Legal
Page: 58
Travis Scott is asking to be dismissed from the sprawling litigation over the 2021 disaster at the Astroworld music festival, arguing that safety and security at live events is “not the job of performing artists.”
More than 2,500 people have sued over Astroworld, which left 10 dead and hundreds injured after a crowd crush during Scott’s Nov. 5 show. They claim Scott (real name Jacques Bermon Webster II), Live Nation and other organizers were legally negligent in how they planned the event, and are collectively seeking billions in damages.
But in a motion filed Monday in Houston court, Scott’s attorneys (led by prominent litigator Daniel Petrocelli) argue that the rapper himself cannot be held liable for the tragic incident. Even though the event was promoted under Scott’s name and branding, his lawyers say that he was merely an onstage performer who is not responsible for ensuring audience safety.
Trending on Billboard
“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,” Petrocelli wrote. “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.”
And even if Scott could be theoretically held liable because of his involvement as a promotor, his lawyers say the evidence shows that he did enough to avoid any claims of negligence or other wrongdoing – arguing that he “acted diligently to protect against every reasonably apprehensible danger.”
“When, during festival planning, concerns arose about the risk of a stampede occurring in the festival site, the Scott defendants supported festival organizers’ efforts to eliminate that risk by agreeing to remove certain rides and other attractions at the site,” Petrocelli writes. “Then, when the Scott defendants were told to end the show after Mr. Scott’s guest performer finished performing, they did just that—ending the show as directed.”
The lawsuits over Astroworld, 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 is currently scheduled to start on May 6, according to court records.
With that trial date looming, many of the defendants named in the case are currently asking to be dismissed from the litigation. Earlier this month, a similar request was filed by 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.
“Mr. Graham did not receive any security briefings, was not informed of any crowd control issues, injuries or deaths in the crowd, or any stop show orders at any time either before or during his 14-minute performance,” Drake’s lawyers wrote at the time.
In his motion on Monday, Scott makes similar arguments. He says that his involvement in planning was limited to “creative control” and marketing, and that he and his team were “neither responsible for nor involved in the approval of venue security, safety, or site layout decisions.”
“No one disputes that tragedy struck the Astroworld Festival,” Petrocelli wrote. “But promoting and performing at a concert do not equate to the power to control a crowd or to design a venue safely. Basic tort principles prevent imposing liability on the Scott defendants for a tragedy arising from forces legally controlled by others.”
03/27/2024
The rapper was sued by his ex Cassie in November 2023; it was settled 24 hours later. Here’s what has happened since.
03/27/2024
A rapper popular on TikTok must pay Sony Music more than $800,000 in damages for using a copyrighted sample without permission, a federal judge ruled Wednesday (March 27), saying that the big fine would teach him a six-figure “lesson” about “carefully selecting the materials included in his raps.”
Sony sued Trefuego (real name Dantreal Daevon Clark-Rainbolt) in 2021, accusing him of using a “blatant” sample from a 1986 Japanese instrumental song in his “90mh” — a track that Sony claimed had been featured in 155,000 TikTok videos and streamed 100 million times on Spotify.
After struggling to locate him, a federal judge ruled last year that the 20-year-old rapper had, in fact, infringed Sony’s copyrights. And in a follow-up ruling Wednesday, that same judge ordered him to hand over a whopping $802,997 — covering roughly $700,000 he earned in profits from Spotify and other platforms, and approximately $100,000 he would pay Sony in licensing fees.
Trending on Billboard
“The court hopes this case will serve as a $802,997.23 lesson for defendant in carefully selecting the materials included in his raps,” U.S. District Judge Mark T. Pittman wrote in his decision.
The judge also ordered Trefuego to pay ongoing royalties, including a 50% cut of publishing revenue and a 20% cut of recording revenue, and to repay $2,230 in legal costs incurred by Sony.
“Sony pursued a reasonable, non-frivolous claim to vindicate infringement of its copyrighted work,” Judge Pittman wrote. “Some may query the wisdom of pursuing a claim against a relatively small fish like Trefuego, but that fact does not render Sony’s motivation improper or their lawsuit unreasonable.”
Sony has been chasing Trefuego in some form since January 2021, when the company notified him that it believed “90mh” was built on an illegal sample of “Reflections,” a 1986 song by Japanese composer Toshifumi Hinata. After filing takedown requests in August 2022 to get the song pulled, Sony finally launched its lawsuit that December.
In its complaint, the label pointed out that Hinata’s song had seen a recent surge of popularity after an appearance in Netflix’s 2020 film Tigertail and placement on popular ambient music playlists on Spotify.
“Trefuego brazenly sought to ride the coattails of Hinata’s creativity and popularity without regard to the United States copyright laws or the rights of plaintiffs,” the label’s attorneys wrote at the time. “He used and copied plaintiffs’ work without so much as asking, or paying a cent to plaintiffs, and he continued to exploit that music despite plaintiffs’ demand that he stop.”
Sony’s lawsuit took a bizarre detour last year when Judge Pittman ruled that the label could forgo traditional methods of contacting Trefuego and instead simply send him direct messages on Instagram, Twitter, TikTok and Soundcloud. In doing so, the judge ruled that Sony had made “extensive efforts” and “gone to great lengths” to find Trefuego in real life, including “seven separate attempts” to serve him and hiring a private investigator.
In one particularly notable effort, Sony’s representatives apparently went “to his mother’s house on Mother’s Day in hopes that he would be there to celebrate with her” but still came up empty: “Sadly, he was not there, and his own mother claimed she did not know who he was,” the judge wrote.
With those procedural issues settled, Judge Pittman ruled on the case in November — and sided decisively with Sony. Though the judge noted that the case pitted “one of the largest international entertainment conglomerates on the planet” against “a twenty-year-old kid,” he ruled that the David-and-Goliath posture would not protect Trefuego from liability.
“To quote ’90mh’, this case involves a young man who was ‘too focused on getting dough’ to understand the broader implications of purchasing a creative work without proof of originality or license-to-use,” the judge wrote in his November decision. “To quote ‘90mh’ again, Trefuego likely imagined Sony wouldn’t ‘really want smoke’ enough to prosecute this claim. But they did.”
Neither Trefuego nor a spokeswoman for Sony Music responded to requests for comment.
Attorneys for Madison Square Garden executive James Dolan are firing back at a lawsuit that alleges he pressured a masseuse into unwanted sex while his band was touring with the Eagles, calling his accuser an “opportunist” who is “looking for a quick payday.”
In a motion filed Monday in Manhattan federal court, Dolan’s lawyers asked a federal judge to dismiss the lawsuit, in which a woman named Kellye Croft claims that Dolan coerced her into “unlawful and unwelcome sex acts” on repeated occasions during the 2013 tour.
Arguing that the allegations were “completely manufactured,” Dolan’s attorneys told the judge that it is “an unfortunate truth that some men, by virtue of their status, have become targets for opportunists looking for a quick payday.”
Trending on Billboard
“If this case were to proceed … plaintiff would be exposed as such an opportunist, and her claims would be soundly rejected for the lies that they are,” Dolan’s attorney lead counsel E. Danya Perry wrote. “But this action should never reach that stage, as plaintiff’s complaint is entirely deficient.”
Dolan is the majority owner/CEO of Madison Square Garden Entertainment, a live music giant that operates the famed New York City arena in addition to Manhattan’s Radio City Music Hall, the Las Vegas Sphere and other prominent venues.
Croft sued him in January, claiming she had been hired to serve as a massage therapist for Glenn Frey during the 2013 tour, on which Dolan’s band (JD & The Straight Shot) opened for Eagles. She says she thought the job was the “opportunity of a lifetime,” but that she quickly realized the real reason she was there: “Dolan was extremely assertive, and pressured Ms. Croft into unwanted sexual intercourse.”
The lawsuit also claimed that Dolan later facilitated an incident in which Croft was assaulted by Harvey Weinstein, the disgraced film producer whose many sexual assault allegations helped spark the #MeToo movement in 2017. Dolan previously served as a director at The Weinstein Company, and the lawsuit claimed that the two moguls were “close friends and business partners.”
In Monday’s response, Dolan’s attorneys took particular exception to the Weinstein allegations, calling them “scandalous and irrelevant” claims that had been designed to compensate for flaws in the case: “This transparent reliance on headline-grabbing, yet legally baseless, accusations of liability-by-association cannot save plaintiff’s case.”
Dolan’s motion also argued that the inclusion of Weinstein was actually a “fatal” weakness in one part of the case. They claimed that bankruptcy proceedings for The Weinstein Company resulted in a court order releasing all former directors from allegations that they aided and abetted Weinstein’s conduct — one of the claims leveled against Dolan in the complaint.
In a response statement on Wednesday, Croft’s attorney Douglas Wigdor called Dolan’s argument “shameful” and said his client had not participated in or benefited from the Weinstein bankruptcy, or even been notified of it.
“To somehow suggest that Dolan should receive a ‘get out of jail free’ card for his alleged intentional acts of trafficking our client, shows the extent to which he is willing to go to avoid having to defend the facts of our case,” Wigdor wrote.
Separately on Monday, attorneys for companies owned by music executive Irving Azoff also filed their own response to the case. While the lawsuit mostly centered on Dolan’s alleged conduct, it also accused the Azoff Company of violating federal sex trafficking laws by “facilitating Dolan’s behavior.”
In their motion, Azoff’s attorneys demanded not only that the claims be dismissed, but that Croft and her lawyers be legally sanctioned for filing “frivolous and vexatious” allegations without any real evidence to support them.
“As was explained to plaintiff’s counsel before the suit was commenced, the Azoff entities have never participated in any sex trafficking venture, and the complaint does not allege a single fact plausibly or remotely suggesting otherwise,” wrote the Azoff Company’s attorney Daniel Petrocelli.
“The decision by plaintiff and her counsel to include [such claims] in a federal pleading with nodiligence or investigation in order to publicly and falsely charge the Azoff Entities with despicable, illegal conduct fully justifies the imposition of … sanctions.”
In one portion of Croft’s complaint, her lawyers included a photograph of Dolan, Azoff and Weinstein standing together in 2015, saying that “these men were close to one another, and thus almost certainly knew details about each other’s personal lives.”
But in Monday’s motion seeking to dismiss the case and punish Croft’s lawyers, Azoff’s attorneys called the inclusion of Weinstein in the complaint a “gratuitous and unavailing” tactic that had been designed to prove “guilt-by-association” in the absence of any real evidence.
“Grasping at straws, plaintiff tries to link Weinstein to the Azoff entities by a single photo of Dolan, Weinstein, and Irving Azoff at an advertising trade conference in 2015,” Petrocelli wrote. “Awarding the Azoff entities their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs in bringing this motion would deter plaintiff’s counsel from asserting such baseless, bad faith claims in the future.”
In his statement Wednesday, Croft’s attorney Wigdor called those arguments “meritless” and reiterated the allegations against Azoff’s companies: “We look forward to defeating these motions and moving forward with this litigation.”
Taylor Swift‘s father, Scott Swift, will not face charges after he was accused of assaulting a cameraman in Australia. Authorities confirmed in a statement to Billboard on Tuesday (March 26) that New South Wales police have decided not to take any further action in regards to Scott, who was accused last month of assaulting a […]
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 legal battle between Michael Jackson’s mother and his estate over a massive deal; a ruling on Metallica’s COVID lawsuit that quotes Taylor Swift; a new first-of-its-kind statute in Tennessee aimed at AI-generated deepfakes; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: Jackson Family Feud
Fifteen years after Michael Jackson’s death, his mother is locked in an increasingly acrimonious legal battle with his estate – and, as of last week, with her own grandson, too.
The trouble started last year, when Katherine Jackson filed legal objections to an unspecified transaction that had been proposed by the estate. The disputed deal wasn’t explicitly named in filings, but it appears to be the estimated $600 million catalog deal with Sony Music that was first reported by Billboard last month. A judge rejected those complaints in April 2023, but Katherine is now battling to overturn that ruling at a California appeals court.
Trending on Billboard
Why the sudden flashpoint last week? Because Katherine is asking the estate to pay for the legal bills she’s incurred while litigating her objections – a request that drew sharp rebukes.
One came from Michael’s son, Bigi Jackson, who says that Katherine’s ongoing objections to the Sony deal are a “waste” of time and that it would be “unfair” to force him and his siblings to foot the bill for them. Another came from estate executors John Branca and John McClain, who say the estate has already paid the elder Jackson more than $55 million since Michael’s death and shouldn’t have to pay for her “frivolous” appeal.
Go read our full stories on Bigi’s objections and the executors’ pushback, and stay tuned for how it all shakes out…
Other top stories this week…
METALLICA, COVID AND… TAYLOR? – Judges can be Swifties, too. In an unusual ruling that quoted from Taylor Swift’s “All Too Well,” a California appeals court rejected a lawsuit filed by the band Metallica that demanded its insurance company pay for more than $3 million in losses stemming from concerts that were canceled due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The case is one of numerous lawsuits, many of them unsuccessful, that have aimed at forcing insurance companies to pay for losses caused by pandemic cancellations.
DIDDY’S HOUSES RAIDED – Law enforcement agents reportedly searched homes owned by Sean “Diddy” Combs in Los Angeles and Miami as part of an ongoing sex trafficking investigation led by federal prosecutors in New York. The federal raids came amid a flurry of civil sexual abuse lawsuits against the hip-hop mogul – allegations Combs has strongly denied. It’s not clear whether the rapper himself is the target of the federal investigation.
NEW AI VOICE STATUTE – Tennessee enacted first-in-the-nation legislation aimed at protecting musical artists and other individuals from so-called deep fakes that are generated by artificial intelligence – an issue that’s been top of mind for the industry since a fake Drake song went viral last year. The new law – the Ensuring Likeness Voice and Image Security, or ELVIS, Act – updates the state’s existing rules on image and likeness rights, explicitly including a person’s voice for the first time.
PYRRHI© VICTORY? – Six months after Sam Smith and Normani beat a copyright lawsuit claiming they had stolen elements of their 2019 hit “Dancing With a Stranger” from an earlier track, a federal judge refused to force their accuser to reimburse the legal fees they spent litigating the case — a bill the stars say exceeded $700,000. While unsuccessful, the judge ruled that the case was “neither frivolous nor objectively unreasonable.”
A pair of Sean “Diddy” Combs’ homes in Los Angeles and Miami were reportedly raided by law enforcement on Monday (March 25).
Fox 11 reports that the raids were executed by Homeland Security “in connection” with an ongoing federal sex trafficking investigation.
Helicopters scoped out the chaotic scene in Holmby Hills. Fox added that the property was registered to Bad Boy Films under Diddy’s Bad Boy Entertainment entity along with one of the embattled mogul’s daughters.
With officers swarming the Los Angeles property, video footage appeared to show individuals being detained, two of whom appeared to be Diddy’s sons King Combs and Justin Combs. It’s unknown whether Diddy was at either home during the raids.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
TMZ reported on Monday that Homeland Security of New York launched the investigation and the Southern District of New York is handling the case linked to Diddy.
Billboard has reached out to Diddy’s reps for comment as well as the Los Angeles and Miami police departments.
Trending on Billboard
Diddy has been the subject of numerous sexual assault-related civil lawsuits. Ex-girlfriend Cassie lit the fuse in November 2023 with a lawsuit accusing Diddy of physical abuse, repeated sexual assault and trafficking while they were dating. The two parties agreed to settle the lawsuit less than 24 hours later.
Soon after, Combs was then sued by two other women who claimed they were sexually abused by the hip-hop mogul.
On Dec. 6, a fourth woman sued Diddy, claiming 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.
In the months since, Diddy has been accused of sexual assault in several sprawling complaints. The Bad Boy CEO has denied any wrongdoing and attempted to clear his name with a December post to social media.
“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 reputation and my legacy. 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.”
A lawyer for Diddy vehemently denied the allegations against his client and referred to the accusations as “pure fiction.”
This is a developing story
A group of companies representing Spotify, Deezer, Epic Games and others, applauded the U.S. Department of Justice’s antitrust lawsuit filed against Apple on Thursday (March 21), calling it a “strong stand against Apple’s stranglehold” on mobile apps.
“[Apple] stifles competition and hurts American consumers and developers alike,” Rick VanMeter, executive director for The Coalition for App Fairness (CAF), said in a statement. “As this case unfolds in the coming years more must be done now to end the anticompetitive practices of all mobile app gatekeepers.”
Apple did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Trending on Billboard
In its sweeping lawsuit filed in New Jersey federal court on Thursday, the U.S. Justice Department alleged that Apple violated antitrust laws by undermining apps and products that could compete with Apple or that could make customers less reliant on its iPhone systems, such as its digital wallet.
The U.S. case follows similar legal actions brought against Apple in the European Union, the United Kingdom and Asia, and it addresses some of the Apple policies that Spotify founder/CEO Daniel Ek has railed against for years.
“There’s global consensus that Apple’s abuses of its monopoly power have stifled innovation and threaten the digital economy,” Avery Gardiner, a lawyer and competition policy advocate for Spotify, wrote on X. “The DOJ case makes it clear that Apple harms the developers and creators who are hard at work to build the very best products and services for consumers.”
Both CAF and Gardiner acknowledged the DOJ’s case will take time to have any impact, and they urged Congress to pass The Open App Markets Act, a bill Ek has lobbied for since it was introduced in August 2021.
The Open App Markets Act would bar Apple, Google and other app stores with more than 50 million users from forcing app developers to use their payment systems as a condition of distribution. It would also block app store owners from punishing app developers if they extend deals to customers or offer their app for lower prices elsewhere.
Ek has argued that Apple and others act as anti-competitive gatekeepers because the terms required for inclusion in their app stores prevent Spotify and others from telling consumers about potentially cheaper bundle options, like Spotify’s duo and family plans. Currently, Spotify has to send customers to its website to sign up for those plans.
The Justice Department’s case also seeks for Apple to loosen restrictions on its messaging tools and to add features to the Apple wallet. Gardiner and CAF praised the case for what they described as an attempt to level the playing field.
“Competition is the foundation of innovation, and [this case] represents the latest step in the fight for a fair and competitive internet,” Gardiner wrote.
Michael Jackson’s estate claimed in legal filings Thursday (Mar. 21) that his mother, Katherine Jackson, has received more than $55 million since the singer’s death — a revelation that came during an acrimonious dispute between the estate’s executors and the elder Jackson.
The new filings, obtained by Billboard, were aimed at proving that the estate itself shouldn’t have to pay for Katherine’s recent legal bills, which stem from her efforts to block an unspecified business transaction — believed to be the estate’s recent estimated $600 million catalog deal with Sony.
In making that argument, estate executors John Branca and John McClain argued Thursday that “virtually no request of Mrs. Jackson for her care or maintenance has been declined” in the years since Michael’s 2009 death.
Trending on Billboard
“Contrary to claims made by Mrs. Jackson’s counsel, the executors have in fact provided liberally for Mrs. Jackson’s maintenance, care and well being,” attorneys for Branca and McClain wrote. “Since Michael’s death, the executors have expended for Mrs. Jackson’s benefit more than $55 million.”
The elder Jackson allegedly received more than $33 million in cash, including an ongoing allowance of $160,0000 per month, plus a $15 million luxury home, the estate claimed. Branca and McClain also claimed that they provided Katherine with an emergency $3.7 million payment in December to satisfy delinquent income tax liabilities.
“It is difficult to imagine that the trustees could provide any more liberally for Mrs. Jackson,” attorneys for the executors wrote.
Thursday’s filing is the latest development in an ongoing feud between Katherine and the executors over her opposition to the unspecified business transaction. While the disputed deal has not been named in court documents, the Jackson estate recently struck an estimated $600 million deal to sell part of the singer’s catalog to Sony, the terms of which were first reported by Billboard last month.
After the Jackson estate sought court approval for the unnamed deal in 2022, Katherine filed objections with the court. But in April 2023, the judge overseeing the estate rejected those objections and ruled that the deal could move forward. Katherine then filed an appeal, which is still pending.
In December, Katherine filed motions asking that the estate pay for the legal bills she had incurred in making her objections, including the ongoing appeal. In an initial response earlier this month, Branca and McClain strongly opposed the request to pay for what they called her “failed objection” and “meritless appeal.”
Earlier this week, Michael’s son Blanket echoed those objections, arguing that his grandmother’s appeal was an “extreme longshot” and that it would be “unfair” to force him and his siblings to pay for that case.
In their new filing on Thursday, Branca and McClain went even further — claiming that the estate should not have to pay Katherine’s lawyers for filing objections that had caused “substantial damage.”
“Importantly, this petition is not about Mrs. Jackson’s maintenance, care, comfort and support,” the executors’ attorneys wrote. “This petition is about payment of attorneys’ fees for an objection filed on Mrs. Jackson’s behalf, which the court overruled, and the subsequent, frivolous and still pending appeal.”
An attorney for Katherine Jackson did not immediately return a request for comment.
Tennessee governor Bill Lee signed the ELVIS Act into law Thursday (Mar. 21), legislation designed to further protect the state’s artists from artificial intelligence deep fakes. The bill, more formally named the Ensuring Likeness Voice and Image Security Act of 2024, replaces the state’s old right of publicity law, which only included explicit protections for one’s “name, photograph, or likeness,” expanding protections to include voice- and AI-specific concerns for the first time.
Gov. Lee signed the bill into law from a local honky tonk, surrounded by superstar supporters like Luke Bryan and Chris Janson. Lee joked that it was “the coolest bill signing ever.”
The ELVIS Act was introduced by Gov. Lee in January along with State Senate Majority Leader Jack Johnson (R-27) and House Majority Leader William Lambert (R-44), and it has since garnered strong support from the state’s artistic class. Talents like Lindsay Ell, Michael W. Smith, Natalie Grant, Matt Maher and Evanescence‘s David Hodges have been vocal in their support for the bill.
Trending on Billboard
It also gained support from the recorded music industry and the Human Artistry Campaign, a global initiative of entertainment organizations that pushes for a responsible approach to AI. The initiative has buy-in from more than 180 organizations worldwide, including the RIAA, NMPA, BMI, ASCAP, Recording Academy and American Association of Independent Music (A2IM).
Right of publicity protections vary state-to-state in the United States, leading to a patchwork of laws that make enforcing one’s ownership over one’s name, likeness and voice more complicated. There is an even greater variation among right of publicity laws postmortem. As AI impersonation concerns have grown more prevalent over the last year, there has been a greater push by the music business to gain a federal right of publicity.
The ELVIS Act replaces the Personal Rights Protection Act of 1984, which was passed, in part, to extend Elvis Presley‘s publicity rights after he passed away. (At the time, Tennessee did not recognize a postmortem right of publicity). Along with explicitly including a person’s voice as a protected right for the first time, the ELVIS Act also broadens which uses of one’s name, image, photograph and voice are barred.
Previously, the Personal Rights Protection Act only banned uses of a person’s name, photograph and likeness “for purpose of advertising,” which would not include the unauthorized use of AI voices for performance purposes. The ELVIS Act does not limit liability based on context, so it would likely bar any unauthorized use, including in a documentary, song or book, among other mediums.
The federal government is also working on solutions to address publicity rights concerns. Within hours of Gov. Lee’s introduction of the ELVIS Act in Tennessee back in January, a bipartisan group of U.S. House lawmakers revealed the No Artificial Intelligence Fake Replicas And Unauthorized Duplications Act (No AI FRAUD Act), which aims to establish a framework for protecting one’s voice and likeness on a federal level and lays out First Amendment protections. It is said to complement the Senate’s Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe Act (NO FAKES Act), a draft bill that was introduced last October.
While most of the music business is aligned on creating a federal right of publicity, David Israelite, president/CEO of the National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA), warned in a speech delivered at an Association of Independent Music Publishers (AIMP) meeting in February that “while we are 100% supportive of the record labels’ priority to get a federal right of publicity…it does not have a good chance. Within the copyright community, we don’t even agree on [it]. Guess who doesn’t want a federal right of publicity? Film and TV. Guess who’s bigger than the music industry? Film and TV.”
The subject of AI voice cloning has been a controversial topic in the music business since Ghostwriter released the so-called “Fake-Drake” song “Heart On My Sleeve,” which used the AI technology without permission. In some cases, this form of AI can present novel creative opportunities — including its use for pitch records, lyric translations, estate marketing and fan engagement — but it also poses serious threats. If an artist’s voice is cloned by AI without their permission or knowledge, it can confuse, offend, mislead or even scam fans.