Legal
Page: 57
A quarrel over alleged musical differences led to the murder of emerging corrido bélicos artist Chuy Montana two weeks ago, after he performed “songs … that did not please one of his aggressors” at a private party in a Tijuana motel, according to the Baja California State Attorney General’s Office.
The head of the agency, María Elena Andrade Ramírez, said during a Tuesday (Feb. 20) press conference that the reason for the murder of the singer, and another person who was his driver, was not because of his performance of narcocorridos — drug ballads that are banned in the border city — but because he continued singing songs that his assailants did not like.
“Apparently it was sentimental issues that influenced one of the aggressors,” Andrade Ramirez said at the press conference, which the prosecutor’s office provided a recording of to Billboard Español. “We are still in further investigation, but yes they were songs, let’s say, that did not please one of the aggressors.”
Trending on Billboard
“Maybe the situation was exacerbated by the state of drunkenness and drug use in which they were, because it is not common for them to have taken his life for that reason,” added the official after pointing out that they had all been consuming alcohol and drugs earlier that day.
According to initial investigations, in one of the searches at the Dubai Motel, located in the municipality of Rosarito, an ID of the singer and a gunshot wound were found.
The prosecutor said that after the argument, Montana was taken out of the motel in a vehicle, according to a video in possession of the Baja California District Attorney’s Office. She said that the recording also shows that the victim tried to get out of the vehicle, but he remained handcuffed and guarded by his assailants.
Montana’s body was found on Feb. 7 on the side of the Playas de Rosarito-Tijuana highway in the northern Mexican state of Baja California, with signs of violence and his hands handcuffed, according to an information card issued that day by the Baja California District Attorney’s Office.
Authorities ruled out any indication that organized crime was behind the murder of Montana — whose real name was Jesús Cárdenas — and his companion. The prosecutor said that so far, one person has been arrested and investigations are underway.
Tijuana is considered the fifth most violent city in Mexico, according to the 2022 ranking of the 50 most violent cities in the world compiled by the Consejo Ciudadano para la Seguridad Pública y la Justicia Penal organization.
[embedded content]
Montana, known for songs such as “Porte de Scarface” and “Qué Bendición,” was part of the roster of Street Mob Records, the label headed by Jesús Ortiz Paz (JOP) of Fuerza Regida.
Kodak Black is a free man once again after the Florida rapper was released from jail on Wednesday (Feb. 21), according to The Associated Press. U.S. District Judge Jose E. Martinez granted Kodak Black — real name Bill Kapri — time served following a probation violation. The “Super Gremlin” artist had a drug possession charge […]
A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit accusing Aerosmith singer Steven Tyler of sexually assaulting a teenage girl decades ago, ruling that she had waited too long to bring her case.
Former teen model Jeanne Bellino sued the rocker in November, claiming he had forcibly kissed, groped and “humped” her twice over a single day in Manhattan in the summer of 1975. The case was filed under a recently-amended New York City law that allows abuse victims to sue over decades-old claims.
But in a ruling Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan ruled that Bellino’s case did not qualify under the new statute. He ruled that the special “lookback” window only applies to cases where the abuser’s actions presented a “serious risk of physical injury” – and that Tyler’s alleged actions did not do so.
Trending on Billboard
“The complaint in this case does not alleged conduct presenting a serious risk of physical injury and therefore fails to state a legally sufficient claim under the [NYC statute],” the judge wrote.
Wednesday’s ruling could be legally significant. Numerous other alleged victims who have filed long-delayed abuse cases under the law in question — New York’s Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Law – after it opened a two-year window for such lawsuits from March 1, 2023 to March 1, 2025.
Bellino sued in November, claiming she had suffered “severe and permanent emotional distress” over the incidents, which allegedly occurred when she was 17 and Tyler was 27. “Tyler used his power, influence, and authority as a well-known musician to sexually assault Plaintiff.”
In her complaint, Bellino claimed that she and a friend had arranged to meet Aerosmith in Manhattan. First, she said that Tyler pushed her into a phone booth and “stuck his tongue down her throat” before groping her and “humping her pretending to have sex with Plaintiff.” After she returned to a hotel with the band later in the day, she claimed that Tyler “again pinned Plaintiff against the wall” and forcibly kissed and groped her.
Tyler has not publicly commented on the lawsuit, but in court filings, his attorneys have said he “vehemently denies” the allegations. In their motion to dismiss the case, his lawyers argued Bellino could not use the New York City newly-enacted statute to sue over “purported sexual misconduct that occurred nearly half a century ago.”
“Ms. Bellino’s attempt to advance a claim based on legislative enactments decades after the purported misconduct occurred is contrary to the legislative intent, statutory construction, and fundamental notions of individual liberty and due process embedded in both the state and federal constitutions,” Tyler’s lawyers wrote in a motion earlier this month.
Wednesday’s ruling from Judge Kaplan granted that motion, dismissing the lawsuit. But the judge said Bellino could potentially seek to file an updated version of her case; he gave her until next month to request the right to do so. Neither side immediately returned requests for comment on Thursday.
The lawsuit was the second abuse case against Tyler in recent years. In 2022, the rock star was sued by Julia Holcomb, who claims that Tyler repeatedly assaulted her for three years starting in 1973, when she was just 16 years old. Holcomb claims to be the girl Tyler referred to in his memoir, Does the Noise in My Head Bother You?, when he wrote he “almost took a teen bride” and convinced her parents to grant him guardianship over her.
Holcomb’s case, filed in Los Angeles under a different look-back statute, remains pending. Tyler has denied those allegations, too, and his lawyers are seeking to have the case dismissed.
A new sexual assault lawsuit has been filed against Nigel Lythgoe, this time by an unidentified woman who claims the former American Idol and So You Think You Can Dance producer forcibly touched her in 2016.
The suit, filed on Saturday in Los Angeles Superior Court, is the latest against Lythgoe accusing him of sexual misconduct and abuse. After Paula Abdul sued the producer in December over two separate incidents of sexual assault, a pair of unnamed contestants on “AAG,” which is believed to be a reference to reality series All American Girl cited in a complaint from the women, came forward with accusations that he made unwanted sexual advances and groped them inside his Los Angeles home in 2003. That second suit was filed in January against a defendant with the initials “N.L.,” which multiple outlets identified as the producer.
Lythgoe stepped back from his on-camera and behind the scenes roles on SYTYCD in the wake of the allegations. The producer did not immediately respond to requests for comment for this story.
Trending on Billboard
The suit says the accuser met Lythgoe at a hotel in Beverly Hills and that he “insisted” on driving her home. The complaint describes the alleged assault, which took place inside his car over the course of at least ten minutes.
“Plaintiff tried to push Lythgoe away from her and instruct Lythgoe’s driver how to return to her house, but Lythgoe continued to grab at Plaintiff, fondle her breasts, and kiss her,” the suit states. “Lythgoe even shoved his hand up Plaintiff’s skirt and penetrated her genitalia.”
The woman claims the producer eventually relented once his driver arrived at her apartment after allegedly taking an unexpectedly long route. She alleges she continues to suffer severe mental anguish due to the incident.
The complaint brings claims for sexual battery, gender violence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. It seeks an unspecified amount in damages.
“It is troubling to hear of yet another alleged incident of a woman being taken advantage of and abused by a prominent public figure,” said Melissa Eubanks, a lawyer for the Jane Doe plaintiff who also represents Abdul in her suit against Lythgoe, in a statement.
In her complaint, Abdul accused Lythgoe of assaulting her twice during one of the early seasons of American Idol and years later when she was a judge on SYTYCD.
“Lythgoe shoved Abdul against the wall, then grabbed her genitals and breasts and began shoving his tongue down her throat,” the suit stated.
This article was originally published by The Hollywood Reporter.
A federal appeals court has rejected a copyright lawsuit that claimed Nickelback ripped off its 2006 hit “Rockstar” from an earlier song called “Rock Star,” ruling that the band can’t be sued simply for using “clichés” and “singing about being a rockstar.”
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
Upholding a judge’s decision last year that tossed the case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled Monday that Kirk Johnston had not even come close to proving that Nickelback infringed his earlier song when it released “Rockstar.”
Johnston, the lead singer of a Texas band called Snowblind Revival, had argued that the two songs have such similar lyrics that the lower judge should have ruled that they were “strikingly similar,” but the appeals court sharply disagreed.
Trending on Billboard
“Johnston’s expert categorizes the lyrics into common themes such as ‘making lots of money,’ ‘connections to famous people,’ and ‘references to sports’,” the three-judge panel wrote. “But these broad categories are mere clichés of being a rockstar that are not unique to the rock genre. Singing about being a rockstar is not limited to Johnston.”
Ditto for other lyrics about sports, the appeals court wrote. Johnston’s song included the line “Might buy the Cowboys and that’s how I’ll spend my Sundays,” while Nickelback’s song featured the line “And a bathroom I can play baseball in.”
“These lyrics reference different sports in different contexts, and do not approach the threshold of striking similarity,” the appellate judges wrote. “No reasonable juror would think that Nickelback could have produced its lyric about baseball only by copying Johnston’s lyric about football.”
Released on Nickelback’s 2005 album, All the Right Reasons, “Rockstar” has not aged well with critics. In 2008, the Guardian said the song “makes literally no sense and is the worst thing of all time.” In 2012, Buzzfeed listed it as the second-worst song ever written, citing it as an example of “why everyone hates Nickelback so much.” But the song was a commercial hit, eventually reaching No. 6 on the Billboard Hot 100 in September 2007 and ultimately spending nearly a year on the chart.
Johnston sued in May 2020, claiming the hit song had stolen “substantial portions” of his own “Rock Star,” including the “tempo, song form, melodic structure, harmonic structures and lyrical themes.” In particular, he cited similar lyrics about rock star lifestyles, making huge amounts of money and having famous friends.
But in March 2023, U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman that Johnston’s case at times “borders on the absurd.” He said any similarities between the two songs were just “outlandish stereotypes and images associated with being a huge, famous, rock star,” and that much of the rest of the songs were different.
“Stated simply, they do not sound alike,” the judge wrote. “Where both songs evoke similar themes, they are rendered dissimilar through the vivid detail of the original expression in Nickelback’s lyrics.”
On Monday, the Fifth Circuit upheld that decision – meaning that, barring an extremely unlikely trip to the U.S. Supreme Court, the case is over for good.
In the ruling, the appeals court also upheld another important finding: That there was zero evidence that frontman Chad Kroeger and the other members of the rock band ever heard Johnston’s earlier song. Such “access” is a key question in any copyright lawsuit; without showing “access”, an accuser like Johnston must prove that two songs are essentially identical.
In appealing that ruling, Johnston argued that his band Snowblind Revival and Nickelback were “moving in relatively the same circles,” or that UMG executives had potentially attended one of his band’s shows at an Austin concert venue. But the appeals court was unmoved, calling it “mere speculation.”
“Inferring access from this evidence would require ‘leaps of logic’ that are not supported by the record,” the appeals court wrote. “A jury would have to infer that the executives Johnston named actually attended Snowblind’s shows or received one of his demo CDs, and that these executives then showed the song to Nickelback. This “chain of hypothetical transmittals is insufficient …especially in the face of testimony from Nickelback members and relevant executives that they had never heard of Johnston’s song.”
Attorneys for both sides did not immediately return requests for comment on Wednesday.
Sean “Diddy” Combs has filed his first legal response to allegations that he “sex trafficked” and “gang raped” a 17-year-old girl in 2003, telling a federal court that the allegations are “fictional” and violate his constitutional right to due process.
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
The lawsuit, filed in December, was one of several abuse cases filed against the hip hop mogul late last year. In it, an unnamed Jane Doe accuser claimed that Combs and former Bad Boy Records president Harve Pierre “plied” her with drugs and alcohol before raping her in a Manhattan recording studio when she was just a high school junior.
But in his first formal response to the lawsuit, attorneys for Combs tell a federal court Tuesday that the events simply did not happen: “He never participated in, witnessed, or was or is presently aware of any misconduct, sexual or otherwise, relating to plaintiff in any circumstance whatsoever.”
Trending on Billboard
Led by prominent entertainment litigator Shawn Holley, Combs’ attorneys not only argue that the allegations are false, but that they are unconstitutional. They say that the statute cited in the lawsuit — New York City’s Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Law — is itself unconstitutional “on its face,” and that his accuser’s “decision to wait more than two decades” has cost Combs “the ability to defend himself fully and fairly.”
“For example, some or all evidence that otherwise would have been available if the action had been promptly commenced may be unavailable, lost, or compromised,” Holley writes. “The absence of evidence materially impacts defendant’s ability to defend against essential aspects of plaintiff’s claims. Witness identification, availability, and recollections are likely compromised due to the substantial passage of time since the alleged incident.”
The lawyers for Combs also say the case violates the so-called doctrine of unclean hands – meaning the accuser filed the lawsuit in bad faith. In making that argument, they said the lawsuit “alleges an entirely fictional account that never occurred.” They also argue that photos cited by the accuser in her complaint could be fake, disputing the “context, genuineness, and/or accuracy” of the images.
Combs was hit with a deluge of abuse claims late last year, first in the form of 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, and then hit with the current case over the alleged 2003 rape of Jane Doe.
Combs has already strongly denied all of the allegations. In a statement in December, he said: “I did not do any of the awful things being alleged. I will fight for my name, my family and for the truth.”
In her complaint, Jane Doe claimed 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.
Also on Tuesday, Pierre filed his own formal response to the lawsuit, saying he “never participated in the sexual assault of the Plaintiff nor did he ever witness anyone else sexually assaulting the plaintiff.” Two corporate entities named in the lawsuit — Daddy’s House Recordings, Inc. and Bad Boy Entertainment Holdings, Inc. – also asked to be dismissed from the case, arguing they could not be held liable for any alleged wrongdoing by Pierre and Combs.
In a statement to Billboard on Wednesday, Jane Doe’s lawyers sharply rejected the arguments from Combs’ lawyers: “The deeply troubling allegations against the defendants by multiple women speak for themselves. The ridiculous claim that the photos are somehow fake and the law at issue is unconstitutional are nothing more than desperate attempts to conjure a defense where none exists.”
Read Diddy’s full legal filing here:
The unnamed woman who filed a sexual abuse lawsuit against Interscope Records co-founder Jimmy Iovine in November has dropped the case, according to a document filed in New York court on Thursday (Feb. 15). The case has been “discontinued in its entirety with prejudice,” meaning the woman cannot refile. Representatives for Iovine and his accuser […]
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: Sony Music files a lawsuit claiming the Whitney Houston biopic didn’t pay to use her songs; one of Kanye’s new songs is pulled from streamers after accusations of copyright infringement; a federal judge orders Cam’ron to pay a photographer for using an image of himself; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: Was the Whitney Houston Movie Out of Sync?
If you’re going to make a musical biopic, it’s important to sign a sync licensing deal. But it doesn’t mean much if you don’t actually pay for it.
Trending on Billboard
In a lawsuit filed last week, Sony Music Entertainment accused the producers of the 2022 biopic Whitney Houston: I Wanna Dance With Somebody of doing exactly that. More than a year after the film was released, the label says it hasn’t been paid a dime for the use of more than 20 songs like “I Will Always Love You.”
Musical biopics are big business – 2018’s Bohemian Rhapsody earned more $900 million at the box office and Baz Luhrmann’s 2022 Elvis made $288 million. But as we noted in this space a few weeks back, they pose a unique challenge that isn’t present for a run-of-the-mill true-life movie: you essentially must secure the ability to play the music of the star in question.
In last week’s lawsuit, Sony made a point to note that dynamic: “Unlike other types of films, musical biopics by their nature require use of the subject musician’s music, as it is nearly impossible to explain the importance of a musician’s creative genius or unique style and talent without the use of the musician’s music.”
So then what happened with Wanna Dance? Go read the full story here, including access to the actual lawsuit filed by Sony Music.
Other top stories this week…
KANYE SONG PULLED – Kanye West’s track “Good (Don’t Die)” was removed from Spotify and other platforms after the estate of legendary singer Donna Summer claimed that the song featured an unlicensed interpolation of her 1977 hit “I Feel Love.” Ye’s album itself, Vultures 1, was also briefly removed from digital platforms over a dispute with the original distributor – but still debuted at No. 1 on the Billboard 200.
CAM’RON’S CAMERA WRONG – A federal judge ordered Cam’ron to pay more than $50,000 to a photographer for using her photo – a famous shot of the Dipset rapper wearing a fuzzy pink coat and hat while holding a matching flip phone – on a slew of merchandise without permission. He’s just the latest in a long list of celebrities who have faced costly legal actions for using copyrighted images of themselves without paying the photographer.
CASE DISMISSED – Roddy Ricch won a ruling from a federal judge dismissing a copyright lawsuit that claimed the rapper stole key elements of his chart-topping 2019 song “The Box” from a 1975 song track called “Come On Down.” The judge said that Ricch’s song had “significant dissimilarities” from the earlier tune – a common sample in the hip-hop world – and that “no reasonable jury” would call Ricch an infringer.
RUSSELL SIMMONS ACCUSATIONS – The embattled music mogul was hit with a new lawsuit over allegations that he raped a former Def Jam video producer in the 1990s, the latest in a long list of public abuse allegations Simmons. Days later, the Def Jam founder was named in a second civil case – this time by a previous abuse accuser (former record executive Drew Dixon) over claims that Simmons defamed her by suggesting during a December interview that she was lying about her accusations against him.
SUSPICIOUS MINDERS? – Priscilla Presley is facing a lawsuit that claims she illegally turned her back on a former business partner named Brigitte Kruse, who claims she helped Elvis Presley’s ex-wife “dig herself out of impending financial ruin” and played a key role in getting the recent Priscilla movie made. Presley’s lawyer tell a different story, saying Priscilla rightly split with Kruse after discovering serious financial wrongdoing.
DANCE DANCE RESOLUTION – Fortnite owner Epic Games reached an agreement to end a lawsuit filed by celebrity choreographer Kyle Hanagami that claimed the gamemaker turned his dance moves into a lucrative “emote” that Fortnite players could buy. The deal with Hanagami, who has worked with BTS, Jennifer Lopez, Justin Bieber and Britney Spears, came months after a federal appeals court issued a first-of-its-kind ruling that allowed the case to move forward toward a scheduled trial this spring.
GLORIA TREVI CASE EXPLAINED – Mexican pop star Gloria Trevi is facing a complex legal battle over renewed allegations of serious sexual wrongdoing involving her former manager Sergio Andrade – claims she strongly denies by arguing that she, too, was a victim of his abuse. To get you up to speed, Billboard senior editor Griselda Flores put together a deep-dive timeline of Trevi’s legal woes – go read it here.
A federal judge has ordered Cam’ron to pay more than $50,000 to a photographer for using her photo – a shot of the Dipset rapper wearing a fuzzy pink coat and hat while holding a matching flip phone – on a slew of merchandise without permission.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
A year after Djamilla Cochran sued the rapper (real name Cameron Giles) and his company Dipset Couture for slapping her image on merch, Judge William Martini ruled Thursday that he had indeed committed copyright infringement. It was an easy win for Cochran, since Cam never responded to the lawsuit or offered any defenses.
In his ruling, the judge ordered Cam to pay $40,530 in so-called statutory damages — many times the $5,790 licensing fee that Getty Images would have charged him to use the image on commercial products if he had sought permission.
Trending on Billboard
“The court finds that a statutory damages award of seven times the licensing fee is sufficient to compensate plaintiff for the infringement of her copyright and to deter future infringements by punishing the defendants,” the judge said. He also ordered the rapper to repay the $10,691 that Cochran spent to bring the lawsuit – a common add-on penalty in copyright cases.
A rep for Cam’ron did not immediately return a request for comment.
Cochran’s image (featured above this story) captured Cam’ron at a New York fashion show in 2003, wearing a flashy shade of pink that would become a key part of his brand identity. In 2016, GQ magazine used the photo atop an article titled “Cam’ron Is Very Particular When It Comes to the Color Pink,” saying that the rapper had “defined himself with an iconic pink mink coat” at that fashion show.
In an April lawsuit filed in New Jersey federal court, Cochran claimed that Cam had featured the image on t-shirts, jewelry and a slew of other merchandise sold by his Dipset Couture — including shower curtains, pillows, swimsuits, socks and even a birthday cake.
The complaint came with numerous screenshots of Dipset Couture’s product listings and Cam’ron’s posts promoting them, and said Cam’ron had been alerted numerous times that he was using the image without a license.
“Getty Images notified defendants of their infringing activities by mail and email on multiple occasions,” Cochran’s lawyers wrote. “Despite those notifications, defendants continued to sell merchandise and continued to display the photograph on website and accounts.”
While it might sound unfair to a celebrity, the copyrights to a photo are almost always retained by the person who snapped it. Being featured in an image doesn’t grant someone a right to use it for free, and certainly not on commercial merchandise.
That’s not a new dilemma for stars. Over the last few years, Miley Cyrus, Dua Lipa, Justin Bieber, Ariana Grande, Emily Ratajkowski, LeBron James, Katy Perry and others have all faced copyright cases after they re-used photos of themselves snapped by someone else.
Sony Music Entertainment is suing the producers of the 2022 biopic Whitney Houston: I Wanna Dance With Somebody, accusing them of failing to pay for the more than 20 Whitney tracks that appeared in the movie.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
In a lawsuit filed Thursday in New York federal court, Sony claims that Anthem Films, Black Label Media and others behind the movie signed deals for sync licenses to feature songs like “I Will Always Love You” in the movie – but that more than a year after the film was released, the label hasn’t been paid a dime.
“To date, Anthem has not paid the fees, or any portion of the fees, due under the agreements,” Sony’s lawyer, Christine Lepera of the firm Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp, wrote in the complaint. As a result, the Sony says the use of the songs amounts to “willful and deliberate infringement” of its copyrights.
Trending on Billboard
Riding a wave of enthusiasm for musical biopics – 2018’s “Bohemian Rhapsody” earned more $900 million at the box office and Baz Luhrmann’s 2022 “Elvis” made $288 million – “I Wanna Dance” was released in December 2022 to middling reviews and an underwhelming return of $59.8 million gross.
According to Thursday’s lawsuit, Anthem and others signed a sync license agreement on Dec. 5, 2022 – less than ten days before the movie’s release – covering the use of Sony’s sound recordings of Houston’s songs, including “Greatest Love of All,” “I’m Every Woman” and the titular “I Wanna Dance with Somebody.”
“Unlike other types of films, musical biopics by their nature require use of the subject musician’s music, as it is nearly impossible to explain the importance of a musician’s creative genius or unique style and talent without the use of the musician’s music,” Sony wrote. “Aware of the need for authorization to use Plaintiffs’ sound recordings in order to produce a biopic about the life and music of Whitney Houston, and aware of the value of plaintiffs’ catalog, Anthem entered into a license agreement.”
But by August, Sony says it had not been paid anything. After notifying Anthem of the problem, the company allegedly told Sony that it was waiting on funds from a tax credit owed by the state of Massachusetts. But such a payment never came, Sony says.
“As a result of Anthem’s failure to pay the fees to SME, it is clear that there was no license or authorization to use the SME Recordings used in the Film,” the company’s attorneys wrote. “Nevertheless, the Film embodying the SME Recordings was, and continues to be, exhibited, distributed, and exploited.”
As defendants, the lawsuit names Anthem Films, a Boston-area film production company that allegedly produced the movie; NYBO Productions LLC, the entity that allegedly owns the copyright to the movie; Black Label Media, a Los Angeles film finance company; and WH Movie LLC, an entity allegedly created by Black Label to help finance the movie.
According to the lawsuit, the complex corporate structure behind “I Wanna Dance” potentially played into the lack of payment.
Though Sony says it notified Anthem that it was open to waiting for for the Massachusetts tax credit to be paid out, it demanded that such an agreement be formalized in writing. Anthem allegedly refused, saying that Black Label had “approval rights over Anthem’s and NYBO’s expenditures” and ultimately “ordered that Anthem neither pay SME out of the proceeds of the tax credit payment nor direct the relevant tax authority to credit SME the amount of the Fees.”
In technical legal terms, the lawsuit accused Anthem and NYBO of direct copyright infringement, while it accused Black Label and WH Movie of so-called vicarious copyright infringement – meaning they had some control over Anthem and profited from its alleged wrongdoing.
The defendants could not immediately be reached for comment. A spokeswoman for Sony Music did not return a request for comment on the lawsuit.