Legal
Page: 59
Universal Music Group (UMG) and other music companies are suing an artificial intelligence platform called Anthropic PBC for using copyrighted song lyrics to “train” its software — marking the first major lawsuit in what is expected to be a key legal battle over the future of AI music.
In a complaint filed Wednesday morning (Oct. 18) in Nashville federal court, lawyers for UMG, Concord Music Group, ABKCO and other music publishers accused Anthropic of violating the companies’ copyrights en masse by using vast numbers of songs to help its AI models learn how to spit out new lyrics.
“In the process of building and operating AI models, Anthropic unlawfully copies and disseminates vast amounts of copyrighted works,” lawyers for the music companies wrote. “Publishers embrace innovation and recognize the great promise of AI when used ethically and responsibly. But Anthropic violates these principles on a systematic and widespread basis.”
A spokesperson for Anthropic did not immediately return a request for comment.
The new lawsuit is similar to cases filed by visual artists over the unauthorized use of their works to train AI image generators, as well as cases filed by authors like Game of Thrones writer George R.R. Martin and novelist John Grisham over the use of their books. But it’s the first to squarely target music.
AI models like the popular ChatGPT are “trained” to produce new content by feeding them vast quantities of existing works known as “inputs.” In the case of AI music, that process involves huge numbers of songs. Whether doing so infringes the copyrights to that underlying material is something of an existential question for the booming sector, since depriving AI models of new inputs could limit their abilities.
Major music companies and other industry players have already argued that such training is illegal. Last year, the RIAA said that any use of copyrighted songs to build AI platforms “infringes our members’ rights.” In April, when UMG asked Spotify and other streamers in April to stop allowing AI companies to use their platforms to ingest music, it said it “will not hesitate to take steps to protect our rights.”
On Wednesday, the company took those steps. In the lawsuit, it said Anthropic “profits richly” from the “vast troves of copyrighted material that Anthropic scrapes from the internet.”
“Unlike songwriters, who are creative by nature, Anthropic’s AI models are not creative — they depend entirely on the creativity of others,” lawyers for the publishers wrote. “Yet, Anthropic pays nothing to publishers, their songwriters, or the countless other copyright owners whose copyrighted works Anthropic uses to train its AI models. Anthropic has never even attempted to license the use of Publishers’ lyrics.”
In the case ahead, the key battle line will be over whether the unauthorized use of proprietary music to train an AI platform is nonetheless legal under copyright’s fair use doctrine — an important rule that allows people to reuse protected works without breaking the law.
Historically, fair use enabled critics to quote from the works they were dissecting, or parodists to use existing materials to mock them. But more recently, it’s also empowered new technologies: In 1984, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the VCR was protected by fair use; in 2007, a federal appeals court ruled that Google Image search was fair use.
In Wednesday’s complaint, UMG and the other publishers seemed intent on heading off any kind of fair use defense. They argued that Anthropic’s behavior would harm the market for licensing lyrics to AI services that actually pay for licenses — a key consideration in any fair use analysis.
“Anthropic is depriving Publishers and their songwriters of control over their copyrighted works and the hard-earned benefits of their creative endeavors, it is competing unfairly against those website developers that respect the copyright law and pay for licenses, and it is undermining existing and future licensing markets in untold ways,” the publishers wrote.
In addition to targeting Anthropic’s use of songs as inputs, the publishers claim that the material produced by the company’s AI model also infringes their lyrics: “Anthropic’s AI models generate identical or nearly identical copies of those lyrics, in clear violation of publishers’ copyrights.”
Such litigation might only be the first step in setting national policy on how AI platforms can use copyrighted music, with legislative efforts close behind. At a hearing in May, Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) repeatedly grilled the CEO of the company behind ChatGPT about how he and others planned to “compensate the artist.”
“If I can go in and say ‘write me a song that sounds like Garth Brooks,’ and it takes part of an existing song, there has to be compensation to that artist for that utilization and that use,” Blackburn said. “If it was radio play, it would be there. If it was streaming, it would be there.”
Dr. Luke and the estate of the late Juice WRLD are facing a copyright lawsuit that claims they unfairly cut out one of the co-writers of the rapper’s 2021 track “Not Enough.”
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
The case, filed in California federal court Tuesday, claims that an artist named PD Beats (Pierre Orpheus DeJournette) is a credited co-writer of the song, but that Dr. Luke (Lukasz Sebastian Gottwald) and the estate of Juice WRLD (Jarad Anthony Higgins) have refused to treat him as co-owner of the copyright.
“Defendants have released, marketed, distributed, and monetized the subject song without accrediting or providing PD Beats his proportional share of the revenue,” his lawyers wrote in their complaint. “Defendants have failed to meaningfully respond, necessitating this action.”
DeJournette claims that he contributed “original guitar, performance, and production” to “Not Enough,” in addition to “writing the beats and programming the 808s” – a reference to the Roland TR-808 drum machine. Without the material he added, DeJournette says the song would be “missing key elements that form the basis of the subject song’s audience appeal.”
The lawsuit claims that DeJournette was listed as a co-writer in certain credits – although he doesn’t specify where – and that he and the other writers should “equally own the copyrights.” His lawsuit asks for a judicial declaration that he is indeed a co-owner, and a court-ordered accounting of the song’s revenue.
Reps for Dr. Luke and Juice WRLD’s estate did not immediately return requests for comment on Wednesday.
Juice WRLD, a pioneering voice in emo rap and SoundCloud rap, died of a drug overdose in December 2019 while onboard a private jet flying from Los Angeles to Chicago. Citing law enforcement sources, TMZ reported days later that the rapper swallowed a large number of pills to hide them from federal agents who were waiting for the plane to land.
Released on his posthumous 2021 album Fighting Demons, “Not Enough” spent a week at No. 80 on the Hot 100. The album itself was a bigger hit, spending 72 weeks on the Billboard 200 and peaking at No. 2.
Tuesday’s lawsuit named Juice WRLD’s mother, Carmella Wallace, as a defendant because she serves as the executor of his estate, as well as a company called Juice WRLD Music LLC. Other defendants included co-writers CB Mix (Chris Barnett) and KBeaZy (Keegan Christopher Bach); Universal Music Group, which released the song under its Interscope Records imprint; and Opus Music Group, which acquired a majority stake in Juice WRLD’s catalog in 2022.
Liam Payne is not allowed to drive in England for the next six months, a ban that stems from a February speeding incident, BBC News reports. The former One Direction member was hit with a speeding citation on Feb. 24 after driving 43 mph in a 30 mph zone. The 30-year-old was driving in a […]
Six months after ex-Fugees rapper Prakazrel “Pras” Michel was convicted on foreign lobbying charges, he’s now demanding a new trial — making the extraordinary claim that his ex-lawyer used an unproven artificial intelligence (AI) tool to craft closing arguments because he owned a stake in the tech platform.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
In a Monday (Oct. 16) filing in D.C. federal court, Michel claimed attorney David Kenner “utterly failed” him during the April trial, denying him his constitutional right to effective counsel. Among other shortcomings, the rapper said Kenner outsourced prep work to “inexperienced contract attorneys” and “failed to object to damaging and inadmissible testimony” during the trial.
Most unusual of all, Michel accused Kenner of using “an experimental artificial intelligence program” to draft his closing arguments for the trial, resulting in a deeply flawed presentation. And he claimed Kenner did so because he had an “undisclosed financial stake” in the company and wanted to use Michel’s trial to promote it.
“Michel never had a chance,” the rapper’s new lawyers wrote Monday. “Michel’s counsel was deficient throughout, likely more focused on promoting his AI program … than zealously defending Michel. The net effect was an unreliable verdict.”
Kenner did not immediately return a request for comment on Tuesday.
Michel was charged in 2019 with funneling money from a now-fugitive Malaysian financier through straw donors to Barack Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign. He was also accused of trying to squelch a Justice Department investigation and influence an extradition case on behalf of China under the Trump administration.
In April, following a trial that included testimony from actor Leonardo DiCaprio and former U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Michel was convicted on 10 counts including conspiracy, witness tampering and failing to register as an agent of China.
During that trial, Michel was represented by Kenner, a well-known Los Angeles criminal defense attorney who has previously repped hip-hop luminaries like Snoop Dogg, Suge Knight and, most recently, Tory Lanez. But earlier this summer, Michel asked for permission to replace Kenner with a new team of lawyers; in August, Kenner and his firm were swapped out for lawyers from the national firm ArentFox Schiff.
Now, it’s clear why. In Monday’s filing, Michel’s new lawyers accused Kenner of wide-ranging failures — including many that have nothing to do with AI tools or secret motives. They claim he “outsourced trial preparations” to other lawyers and “failed to familiarize himself with the charged statutes or required elements.” They also say he “overlooked nearly every colorable defense” and “failed to object to damaging and inadmissible testimony, betraying a failure to understand the rules of evidence.”
But the most unusual allegations concerned an alleged scheme to promote EyeLevel.AI, a computer program designed to help attorneys win cases by digesting trial transcripts and other data. Days after the trial concluded, the company put out a press release highlighting its use in the Michel trial, calling it the “first use of generative AI in a federal trial” and quoting Kenner.
“This is an absolute game changer for complex litigation,” Kenner said in the press release. “The system turned hours or days of legal work into seconds. This is a look into the future of how cases will be conducted.”
But according to Michel’s new lawyers, Kenner’s use of the program was harmful, not helpful, to his client’s case. They say it may have led to some smaller mistakes, like Kenner misattributing a Puff Daddy song to the Fugees, but also to massive legal errors, like conflating separate allegations against Michel — an error that Michel’s new lawyers say caused Kenner to make “frivolous” arguments before the jury.
“At bottom, the AI program failed Kenner, and Kenner failed Michel,” Michel’s attorneys at ArentFox Schiff wrote. “The closing argument was deficient, unhelpful, and a missed opportunity that prejudiced the defense.”
According to Michel’s new lawyers, the mistake of using the AI tools was compounded by Kenner’s alleged motive: an undisclosed ownership stake in the startup that sells it. By using a criminal trial as a means to promote a product, Monday’s filing says Kenner created “an extraordinary conflict of interest.”
“Kenner and [his partner]’s decision to elevate their financial interest in the AI program over Michel’s interest in a competent and vigorous defense adversely affected Kenner’s trial performance, as the closing argument was frivolous, missed nearly every colorable argument, and damaged the defense,” they wrote.
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 deep dive into allegations that NYC radio host DJ Envy was complicit in a multi-million dollar real estate scam; country star Maren Morris files for divorce; an explainer on the battle between Coldplay and its longtime manager; an interview with legendary music lawyer Don Passman; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: Top NYC Radio DJ In Hot Water
After news broke last week that DJ Envy, the co-host of the nationally-syndicated hip-hop radio show The Breakfast Club, was accused of taking part in a real estate scam, Billboard dove deep into the complex web of lawsuits, countersuits and bankruptcies that lay out the full picture of the allegations.
In at least 20 civil cases filed in recent months, dozens of investors claim that Cesar Pina and wife Jennifer Pina — New Jersey house-flippers with famous friends — took their money with promises of big profits only to return little or nothing. Lawyers for some of the alleged victims estimate that more than 30 investors have already come forward, seeking over $40 million from the Pinas.
Many of those lawsuits name DJ Envy (RaaShaun Casey) as a co-defendant, citing his close ties to Pina and claiming he used his platform to lend legitimacy to the alleged schemers. One case says Envy “aided and abetted” the fraudsters by “using his public likeness as a well-known radio disc jockey to promote their real estate scheme.”
Envy says those kinds of allegations are not only false — he says he himself is also a victim of Pina’s alleged scheme — but also defamatory. He’s suing the social media influencer who first publicized the claims, claiming he “spewed” lies to promote his own real estate business, and he’s demanding to be dismissed from the investor lawsuits.
Who is Cesar Pina? What are he and Envy accused of doing? What comes next? For the full story, go read our entire deep-dive on the messy scandal.
Other top stories this week…
COLDPLAY LEGAL BATTLE EXPLAINED – With Coldplay involved in a nasty back-and-forth legal battle against former manager Dave Holmes, Billboard’s London correspondent Richard Smirke pored over all the legal docs and broke down everything we’ve learned from the allegations – like the band’s claim that it incurred $21.5 million in touring costs overruns because of Holmes.
LAWMAKERS TARGET AI FAKES – A bipartisan group of U.S. senators released draft legislation aimed at protecting musical artists and others from artificial intelligence-generated deepfakes and other replicas of their likeness, like the infamous “Fake Drake” song released this spring. The so-called NO FAKES Act, which would create a federal right for artists, actors and others to sue those who create “digital replicas” of their image, voice, or visual likeness without permission, is one of the first concrete legislative proposals in the wake of the sudden growth of AI tools over the past year.
DON PASSMAN INTERVIEW – The legendary music lawyer sat down to chat with with Billboard’s Glenn Peoples, talking about the challenges and opportunities posed by AI; about labels “bidding against each other out of FOMO”; about how he thinks artists “now have a lot of power to demand things that they’ve never gotten before in history”; and about his “philosophy” on the catalog sale mania: “For most people, I think it’s a mistake, and I try to talk them out of it.” Go read the full interview here.
MAREN MORRIS DIVORCE – The country star filed for divorce from husband Ryan Hurd after five years of marriage, saying that she and Hurd were “unable to live together successfully as husband and wife” and were “experiencing irreconcilable differences in their marriage.”
SONOS VERDICT OVERTURNED – Five months after Sonos won a whopping $32 million patent infringement judgment against Google over smart speaker technology, a federal judge overturned it on the grounds that the patents involved in the case were invalid. And he didn’t mince words: “This was not a case of an inventor leading the industry to something new. This was a case of the industry leading with something new and, only then, an inventor coming out of the woodwork to say that he had come up with the idea first — wringing fresh claims to read on a competitor’s products from an ancient application.”
MOBB DEEP SUED OVER LOGO – Mobb Deep and the streetwear brand Supreme hit were hit with a trademark lawsuit over their recent collaboration on t-shirts, filed by a New York City hardcore punk band (Sick of It All) that claims that the legendary hip hop duo stole their dragon-shaped logo. Apparently, the two musical acts have been quietly battling over their nearly-identical logos for decades.
Maren Morris has filed for divorce from husband Ryan Hurd after five years of marriage, according to documents obtained by Billboard.
In an Oct. 2 complaint in Tennessee state court, lawyers for the singer-songwriter, 33, said that she and Hurd, 36, were “unable to live together successfully as husband and wife,” and were “experiencing irreconcilable differences in their marriage.”
The filing said that the couple had signed a prenuptial agreement, which will govern how their assets are divided. The pair, who share a 3-year old son, will submit a “permanent parenting plan” to be approved by a judge, according to the court documents; Morris also asked for child support.
Billboard has reached out to Morris and Hurd for comment.
The two began dating in 2015 and wed on March 24, 2018, in Nashville. They welcomed son Hayes, on March 23, 2020.
Prior to their split, Morris and Hurd had collaborated on songs including their 2021 duet “Chasing After You,” which reached No. 23 on the Billboard Hot 100. The pair — who met in Nashville’s songwriting circles — also co-wrote “Circles Around This Town” and “The Furthest Thing” from Morris’ 2022 album Humble Quest, and “All My Favorite People,” a track featuring Brothers Osborne from her 2019 album GIRL, as well as “Pass It On” from Hurd’s 2021 album Pelago.
Hurd spoke out in support of Morris when she and Jason Aldean’s wife, Brittany Aldean, verbally sparred last year after “The Bones” singer called Brittany out over her statements regarding gender-affirming care.
“Scoring quick points by picking on trans kids isn’t something that is brave at all,” Hurd stated on social media at the time. “And I’m proud of Maren for sticking up for them. … Shut up and sing only applies to those who you disagree with.”
Hurd also supported Morris in September when she revealed her intentions to leave the country music industry behind and issued the two-song project, The Bridge. He said on social media at the time: “She deserves to be celebrated, not just tolerated.”
Mobb Deep is facing a lawsuit over a recent collaboration with streetwear brand Supreme. Filed by a New York City hardcore punk band Sick of It All, the suit claims that Mobb Deep members Havoc and the late Prodigy stole their dragon-shaped logo.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
In a lawsuit filed Friday, the band accused both Supreme and Mobb Deep of infringing its trademarks with a line of T-shirts launched this summer. The case claims that Mobb Deep’s emblem, featured on the shirts, is “virtually identical” to a logo that Sick of It All has used since 1987.
“This case arises out of defendants’ improper and illegal use of a nearly identical logo mark to plaintiff’s inherently distinctive, incontestable, and famous logo,” wrote lawyers for Bush Baby Zamagate Inc., the company that owns Sick of It All’s intellectual property. “Defendants’ adoption and use of their knockoff logo … is not just reckless and inexplicable — it is willful infringement and unfair competition.”
As defendants, the lawsuit named Chapter 4 Corp., the owner of Supreme; Kejuan Muchita Inc., a corporate entity owned by Havoc; and the estate of Prodigy (Albert Jackson Johnson), who died in 2017.
Back in June, when Supreme launched the Mobb Deep shirts, the website Hypebeast tried to explain the origins of the duo’s logo. The “tribal tattoo-style dragon,” the site claimed, had been “borrowed” from Sick of It All — “who, like Mobb Deep, is from Queens, New York.”
Turns out, Sick of It All doesn’t see the story quite the same way.
In Friday’s lawsuit, their lawyers say that, over the course of three decades, they have repeatedly demanded that Mobb Deep stop using the dragon design, first in 1997 and again in 2003. The new complaint included a copy of a cease-and-desist that the band sent in 2003, after a version of the dragon logo was used in an insert included in Mobb Deep’s Free Agents: The Murda Mixtape.
“This is not the first time that plaintiff has objected to Mobb Deep’s use of a logo substantially identical to plaintiff’s mark,” the new complaint reads. “Immediately prior to the institution of this lawsuit, plaintiff demanded that defendants cease use of their infringing logo and provide an accounting to plaintiff of sales of the infringing goods. Defendants refused to comply with those demands.”
In 2011, Mobb Deep spoke about the logo in an interview with clothing brand Mishka NYC. In it, Prodigy explained he basically picked the image off of a tattoo parlor wall when he was a teenager and got it inked to his hand.
“Basically, when I was 14 or 15, there was this tattoo parlor in Elmart off Hemstead turnpike and I had walked in there to get my first tattoo,” he said. “There was this dragon on the wall and I didn’t know what it was, I just thought it looked ill, I was mad young and I had always wanted something on my hand. I prolly seen it on some of those L.A. gang movies like Colors. I thought’d be cool, it’d look like some tough shit. So I told the dude put that on my hand. When me and Hav started Mobb Deep, we turned it into the lil clique thing.”
Prodigy went on to say, “We wanted to turn it into the logo for Mobb Deep, but, then we got a cease and desist letter in the mail…. That was just some random sh–! We didn’t even know, we was just young kids.”
Representatives for Supreme and Mobb Deep did not immediately return requests for comment.
Read the entire complaint here:
A bipartisan group of U.S. senators released draft legislation Thursday (Oct. 12) aimed at protecting musical artists and others from artificial intelligence-generated deepfakes and other replicas of their likeness, like this year’s infamous “Fake Drake” song.
The draft bill – labelled the “Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe Act, or NO FAKES Act — would create a federal right for artists, actors and others to sue those who create “digital replicas” of their image, voice, or visual likeness without permission.
In announcing the bill, Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) specifically cited the April release of “Heart On My Sleeve,” an unauthorized song that featured AI-generated fake vocals from Drake and The Weeknd.
“Generative AI has opened doors to exciting new artistic possibilities, but it also presents unique challenges that make it easier than ever to use someone’s voice, image, or likeness without their consent,” Coons said in a statement. “Creators around the nation are calling on Congress to lay out clear policies regulating the use and impact of generative AI.”
The draft bill quickly drew applause from music industry groups. The RIAA said it would push for a final version that “effectively protects against this illegal and immoral misappropriation of fundamental rights that protect human achievement.”
“Our industry has long embraced technology and innovation, including AI, but many of the recent generative AI models infringe on rights — essentially instruments of theft rather than constructive tools aiding human creativity,” the group wrote in the statement.
The American Association of Independent Music offered similar praise: “Independent record labels and the artists they work with are excited about the promise of AI to transform how music is made and how consumers enjoy art, but there must be guardrails to ensure that artists can make a living and that labels can recoup their investments.” The group said it would push to make sure that the final bill’s provisions were “accessible to small labels and working-class musicians, not just the megastars.”
A person’s name and likeness — including their distinctive voice — are already protected in most states by the so-called right of publicity, which allows control how your individual identity is commercially exploited by others. But those rights are currently governed by a patchwork of state statutes and common law systems.
The NO FAKES Act would create a nationwide property right in your image, voice, or visual likeness, allowing an individual to sue anyone the produced a “newly-created, computer-generated, electronic representation” of it. Unlike many state-law systems, that right would not expire at death and could be controlled by a person’s heirs for 70 years after their passing.
A tricky balancing act for any publicity rights legislation is the First Amendment and its protections for free speech. In Thursday’s announcementthe NO FAKES Act’s authors said the bill would include specific carveouts for replicas used in news coverage, parody, historical works or criticism.
“Congress must strike the right balance to defend individual rights, abide by the First Amendment, and foster AI innovation and creativity,” Coons said.
The draft was co-authored by Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.).
Cher is addressing the allegations that she hired men to kidnap her adult son Elijah Blue Allman.
Speaking to People about the claims made last year by his estranged wife, Marieangela King, in divorce documents, which alleged that the pop icon had sent four men to kidnap Allman from a New York City hotel room, Cher simply said, “That rumor is not true.”
The star declined to comment further on the event described by King, but she did tell the magazine that the family matter was related to her son’s substance abuse issues, which he has previously spoken about. “I’m not suffering from any problem that millions of people in the United States aren’t,” Cher said.
“I’m a mother,” she continued. “This is my job — one way or another, to try to help my children. You do anything for your children. Whenever you can help them, you just do it because that’s what being a mother is. But it’s joy, even with heartache — mostly, when you think of your children, you just smile and you love them, and you try to be there for them.”
Though the kidnapping plot accusations were first made in court documents filed in December, the allegations recently surfaced amid ongoing divorce proceedings between King and Allman, whose father is late rock star Greg Allman. King alleged in her filing that Cher, concerned for Elijah’s well-being, hired four men to get her 47-year-old son out of the hotel where he was staying with King as the two worked to reconcile their marriage.
This holiday season will hopefully be more cheerful than last year for Cher and her family, especially as the Burlesque star gears up to release her festive upcoming album, Christmas. Her first ever Christmas album, the project will feature Stevie Wonder, Michael Bublé, Cyndi Lauper and Tyga.
“They’re not ‘Christmas Christmas’ songs, OK, they’re just great songs,” she recently told Billboard of the LP. “And I never say that because I almost never like what I do. But I mean people love it and I’m happy. I’m so particular, but I love the songs and everyone who hears them loves them.”
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: Two new misconduct lawsuits, one against publishing exec Kenny MacPherson and another against R&B star Jason Derulo; a ruling for Cardi B that a gossip blogger can’t use bankruptcy to escape a huge defamation judgment; a new Supreme Court case that’s “vitally important to the music industry”; and more.
Want to get The Legal Beat newsletter in your email inbox every Tuesday? Subscribe here for free.
THE BIG STORY: Music #MeToo
The music industry was rocked last week by two new sexual misconduct lawsuits: one against a powerful publishing executive and another against a chart-topping R&B star.
In a complaint filed Wednesday, a woman named Sara Lewis leveled accusations of sexual assault and harassment against Kenny MacPherson, the CEO of Hipgnosis Songs Fund’s publishing unit. Lewis claimed she “endured an onslaught of unwanted sexual advances” from MacPherson while she worked as an A&R at Chrysalis Music during the mid-2000s when he served as the company’s president.
Through an attorney, MacPherson “vehemently” denied the allegations, stressing that the “unverified” claims stemmed from nearly two decades in the past. But Hipgnosis quickly placed him on leave of absence pending an internal investigation: “Hipgnosis Songs Fund has a policy of zero-tolerance to harassment or abuse,” a company spokesperson said.
A day later, a woman named Emaza Gibson accused singer Jason Derulo of repeatedly sexually harassing her, then dropping her from a deal with his Atlantic Records imprint Future History after she rebuffed his advances. He strongly denied the claims, calling them “completely false and hurtful.”
Nearly six years on from the start of the #MeToo movement, the music industry is experiencing a new wave of such accusations. Two women filed lawsuits late last year against Atlantic Records over sexual assault allegations against late co-founder Ahmet Ertegun; country star Jimmie Allen was hit with two sexual assault lawsuits in May; and Backstreet Boys member Nick Carter has been sued by three different women who claim he sexually assaulted them as minors in the 2000s.
Go read the entire story on the Derulo accusations here and the entire story on the MacPherson allegations here, featuring full breakdowns of the cases and access to the actual court documents.
Other top stories this week…
BETTER HAVE MY MONEY – Two years after Cardi B won a nearly $4 million defamation verdict against a YouTube host named Tasha K over her salacious lies about drug use, STDs and prostitution, a federal judge ruled that the gossip blogger could not use Chapter 11 bankruptcy to avoid paying most of the judgment.
TRANSATLANTIC CUSTODY SETTLEMENT – Lawyers for Joe Jonas and Sophie Turner, currently locked in a very public divorce, said the former couple was close to an “amicable resolution” to end Turner’s unusual federal lawsuit, which cited international treaties on child abduction to demand the return of the couple’s two young daughters to her native England.
ELECTRIC ZOO SUITS MOUNT – A month after this year’s chaotic iteration of the Electric Zoo festival in New York, a group of ticket buyers filed a class action over what they called an “absolute fiasco.” The lawsuit is at least the fourth such lawsuit filed against Brooklyn promoter Avant Gardner, the organizer of the popular dance music event.
FILE THE SUIT, PAY THE PRICE? – Sam Smith and Normani demanded to be reimbursed for money they spent defeating a failed copyright lawsuit that accused them of ripping off their 2019 hit, “Dancing With a Stranger,” from an earlier song. The final legal bill? A whopping $732,202.
MUSIC BIZ HEADS TO SCOTUS – The U.S. Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari filed by Warner Music Group, agreeing to tackle a case over copyright damages that labels and publishers have called “vitally important to the music industry.” The case is complicated, so go read our deep-dive explainer here.
LADY GAGA DOGNAPPING CASE – A Los Angeles judge once again ruled that Lady Gaga was not obligated to pay a $500,000 reward for the return of her stolen French bulldogs to the very same woman who was criminally charged over the incident. Echoing an earlier ruling, the judge said the woman had “unclean hands” that prevented her from profiting from her actions.
‘MY HUMPS’ v. ‘MY POOPS’ – Abruptly ending what could have been a major battle over copyright fair use, BMG Rights Management reached a settlement to end a copyright lawsuit against toymaker MGA Entertainment over “My Poops” — a scatological parody song set to the tune of The Black Eyed Peas’ “My Humps.”
TUPAC MURDER CASE UPDATE – Duane “Keffe D” Davis, the man who prosecutors say masterminded the 1996 shooting death of Tupac Shakur in Las Vegas, made his first court appearance. Davis, who had been a long-known suspect in the case and publicly admitted his role in the killing in a tell-all memoir, was indicted late last month on one count of murder with a deadly weapon.