Legal
Page: 54
Former Nickelodeon producer/writer Dan Schneider fired back at the team behind the bombshell series Quiet on Set: The Dark Side of Kids TV on Wednesday (May 1) in a lawsuit in which he alleged that the documentary series wrongly implied that he sexually abused the child actors he worked with.
According to the Associated Press, Schneider filed the defamation suit against Warner Bros. Discovery and other companies behind the investigative series in Los Angeles Superior Court, claiming in the suit that the show’s trailer and episodes deliberately mixed and juxtaposed images and mentions of him with the criminal sexual abusers spotlighted in the show with the implication he was involved.
Former teenage actor Schneider (Head of the Class) split with Nickelodeon in 2018 after more than a decade at the center of some of the network’s most successful, star-making shows, including All That, The Amanda Show, Kenan & Kel and as executive producer of Zoey 101, iCarly and Victorious, with the latter three, respectively, launching the careers of Jamie Lynn Spears, Miranda Cosgrove and Jenette McCurdy and Victoria Justice and Ariana Grande.
Trending on Billboard
Schneider took center stage during many storylines in Quiet, which interviewed the casts and crews of several of Schneider’s most successful shows to describe how the sets he was responsible for often sexualized their young teen stars in a sometimes tense, toxic work environment some described as abusive. The series originally ran on the ID channel in March and is now available to stream on Max.
Among the bombshell revelations in the series that spotlighted descriptions of sexual abuse of child actors was the emotional commentary from Drake & Josh star Drake Bell, who described his grooming and sexual abuse by former childhood dialogue coach Brian Peck; Peck was convicted of sexually assaulting a Nickelodeon child actor (Bell) in 2004. In the third episode, Bell graphically recounts the abuse he suffered at Peck’s hands when he was 14- and 15-years-old.
Other former actors on Nickelodeon shows from the Schneider era also allege that they were rife with sexism, racism and inappropriate behavior involving underage stars and crew and alleged predatory behavior. The show suggests that Schneider’s shows tended to put young women in comedic situations with overt sexual implications, while depicting him as an angry and emotionally abusive boss, including specific allegations of sexual harassment and gender discrimination form women who worked as writers under him on All That.
Among the allegations are that he displayed pornography on his computer in their presence in the writers’ room and often asked for massages from female staffers with the implication that they could help get the women’s sketches on the shows, which he has denied.
According to the AP, the suit claims “Quiet on Set’s portrayal of Schneider is a hit job. While it is indisputable that two bona fide child sexual abusers worked on Nickelodeon shows, it is likewise indisputable that Schneider had no knowledge of their abuse, was not complicit in the abuse, condemned the abuse once it was discovered and, critically, was not a child sexual abuser himself.” In addition to Discovery — parent company of ID and Max — the suit names the show’s producers as well, Sony Pictures Television and Maxine Productions. The suit claims that the series and its trailer unjustly implicated Schneider in child sex abuse by showing pictures of him, some with his arm around young actresses, amid discussions of what they said were unsafe environments on his sets.
The series claims that kid actors were made to wear suggestive costumes and act in inappropriate sketches with clearly pornographic undertones. All That actor Leon Frierson talks about his superhero character, Captain Big Nose, who wore tights and underwear and a prosthetic nose with matching noses on his shoulders.
“You can’t help but notice that it looks like penises and testicles on my shoulders,” he says in the series, adding that one sketch included Captain Big Nose blasting a giant sneeze caused by his allergy to asteroids, with the punchline consisting of him shooting messy goo on the face of a young woman. “The joke in that sketch is effectively a cum shot joke. It’s a cum shot joke for children,” culture writer Schaachi Koul says in the premiere episode of the five-part series. “Looking back, it’s very strange. Frankly, it was just uncomfortable,” says Frierson, who also describes that getting close to “kingmaker” Schneider could result in another level of success for the young actors. “It was important to be on his good side, and he made it known who was on his good side,” he says.
Nickelodeon, which was not named in the suit, said in a statement in the series that it could not “corroborate or negate” the allegations from two decades ago, but that it investigates all formal complaints and has strict protocols for shows starring minors.
Schneider, 58, was not interviewed for the series, but issued a YouTube video apology after the show aired in which he said he was sorry for “past behaviors, some of which are embarrassing and that I regret.” The suit is seeking financial damages to be determined at trial for what it described as “the destruction of Schneider’s reputation and legacy” via “false statements and implications” as well as the editing and removals of portions of the series and trailers.
“Schneider will be the first to admit that some of what they said is true,” the lawsuit claims according to The Huffington Post. “At times, he was blind to the pain that some of his behaviors caused certain colleagues, subordinates, and cast members. He will regret and atone for this behavior the rest of his life. But one thing he is not — and the one thing that will forever mar his reputation and career both past and present — is a child sexual abuser.”
In a statement to HuffPo, Schneider said the series “highlighted mistakes I made and poor judgment I exhibited during my time at Nickelodeon. … There is no doubt that I was sometimes a bad leader. I am sincerely apologetic and regretful for that behavior, and I will continue to take accountability for it.”
Stories about sexual assault allegations can be traumatizing for survivors of sexual assault. If you or anyone you know needs support, you can reach out to the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN). The organization provides free, confidential support to sexual assault victims. Call RAINN’s National Sexual Assault Hotline (800.656.HOPE) or visit the anti-sexual violence organization’s website for more information.
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: Tupac’s estate threatens to sue Drake over his use of the late rapper’s voice; Megan Thee Stallion faces a lawsuit over eye-popping allegations from her former cameraman; Britney Spears settles her dispute with her father; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: Drake, Tupac & An AI Showdown
The debate over unauthorized voice cloning burst into the open last week when Tupac Shakur’s estate threatened to sue Drake over a recent diss track against Kendrick Lamar that featured an AI-generated version of the late rapper’s voice.In a cease-and-desist letter first reported by Billboard, litigator Howard King told Drake that the Shakur estate was “deeply dismayed and disappointed” by the rapper’s use of Tupac’s voice in his “Taylor Made Freestyle.” The letter warned Drake to confirm in less than 24 hours that he would pull the track down or the estate would “pursue all of its legal remedies” against him.“Not only is the record a flagrant violation of Tupac’s publicity and the estate’s legal rights, it is also a blatant abuse of the legacy of one of the greatest hip-hop artists of all time. The Estate would never have given its approval for this use.”AI-powered voice cloning has been top of mind for the music industry since last spring when an unknown artist released a track called “Heart On My Sleeve” that featured — ironically — fake verses from Drake’s voice. As such fake vocals have continued to proliferate on the internet, industry groups, legal experts and lawmakers have wrangled over how best to crack down on them.With last week’s showdown, that debate jumped from hypothetical to reality. The Tupac estate laid out actual legal arguments for why it believed Drake’s use of the late rapper’s voice violated the law. And those arguments were apparently persuasive: Within 24 hours, Drake began to pull his song from the internet.
For more details on the dispute, go read our full story here.
Trending on Billboard
Other top stories this week…
MEGAN THEE STALLION SUED – The rapper and Roc Nation were hit witha lawsuit from a cameraman named Emilio Garcia who claims he was forced to watch Megan have sex with a woman inside a moving vehicle while she was on tour in Spain. The lawsuit, which claims he was subjected to a hostile workplace, was filed by the same attorneys who sued Lizzo last year over similar employment law.BRITNEY SETTLES WITH FATHER – Britney Spears settled her long-running legal dispute with her father, Jamie Spears, that arose following the termination of the pop star’s 13-year conservatorship in 2021. Attorneys for Britney had accused Jamie of misconduct during the years he served as his daughter’s conservator, a charge he adamantly denied. The terms of last week’s agreement were not made public.TRAVIS SCOTT MUST FACE TRIAL – A Houston judge denied a motion from Travis Scott to be dismissed from the sprawling litigation over the 2021 disaster at the Astroworld music festival, leaving him to face a closely-watched jury trial next month. Scott’s attorneys had argued that the star could not be held legally liable since safety and security at live events is “not the job of performing artists.” But the judge overseeing the case denied that motion without written explanation.ASTROWORLD TRIAL LIVESTREAM? Also in the Astroworld litigation, plaintiffs’ attorneys argued that the upcoming trial — a pivotal first test for hundreds of other lawsuits filed by alleged victims over the disaster — should be broadcast live to the public. “The devastating scale of the events at Astroworld, combined with the involvement of high-profile defendants, has generated significant national attention and a legitimate public demand for transparency and accountability,” the lawyers wrote.BALLERINI HACKING CASE – Just a week after Kelsea Ballerini sued a former fan named Bo Ewing over accusations that he hacked her and leaked her unreleased album, his attorneys reached a deal with her legal team in which he agreed not to share her songs with anyone else — and to name any people he’s already sent them to. “Defendant shall, within thirty days of entry of this order, provide plaintiffs with the names and contact information for all people to whom defendant disseminated the recordings,” the agreement read.R. KELLY CONVICTIONS AFFIRMED – A federal appeals court upheld R. Kelly’s 2022 convictions in Chicago on child pornography and enticement charges, rejecting his argument that the case against him was filed too late. The court said that Kelly was convicted by “an even-handed jury” and that “no statute of limitations saves him.” His attorney vowed a trip to the U.S. Supreme Court, though such appeals face long odds.DIDDY RESPONDS TO SUIT – Lawyers for Sean “Diddy” Combs pushed back against a sexual assault lawsuit filed by a woman named Joi Dickerson-Neal, arguing that he should not face claims under statutes that did not exist when the alleged incidents occurred in 1991. His attorneys want the claims — such as revenge porn and human trafficking — to be dismissed from the broader case, which claims that Combs drugged, assaulted and surreptitiously filmed Dickerson-Neal when she was 19 years old.
Lawyers for Sean “Diddy” Combs pushed back against a woman’s lawsuit that accused him of sexual assault, filing a motion on Friday (April 26) to dismiss some claims that were not under law when the alleged incident occurred.
The motion filed in a New York court claims Combs cannot be sued because certain laws didn’t exist when Joi Dickerson-Deal made the allegations against him in 1991.
The music mogul’s lawyers want certain statues from Dickerson-Deal’s claims such as revenge porn and human trafficking to be dismissed with prejudice.
In a filing last year, she said Combs “intentionally drugged” her then brought her home and sexually assaulted her after a date in Harlem when she was a 19-year-old college student.
Trending on Billboard
Without her knowledge, Combs videotaped the assault and later shared it with several friends in the music industry, the suit alleges. He denied the allegations, accusing her of seeking to exploit the New York law that temporarily extended the statute of limitations.
Dickerson-Deal’s claim came nearly three decades after his alleged misconduct and the New York State Revenge Porn Law was not codified until 2019, Combs’ lawyers said.
His attorneys also pointed out a few others including the New York Services for Victims of Human Trafficking Law, which came into effect in 2007.
The Associated Press does not typically name people who say they have been sexually abused unless they come forward publicly, as Dickerson has done.
Last month, Combs’ properties in Los Angeles and Miami were raided by federal authorities in a sex trafficking investigation. The criminal investigation is a major escalation in the scrutiny of Combs, who has been the defendant in several recent sexual abuse lawsuits.
In a lawsuit Combs settled the day after it was filed in November, his former protege and girlfriend, the R&B singer Cassie, sued him alleging years of sexual abuse, including rape. The lawsuit said he forced her to have sex with male prostitutes while he filmed them.
In February, a music producer filed a lawsuit alleging Combs coerced him to solicit prostitutes and pressured him to have sex with them.
Another of Combs’ accusers was a woman who said he raped her two decades ago when she was 17.
Combs and his attorneys have denied all of the allegations in the lawsuits.
Britney Spears has settled an outstanding legal dispute with her father that arose following the termination of the pop star’s 13-year conservatorship in 2021, Billboard has confirmed. Terms of the settlement were not disclosed.
“It has been our honor and privilege to represent, protect, and defend Britney Spears,” said Spears’ attorney, Mathew Rosengart, in a statement sent to Billboard. “Although the conservatorship was terminated in November, 2021, her wish for freedom is now truly complete. As she desired, her freedom now includes that she will no longer need to attend or be involved with court or entangled with legal proceedings in this matter.”
A legal scuffle ensued in the wake of the conservatorship’s dissolution in November 2021, when Rosengart vowed to investigate alleged misconduct by Spears’ father, Jamie Spears, during the years he served as his daughter’s conservator — including claims that he took millions from her estate, tried to control her with drugs and denied her the freedom to remove a birth control device.
Trending on Billboard
Conflict also arose over Jamie’s request in December 2021 that Britney’s estate continue paying his legal fees, arguing that the conservatorship’s termination did not end his ongoing “fiduciary obligations” and that he could face “personal bankruptcy and ruin” if his request was turned down. Rosengart responded by calling the request “not only legally meritless, but an abomination.”
Britney was placed in a conservatorship controlled by her father in 2008 following a string of public breakdowns. The legal arrangement came under scrutiny beginning in 2019, when a pair of documentaries and a movement dubbed #FreeBritney launched by the superstar’s fans went viral, ultimately leading Britney to speak out on her own behalf in public court testimony.
Attorneys for Jamie Spears did not immediately respond to Billboard‘s request for comment.
You can read Rosengart’s full statement below.
It has been our honor and privilege to represent, protect, and defend Britney Spears.
Although the conservatorship was terminated in November, 2021, her wish for freedom is now truly complete. As she desired, her freedom now includes that she will no longer need to attend or be involved with court or entangled with legal proceedings in this matter.
Britney Spears won when the court suspended her father, and Britney Spears won when her fundamental rights and civil liberties were restored.
Since obtaining her freedom in late 2021, Britney Spears has achieved remarkable success on several fronts, including her August, 2022 collaboration with Sir Elton John on the smash hit Hold Me Closer (which debuted at number one on the Billboard Hot Dance/Electronic Songs chart and became her 24th top-ten single), followed by her landmark book deal with Simon & Schuster for her memoir The Woman in Me, an immediate NY Times #1 bestseller, which received universal, breathtaking praise and would not have been possible during the conservatorship.
We repeat our gratification for being in a position to help restore the civil rights and liberties of Britney Spears and the honor and privilege it has been to serve and protect Ms. Spears and obtain her goals in resolving various legal matters pursuant to her thoughtful and wise instruction and requests, which once again are to her credit.
Victims of the Astroworld music festival want their looming trial against Travis Scott, Live Nation and other organizers to be livestreamed to the public, citing a public demand for “transparency and accountability.”
After more than two years of litigation over the 2021 crowd crush at the Astroworld — a disaster that left 10 dead and hundreds injured — the first jury trial is set to kick off early next month. It will be a pivotal first test for hundreds of other lawsuits filed by alleged victims that claim the organizers were legally negligent in how they planned and operated the festival.
In a motion on Thursday (April 25), lawyers for the plaintiffs in the upcoming trial argued that it should be broadcast live on the internet, saying such a step was needed to “ensure that all those affected by the Astroworld tragedy can observe the proceedings and stay informed of the trial’s progress.”
Trending on Billboard
“The devastating scale of the events at Astroworld, combined with the involvement of high-profile defendants, has generated significant national attention and a legitimate public demand for transparency and accountability,” the plaintiffs’ lawyers write. “By livestreaming the trial, the Court will demonstrate its commitment to open and accessible proceedings, fostering public trust and confidence in the judicial system’s handling of this consequential matter.”
A ruling opening up her courtroom to cameras would be a major shift for the judge overseeing the Astroworld litigation. Back in 2022, citing the risk that potential jurors might become biased, Judge Kristen Hawkins imposed an unusually strong gag order that has severely limited public knowledge about the status of the case.
Media outlets like ABC challenged Judge Hawkins’ gag order, arguing that it was depriving the public of information about important judicial proceedings over a newsworthy event. But a Texas appeals court upheld the media ban last year without explanation.
Hundreds of lawsuits have been filed over the deadly crowd crush during Scott’s Nov. 5, 2021, headlining set at Astroworld. The cases, collectively seeking billions in damages, claim that organizers bear legal responsibility for the disaster because of poor safety planning and failure to stop the show after problems had been reported.
The lawsuits have spent much of the last two years in discovery, as the two sides exchanged information and took depositions of key figures. But now the first trial in the massive litigation — over a wrongful death case filed by the family of Madison Dubiski, a 23-year-old who died at Astroworld — is set to start on May 6.
In seeking to have that trial aired live, attorneys for Dubiski’s family argued that it was “impractical” for everyone involved in the litigation to attend the proceedings physically: “There are hundreds of plaintiffs and their family members, numerous defendants, and a multitude of counsel to account for.”
But they also hinted that they think the judge might have doubts about broadcasting the trial. The recording would be “conducted unobtrusively, with minimal disruption to the trial process,” the plaintiffs’ lawyers said, and the judge will have the ability to “pause or terminate the broadcast if necessary to preserve order or to protect sensitive information.” And witnesses would be sequestered and required not to watch the stream “to safeguard the fairness and impartiality of the proceedings.”
The judge will presumably rule on the motion in the next week before the trial gets underway.
A federal appeals court on Friday (April 26) upheld R. Kelly’s conviction on child pornography and enticement charges, rejecting his argument that the case against him was filed too late.
Eighteen months after a federal jury in Chicago found Kelly (Robert Sylvester Kelly) guilty, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the 2022 guilty verdict, saying that he had been convicted by “an even-handed jury” and that “no statute of limitations saves him.”
“For years, Robert Sylvester Kelly abused underage girls. By employing a complex scheme to keep victims quiet, he long evaded consequences,” Judge Amy St. Eve wrote for a three-judge panel. “In recent years, though, those crimes caught up with him at last. But Kelly — interposing a statute-of-limitations defense — thinks he delayed the charges long enough to elude them entirely. The statute says otherwise, so we affirm his conviction.”
Trending on Billboard
Friday’s ruling affirms one of Kelly’s two felony sex abuse convictions. The other one — a September 2021 guilty verdict on racketeering charges brought by federal prosecutors in New York — is currently pending on appeal.
In the wake of Friday’s decision, Kelly can now appeal the verdict to the U.S. Supreme Court. But such appeals face extremely long odds, as the high court hears only a tiny fraction of the petitions it receives.
In a statement to Billboard on Friday, Kelly’s attorney, Jennifer Bonjean, said: “We are disappointed in the ruling but our fight is far from over. We will seek review from the Supreme Court and continue to pursue all of his appellate remedies until we Free R. Kelly. You can bet on that.”
After decades of accusations of sexual misconduct, Kelly was indicted in 2019 by federal prosecutors in both New York and Illinois. By the end of 2022, he had been convicted in both cases.
In Brooklyn, the feds accused Kelly of violating the federal RICO statute (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) by orchestrating a long-running scheme to recruit and abuse women and underage girls. After being convicted in September 2021, Kelly was sentenced to 30 years in prison.
In Chicago, a different team of federal prosecutors accused Kelly of violating child pornography laws, enticing minors for sex and obstructing justice by upending a 2008 criminal trial. Though he was acquitted on certain counts, Kelly was convicted in September 2022. The judge later sentenced him to 20 years in prison, but the vast majority of that sentence will be served concurrently with the New York sentence.
In appealing the Chicago verdict, Kelly’s attorneys argued that the case — over crimes that allegedly occurred in the late 1990s and early 2000s — had been filed well past the statute of limitations that existed at the time, which barred child sex abuse charges after a victim’s 25th birthday.
But in Friday’s ruling, the judges chose instead to apply the modern statute of limitations, which extends through the life of the victim.
“Kelly maintains that the old, pre-2003 statute of limitations should control,” Judge St. Eve wrote. “All the inducement of minors in this case, he points out, took place when he could expect a more generous statute of limitations. The law does not support Kelly’s position.”
The appeals court also rejected several other arguments from Kelly, including one challenging the procedural fairness of his trial and another against the propriety of his sentence.
With Kelly’s Chicago verdict affirmed, attention now turns to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which is currently weighing his Brooklyn conviction. That case was argued in court last month, when Bonjean told the judges that the RICO case against Kelly had stretched federal racketeering laws “to the point of absurdity.”
A day after Tupac Shakur‘s estate threatened to sue over the use of AI-generated vocals from the late rapper, Drake has pulled his “Taylor Made Freestyle” down from social media. Last Friday, Drake posted the Kendrick Lamar diss track — which also includes AI Snoop Dogg vocals — to his social accounts. The song made […]
A superfan accused of hacking Kelsea Ballerini and leaking her unreleased music has reached an agreement with the star’s lawyers not to share her songs with anyone else — and to name any people he’s already sent them to.
Just a week after Ballerini sued Bo Ewing over accusations that he illegally accessed her unfinished album and shared it with members of a fan club, attorneys for both sides said Wednesday (April 24) that they have agreed on a preliminary injunction against Ewing that will remain in place as the case plays out.
Under the terms of the injunction to which his lawyers agreed, Ewing is not only banned from disseminating any of Ballerini’s materials, he’s required to divulge who he has already shared them with and how he came into possession of her music.
Trending on Billboard
“Defendant shall, within thirty days of entry of this order, provide plaintiffs with the names and contact information for all people to whom defendant disseminated the recordings,” the agreement reads. “Defendant shall use his best efforts to disclose to Plaintiffs from whom and by what means he obtained the recordings.”
The agreement avoids a court battle over such an injunction, which Ballerini’s attorneys were asking a federal judge to impose regardless of Ewing’s cooperation. In doing so, they warned that the hack had caused “immediate and ongoing harm” that would get far worse if Ewing was allowed to widely release the allegedly leaked songs online.
“The most critical time for an album’s success is its initial release date,” Ballerini’s attorneys wrote in a motion demanding such an injunction. “Hacks like this substantially diminish both performers’ and labels’ ability to realize the full benefits of the release because the work is already available for download, for free, at the time of the official release.”
Ballerini sued last week, claiming that Ewing — allegedly a former fan who had become disillusioned with the star — had gained illegal “back-door access” to a device holding recordings of 12 songs still in production. Her lawyers say he then shared them with members of an online fan club.
“Because the recordings are not the completed master, the songs are not final and are subject to revision,” her lawyers wrote. “Ms. Ballerini and her team are the only people who can say when the recordings are complete. Defendant’s actions have stripped plaintiffs of that right and caused the distribution of unfinished work that may not yet be up to plaintiffs’ high professional standards.”
Almost immediately, the federal judge overseeing the case issued a so-called temporary restraining order — an emergency order that banned Ewing from sharing any of Ballerini’s materials. That order set the stage for a longer-term preliminary injunction, which both sides were set to debate at a hearing on Thursday (April 25).
Instead, Ewing’s attorneys struck Wednesday’s deal accepting such an injunction. Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw Jr. signed off on the agreement on Thursday. Neither side’s lawyers immediately returned requests for comment.
A Houston judge has denied Travis Scott’s motion to be dismissed from sprawling litigation over the 2021 disaster at the Astroworld music festival ahead of a looming jury trial next month.
Scott’s attorneys had argued that the star himself could not be held legally liable for the deadly crowd crush during his the November 2021 performance, which killed 10 and injured hundreds. They argued that safety and security at live events is “not the job of performing artists.”
But in a ruling made public on Wednesday, Judge Kristen Hawkins denied that motion, leaving Scott on the hook to face the first jury trial in the case, set to kick off next month. She offered no written rationale for her ruling, and attorneys for Scott did not return a request for comment.
Trending on Billboard
More than 2,500 people have sued over Astroworld – a popular festival headlined and marketed by the Houston-native Scott that turned deadly in 2021. Collectively seeking billions in potential damages, the victims claim that Scott (real name Jacques Bermon Webster II), Live Nation and other organizers were legally negligent in how they planned the event.
The lawsuits, combined into one single large action in Texas state court in Houston, have spent much of the last two years in discovery, as the two sides exchange information and take depositions of key figures. Scott was deposed in October, facing questioning from plaintiffs attorneys for roughly eight hours, according to the Associated Press.
The first trial in the massive litigation – a wrongful death case filed by family of Madison Dubiski, a 23-year-old who died at Astroworld – is set to start on May 6.
With that trial date looming, many of the defendants have pushed to be dismissed from the case. Drake (Aubrey Graham), who was named in many of the lawsuits because he appeared on stage as a guest performer during Scott’s deadly show, was dismissed earlier this month.
Scott’s attorneys argued last month that he too should not be held liable for the tragic incident. Even though the event was promoted under Scott’s name and branding, his lawyers said that he was merely an onstage performer who was not responsible for ensuring audience safety.
“Like any other adrenaline-inducing diversion, music festivals must balance exhilaration with safety and security—but that balance is not the job of performing artists, even those involved in promoting and marketing performances,” wrote Scott’s attorney Daniel Petrocelli. “Which only makes sense: Performing artists, even those who engage in certain promotional activities, have no inherent expertise or specialized knowledge in concert safety measures, venue security protocols, or site-design.”
At a hearing over that motion last week, attorneys for Dubiski’s family pushed back on Scott’s arguments, saying he had a “conscious disregard for safety.”
As reported by the Associated Press, the victim’s attorneys argued that Scott had encouraged fans to break into the concert without a ticket, citing a tweet on the day of the concert in which he said “we still sneaking the wild ones in.” They also said he had create unsafe crowd flow conditions by insisting that Scott be the only musical act to use the main stage on the festival’s first day, and then ignored orders from festival organizers to stop the concert when conditions turned dangerous.
Tupac Shakur’s estate is threatening to sue Drake over a recent diss track against Kendrick Lamar that featured an AI-generated version of the late rapper’s voice, calling it a “a flagrant violation” of the law and a “blatant abuse” of his legacy.
In a Wednesday cease-and-desist letter obtained exclusively by Billboard, litigator Howard King told Drake (Aubrey Drake Graham) that he must confirm that he will pull down his “Taylor Made Freestyle” in less than 24 hours or the estate would “pursue all of its legal remedies” against him.
Trending on Billboard
“The Estate is deeply dismayed and disappointed by your unauthorized use of Tupac’s voice and personality,” King wrote in the letter. “Not only is the record a flagrant violation of Tupac’s publicity and the estate’s legal rights, it is also a blatant abuse of the legacy of one of the greatest hip-hop artists of all time. The Estate would never have given its approval for this use.”
Drake released “Taylor Made” on Friday, marking the latest chapter in a back-and-forth war of words between the Canadian rapper and Lamar. Beyond taking shots at both Kendrick and Taylor Swift, the track made headlines because of its prominent use of artificial intelligence technology to create fake verses from Tupac and Snoop Dogg – two West Coast legends idolized by the LA-based Lamar.
“Kendrick, we need ya, the West Coast savior/ Engraving your name in some hip-hop history,” the AI-generated Tupac raps in Drake’s song. “If you deal with this viciously/ You seem a little nervous about all the publicity.”
In Tuesday’s letter, Tupac’s estate warned Drake that the use of his voice clearly violated Tupac’s so-called publicity rights – the legal power to control how your image or likeness is used by others. And they took particular exception the use of his voice to take shots at Lamar.
“The unauthorized, equally dismaying use of Tupac’s voice against Kendrick Lamar, a good friend to the Estate who has given nothing but respect to Tupac and his legacy publicly and privately, compounds the insult,” King wrote.
A rep for Drake declined to comment on the demands of the Shakur estate.
It’s unclear if Snoop Dogg, whose voice was also featured on “Taylor Made,” is planning to raise similar legal objections to Drake’s track. On Saturday, he posted a video to social media in which he seemed to be learning of the song for the first time: “They did what? When? How? Are you sure?” A rep for Snoop Dogg did not return a request for comment.
The unauthorized use of voice cloning technology has become one of the music industry’s thorniest legal subjects, as AI-powered tools have made easier than ever to convincingly mimic real artists.
The issue exploded onto the scene last year, when an unknown artist named Ghostwriter released a track called “Heart On My Sleeve” that featured – ironically – fake verses from Drake’s voice. Since then, as voice-cloning has proliferated on the internet, industry groups, legal experts and lawmakers have wrangled over how best to crack down on it.
It’s not as simple as it might seem. Federal copyrights are difficult to directly apply, since cloned vocals usually feature new words and music that are distinct from existing copyrighted songs. The publicity rights cited by the estate are a better fit because they protect someone’s likeness itself, but they have historically been used to sue over advertisements, rather than over creative works like songs.
Faced with that legal uncertainty, the recording industry and top artists have pushed for new legislation to address the problem. Last month, Tennessee passed a statute called the ELVIS Act that aims to crack down on voice cloning by expanding the state’s publicity right laws beyond just advertisements. Lawmakers in Washington DC are also considering similar bills that would create new, broader publicity rights at a federal level.
In Wednesday’s letter, however, the estate said that California’s existing publicity right laws clearly outlaw something as blatant as Drake’s use of Tupac’s voice in “Taylor Made.” King argued that the song had caused “substantial economic and reputational harm” by creating the “false impression that the estate and Tupac promote or endorse the lyrics for the sound-alike.”
The estate also argued that the song was likely created using an AI model that violated the estate’s copyrights by “training” on existing recordings of Tupac’s music. The legality of using copyrighted “inputs” is another difficult legal issue that’s currently being tested in several closely-watched lawsuits against AI developers, including one filed by major music publishers.
“It is hard to believe that [Tupac’s record label]’s intellectual property was not scraped to create the fake Tupac AI on the Record,” King wrote, before demanding that Drake also provide “a detailed explanation for how the sound-alike was created and the persons or company that created it, including all recordings and other data ‘scraped’ or used.”
Wednesday’s letter also pointedly highlighted that Drake himself has made previous objections to the use of his own likeness by others. In addition to last year’s incident surrounding “Heart on My Sleeve” — which was quickly pulled down from the internet — King pointed to a lesser-known federal lawsuit in which Drake’s attorneys accused a website of using his image without authorization.
“The [“Taylor Made Freestyle”] has generated well more than one million streams at this point and has been widely reported in the general national press and popular entertainment websites and publications,” the estate wrote. “Without question, it is exponentially more serious and damaging than a picture of you with some other people on a low volume website.”
In its closing paragraphs, the letter demanded written confirmation by noon Pacific on Thursday that Drake’s representatives were “expeditiously taking all steps necessary to have it removed.”
“If you comply, the estate will consider whether an informal negotiation to resolve this matter makes sense,” King wrote. “If you do not comply, our client has authorized this firm to pursue all of its legal remedies including, but not limited to, an action for violation of … the estate’s copyright, publicity and personality rights and the resulting damages, injunctive relief, and punitive damages and attorneys’ fees.”