct, a charge that can be filed in Illinois when a person lies to police.
He now will have to finish a 150-day stint in jail that was part of his sentence. Smollett spent just six days in jail while his appeal was pending.
Lawyers for Smollett, who is Black and gay, have publicly claimed that he was the target of a racist justice system and people playing politics.
“We are preparing to escalate this matter to the Supreme Court,” Smollett spokeswoman Holly Baird said, referring to Illinois’ highest court and also noting that the opinion at the appellate court wasn’t unanimous.
Appellate Justice Freddrenna Lyle would have thrown out the convictions. She said it was “fundamentally unfair” to appoint a special prosecutor and charge Smollett when he had already performed community service as part of a 2019 deal with Cook County prosecutors to close the case.
“It was common sense that Smollett was bargaining for a complete resolution of the matter, not simply a temporary one,” Lyle said.
Special prosecutor Dan Webb was appointed to look into why the case was dropped. A grand jury subsequently restored charges against Smollett in 2020, and Webb concluded there were “substantial abuses of discretion” in the state’s attorney office during the earlier round.
Smollett was not immune to a fresh round of charges, appellate Justices David Navarro and Mary Ellen Coghlan said in the majority opinion.
“The record does not contain any evidence that (prosecutors) agreed Smollett would not be further prosecuted in exchange for forfeiting his bond and performing community service,” they said.