Legal
Page: 61
A New York judge sentenced a woman who pleaded guilty to fatally shoving an 87-year-old Broadway singing coach onto a Manhattan sidewalk to six months more in prison than the eight years that had been previously reached in a plea deal.
During Friday’s (Sept. 29) sentencing of Lauren Pazienza for manslaughter, Manhattan state Supreme Court Judge Felicia Mennin said she was unconvinced that the 28-year-old Long Island woman took responsibility for her actions on March 10, 2022, when she pushed the vocal teacher, Barbara Maier Gustern, to the ground.
Gustern, whose students included Blondie singer Debbie Harry, lay bleeding on a sidewalk. She died five days later.
Pazienza pleaded guilty on Aug. 23. She could have been sentenced to 25 years had she been convicted during a trial.
Pazienza, a former event planner originally from Long Island, has been locked up at the city’s notorious Rikers Island jail complex since a judge revoked her bail in May 2022.
According to prosecutors, Pazienza attacked Gustern after storming out of a nearby park, where she and her fiance had been eating meals from a food cart.
Gustern had just left her apartment to catch a student’s performance after hosting a rehearsal for a cabaret show, friends told The New York Times.
Gustern’s grandson, A.J. Gustern of Colorado, called Pazienza’s apology “contrived.”
“I curse you, Lauren Pazienza,” he said as he read from a statement in court, Newsday reported. “For the rest of your days, may you be miserable.”
Pazienza encountered Gustern on West 23rd Street and shoved her to the ground in what police called “an unprovoked, senseless attack.”
Gustern worked with singers ranging from the cast members of the 2019 Broadway revival of the musical Oklahoma! to experimental theater artist and 2017 MacArthur “genius grant” recipient Taylor Mac, who told the Times she was “one of the great humans that I’ve encountered.”
Las Vegas police made an arrest on Friday morning (Sept. 29) in one of the most vexing high-profile cold cases in the city’s history. According to the Associated Press, Las Vegas PD arrested Duane “Keffe D” Davis in connection with the unsolved drive-by shooting of Tupac Shakur on the Las Vegas strip on Sept. 7, 1996.
The unsolved murder of the legendary rapper in a brazen nighttime assault on the city’s most famous boulevard had vexed authorities and fascinated the public for nearly 30 years, spawning a number of documentaries, investigative TV series, books and theories about who gunned down the then-25-year-old MC.
Davis was reportedly arrested early Friday morning, with the exact charges he was taken in on not announced at press time; two officials with first-hand knowledge of the arrest said Davis was expected to be indicted later in the day.
The 60-year-old alleged member of the South Side Compton Crips street gang was the uncle of gang member Orlando “Baby Lane” Anderson, long considered the prime suspect in Shakur’s killing. Anderson was beaten by the rapper and his entourage on the night of the murder, allegedly in retaliation for Anderson’s role in snatching a Death Row chain at a Los Angeles Mall in July 1996; Anderson, 23, who denied involvement in the Shakur murder, was shot and killed in 1998 in a gang shooting and was never charged with the killing.
Las Vegas PD announced in July that they had searched Davis’ Henderson, Nevada home in connection with the Shakur murder investigation, though they did not give any additional information at the time about what they found or what spurred the search.
NBC News reported at the time that a copy of the warrant it obtained noted that authorities were looking at computers and other electronic devices, as well as audio recordings and that they took away a Pokeball USB drive, a black iPhone, two iPads and a purple Toshiba laptop, among other items.
Shakur was gunned down inside a black BMW driven by Death Row Records founder Marion “Suge” Knight when it was stopped at a red light near the Las Vegas Strip on the night of a Mike Tyson fight. A white Cadillac pulled up next to the passenger side of Tupac’s car and someone inside fired 14 rounds. Hit four times, Shakur was rushed to a nearby hospital, where he died a week later. The unsolved case has spawned a number of conspiracy theories about the murder, including allegations that it was tied to the similarly unsolved murder of the Notorious B.I.G. in Los Angeles on March 9, 1997 as part of a media-whipped East Coast-West Coast rap rivalry.
In 2018, Davis claimed in an episode of BET’s Death Row Chronicles that he knew the name of Shakur’s killer, though he did not supply one at the time, even as he said Anderson could have been the gunman. Davis also claimed in his 2019 memoir, Compton Street Legend, that he was in the Cadillac on the night of the shooting and has described himself as the last living witness to the incident. No arrests had previously been made in the decadeslong investigation and Nevada does not have a statute of limitations for prosecuting homicide cases.
Retired LAPD detective Greg Kading — who spent years investigating the Shakur murder and wrote a book about it — interviewed Davis in 2008 and 2009 during the LAPD ‘s investigation into the Shakur and Smalls killings. He told the AP that he thought the Shakur investigation gained momentum recently after Davis’ description of his role in his memoir.
“It’s those events that have given Las Vegas the ammunition and the leverage to move forward,” Kading told the AP before Davis’ arrest. “Prior to Keefe D’s public declarations, the cases were unprosecutable as they stood… He put himself squarely in the middle of the conspiracy,” Kading said of Davis. “He had acquired the gun, he had given the gun to the shooter and he had been present in the vehicle when they hunted down and located both Tupac and Suge (Knight).”
A week before trial was set to start, Marilyn Manson has reached a settlement with a woman who sued him for rape, Billboard can confirm.
Adam Wolf, the attorney for the woman known only as “Jane Doe,” filed the notice of settlement in Los Angeles court on Wednesday (Sept. 27). The lawyer will submit a request to dismiss the case within 45 days.
“Brian is pleased that, just as previous lawsuits were abandoned without payment or settled for pennies on the dollar, this plaintiff has now agreed to drop her suit in exchange for an insurance payment representing a fraction of her demands and far less than the cost to Brian of proceeding to trial,” Manson’s attorney Howard King shared in a press statement.
Following the news, Doe told Rolling Stone in a statement, “I was fully prepared for trial and never in a million years thought I would ever settle, but over the past two-and-a-half years I have silently endured threats, bullying, harassment and various forms of intimidation that have intensified over the past few weeks.” She noted that Manson attended her deposition and that she was “forced to answer seven hours of aggressive questioning with him staring at me from across the table.” She continued, “I’ve been told that this almost never happens, as it’s cruel, and that a main reason for it would be to intimidate and inflict emotional distress on a victim.”
“I never cared about money and only ever wanted justice, but if we had gone to trial, I could have lost my right to anonymity and been victim-blamed on a large and public scale,” she added. “Most importantly I could have risked losing the freedom to tell my story, and that is worth more than anything in the world.”
Doe initially filed a lawsuit against Manson (real name Brian Warner) in June 2021 for allegedly raping and torturing her in 2011. In the complaint, she claimed that for 10 years, she had repressed memories of being raped by Manson and only recovered them in February 2021 when other women stepped forward with accusations against him.
The woman’s complaint further claimed that following the alleged assault, Manson threatened to kill her, saying he would “bash her head in.” It went on to state that he said he would “get away with it” because he was a “celebrity who had contacts with the police.” She also alleged that Manson kept in almost constant contact with her and deprived her of food, claiming he told her “that because she was his girlfriend, she needed to lose weight because her weight embarrassed him.”
In September 2021, however, the lawsuit was dismissed by Judge Gregory Keosian, who stated that the accuser’s claims of repressed memories were “not sufficient” to overrule the two-year statute of limitations. While Keosian stated that the claim of repressed memories “is common for sexual assault victims,” he ruled that more was needed to invoke California’s “delayed-discovery” rule. The rule effectively postpones the start date of the statute of limitations if the plaintiff can prove that they first became aware of the injury within two years of filing their complaint, regardless of when the incident itself took place. The judge gave her 20 days from the ruling to amend and refile her complaint, and it was refiled eight days later with more information about her repressed memories.
Over the past two years, Manson has been hit with sexual assault lawsuits by multiple women, including Game of Thrones actress and former girlfriend Esme Bianco, his former personal assistant Ashley Walters and ex-girlfriend Ashley Morgan Smithline. The lawsuits filed by Walters and Smithline have since been dismissed, while Manson settled with Bianco in January. Smithline later recanted her accusations and claimed that Manson’s former girlfriend, Evan Rachel Wood — whose initial allegation of sexual abuse by Manson in February 2021 opened up a tidal wave of similar claims against the singer — had pressured her to make the claim, which Wood later denied. Smithline’s recantation tied in with a March 2022 defamation lawsuit Manson had filed against Wood that accused the actress of launching an “organized attack” against him, but a judge dismissed much of that lawsuit this past May.
Stories about sexual assault allegations can be traumatizing for survivors of sexual assault. If you or anyone you know needs support, you can reach out to the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN). The organization provides free, confidential support to sexual assault victims. Call RAINN’s National Sexual Assault Hotline (800.656.HOPE) or visit the anti-sexual violence organization’s website for more information.
Lizzo has lodged her first legal response to the lawsuit brought by three of her former dancers in August.
In what amounts to a 31-point rebuttal against claims that the dancers were subjected to sexual harassment and a hostile work environment while on tour with the singer, Lizzo and her Big Grrrl Big Touring company are requesting that the court dismiss the case with prejudice (meaning it cannot be refiled). In the event the court declines to dismiss it, the defendants are requesting a jury trial.
In the original complaint, filed Aug. 1 in Los Angeles court, dancers Arianna Davis, Crystal Williams and Noelle Rodriguez accused Lizzo (real name Melissa Jefferson) and Big Grrrl Big Touring of several allegations. Among them: that Lizzo pressured dancers to attend a sex show in Amsterdam and interact with the nude performers; that dance team captain Shirlene Quigley repeatedly engaged in behavior that made them feel uncomfortable; that Lizzo “called attention” to a dancer’s weight gain following a performance; that employees of the touring company singled out Black dancers by accusing them of “being lazy, unprofessional and having bad attitudes”; and that Lizzo denied dancers bathroom breaks during an “excruciating re-audition” process.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
The new document — filed Wednesday by Lizzo’s lawyers, Martin Singer, Michael Weinsten and Melissa Lerner — offers more than 30 wide-ranging defenses to the dancers’ complaint. They include:
That the plaintiffs “ratified, acquiesced, condoned, and/or approved of the acts or omissions of Defendants, in whole or in part, about which Plaintiffs now complain”;
That the defendants’ alleged conduct “was undertaken in good faith and with good cause” and “undertaken for legitimate reasons reasonably related to one or more lawful business purposes”;
That the plaintiffs are “guilty of unclean hands,” which in legal terms means they have done something unethical and should therefore be denied relief;
That the plaintiffs should be barred from pursuing the case based on the doctrine of estoppel, meaning they have acted unfairly or made false representations in bringing the lawsuit;
That the plaintiffs failed to “mediate in good faith pursuant” to their contract terms with Big Grrrl Big Touring and are subject to arbitration under those terms;
That the claims are preempted by California’s Workers’ Compensation Act and should therefore be decided by the workers’ compensation appeals board as opposed to the court;
That if the plaintiffs were harmed as alleged, the plaintiffs and/or others who are not listed as defendants “contributed, in whole or in part,” to that harm;
That the defendants’ alleged actions arose from the exercise of their rights of free speech and/or religion;
That plaintiffs failed to “avail themselves” of internal anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies and complaint procedures while employed on the tour;
That plaintiffs’ claims regarding discrimination or retaliation should be barred because any employment decisions were made “for legitimate, non-discriminatory, non-pretextual reasons and Defendants acted out of business necessity”;
That the plaintiffs “have failed to plead and cannot establish facts sufficient to support allegations of malice, oppression or fraud”;
That defendants are not liable for punitive damages because they did not “engage in wrongful conduct,” “authorize or ratify any wrongful conduct,” or “have advance knowledge of the unfitness of any employee and employ that employee with a conscious disregard of the rights and safety of others.”
“This is the first step of a legal process in which Lizzo and her team will demonstrate that they have always practiced what they’ve preached — whether it comes to promoting body positivity, leading a safe and supportive workplace or protecting individuals from any kind of harassment,” said Lizzo spokesperson Stefan Friedman in a statement. “Any and all claims to the contrary are ridiculous, and we look forward to proving so in a court of law.”
In response to the new filing, the dancers’ attorney, Neama Rahmani, released the following statement: “Lizzo’s answer merely consists of boilerplate objections that have nothing to do with the case. That said, the key takeaway is that Lizzo is agreeing to our clients’ demand for a jury trial. We look forward to presenting our case in court and letting a panel of her peers decide who is telling the truth, Lizzo and her team who continue to shame the victims or the plaintiffs and so many others who have come forward sharing similar stories of abuse and harassment.”
Though this is Lizzo’s first legal response to the lawsuit, the singer categorically denied the dancers’ claims two days after it was filed, stating on social media that the allegations were as “unbelievable as they sound and too outrageous to not be addressed.”
“These sensationalized stories are coming from former employees who have already publicly admitted that they were told their behavior on tour was inappropriate and unprofessional,” she added. Later that day, the dancers appeared on CNN This Morning to rehash their allegations and called Lizzo’s statement “disheartening” and “incredibly frustrating.”
Two weeks later, Lizzo’s Big Grrrls dance team released a statement in support of the singer, saying they “had the time of our lives” on the tour and continuing, “The commitment to character and culture taking precedence over every movement and moment has been one of the Greatest lessons and Blessings that we could possibly could ask for.”
The Aug. 1 lawsuit is the first of two that have been brought against Lizzo. Earlier this month, the singer — along with her wardrobe manager Amanda Nomura, tour manager Carlina Gugliotta and Big Grrrl Big Touring — were sued by clothing designer Asha Daniels, who alleged sexual and racial harassment, disability discrimination, assault, illegal retaliatory termination and more while working on Lizzo’s Special tour.
The second lawsuit dropped the same day Lizzo was due to receive the Black Music Action Coalition’s Quincy Jones Humanitarian Award at the organization’s 2023 gala.
While accepting the honor that evening, Lizzo — who was introduced by cast members from her Emmy-winning reality show, Watch Out For the Big Grrrls — gave an emotional speech in which she said, “I’m going to continue to be who I am, no matter who’s watching. I’m going to continue to amplify the voices of marginalized people because I have a microphone and I know how to use it. And I’m going to continue to put on, represent and create safe spaces for Black fat women because that’s what the f— I do!”
She continued, “This support right now means the world to me.”
On Tuesday (Sept. 26), singer-songwriter Rick Astley settled the vocal impersonation lawsuit he filed in January against meme rapper Yung Gravy and his collaborators for an undisclosed sum.
Filed in Los Angeles court, the lawsuit had claimed that while Yung Gravy and his collaborators secured rights to re-record the melody and lyrics of his 1987 hit “Never Gonna Give You Up” for their track “Betty (Get Money),” they “flagrantly impersonated” Astley’s distinctive vocals from the original track, thereby infringing his so-called right of publicity. “Betty (Get Money)” peaked at No. 39 on the Billboard Hot 100 and No. 9 on Billboard‘s Hot Rap Songs chart.
Rights of publicity laws, which vary state by state, protect public figures from the commercial exploitation of their names, voices and likenesses without their authorization. Astley argued that by mimicking Astley’s voice in a “nearly indistinguishable” way, Gravy’s team “obliterated” Astley’s chance to “collaborate with another artist and/or producer to create something new with his voice from ‘Never Gonna Give You Up’” and take advantage of other commercial opportunities.
The lawsuit arrived just as emerging artificial intelligence (AI) tools had sparked new conversations around right of publicity protections for artists. The debate hit a fever pitch in April when an anonymous TikTok creator named Ghostwriter made headlines with his song “Heart On My Sleeve,” which employed an AI voice filter to deepfake the voices of Drake and The Weeknd without their knowledge or consent. Since then, some leaders, including Universal Music Group’s general counsel/executive vp of business and legal affairs, Jeffery Harleston, have called for a federalized right of publicity to protect artists against the seemingly growing issue.
Notably, Gravy’s song did not employ AI to mimic Astley’s trademark tone. Instead, “Betty (Get Money)” producer Nick “PopNick” Seeley recreated Astley’s voice the old-fashioned way: through trial and error in the studio. In a previous interview with Billboard, Seeley said he has “a knack for vintage stuff” and has also helped recreate older recordings for other songs, including “I Like It” by Cardi B and “Dirty Iyanna” by YoungBoy Never Broke Again.
In a previous interview with Billboard, producer Marc “Fresh2Def” Soto — half of the duo ClickNPress –said it’s common for producers to be asked to recreate older songs as closely as possible. “A record label will be like, ‘Hey we can’t get the clearance for the sample, but we can get an interpolation, would you be able to replay XYZ thing?’ I’ve been through that on several records with different labels,” Soto says. However, most of these so-called “replays” of old songs don’t end up being quite as exact as the one in Astley’s case.
Astley was represented by attorney Richard S. Busch, the same lawyer who represented Marvin Gaye’s family in the controversial “Blurred Lines” trial. Gravy and the other defendants were represented by attorney Michael J. Niborski.
Busch and Niborski did not immediately respond to Billboard’s requests for comment.
Lizzo is facing another explosive lawsuit filed by a former employee.
On Thursday (Sept. 21), Asha Daniels — a clothing designer who worked on Lizzo’s Special Tour earlier this year — filed a complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court alleging sexual and racial harassment, disability discrimination, assault, illegal retaliatory termination and more. In addition to Lizzo, the lawsuit names wardrobe manager Amanda Nomura, tour manager Carlina Gugliotta and Lizzo’s Big Grrrl Big Touring company as defendants.
In the lawsuit, Daniels claims that after being hired to join the superstar’s world tour in February 2023 to alter and repair the wardrobe she’d previously designed for Lizzo’s dancers, she was “almost immediately…introduced to [a] culture of racism and bullying” and that she “suffered constant anxiety and panic attacks” as a result. In one allegation, she claims that Lizzo’s dancers were forced to change in “small, tight changing areas…with little to no privacy” and that the stage crew, “primarily white males, would lewdly gawk, sneer, and giggle” while watching them dress. She alleges that after expressing concern to Nomura about the lack of privacy, the wardrobe manager “laughed” and “advised” her not to tell anyone else about the issue or try to fix it.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
The complaint contextualizes these incidents as part of “a set up to humiliate, degrade, alienate, and, in some cases, fire, the Black female performers.” Notably, three of these dancers — Arianna Davis, Crystal Williams and Noelle Rodriguez — made similar allegations after filing suit against Lizzo and Big Grrrl Big Touring in August. Their attorney, Ron Zambrano of West Coast Employment Lawyers, is also representing Daniels in her case.
While Lizzo isn’t directly implicated in any of the incidents outlined in Daniels’ complaint, the “About Damn Time” singer is effectively accused of turning a blind eye to the toxic behavior of her employees, including Daniels’ direct boss Nomura, who bears the brunt of the allegations.
“Throughout the entirety of her employment,” the lawsuit alleges, Daniels — a Black woman — witnessed Nomura making “racist and fatphobic comments,” including by mocking Lizzo and her background dancers, “doing an offensive stereotypical impression of a Black woman” and referring to Black women on the tour as “‘dumb,’ ‘useless’ and ‘fat.’” After allegedly confronting Nomura over her behavior, Daniels claims Nomura “ignored” her and proceeded to directly target her with harassment.
In one particularly inflammatory allegation, Daniels claims that Nomura rolled “a heavy rack of clothing” over Daniels’ foot. When Daniels allegedly told Nomura she needed to sit down “as her foot was in serious pain,” she says Nomura “shoved” her into the clothing rack “while asserting Plaintiff should not make excuses about her foot.” Claiming that the shove from Nomura caused her to “roll her ankle,” Daniels says that when she showed up for work the following day wearing Crocs to “minimize the pain,” Nomura demanded that she change into tennis shoes even after Daniels told her they were painful to walk in.
The suit accuses Nomura of a litany of other offenses, including making threatening statements against Daniels and the rest of the crew “on several occasions,” shoving a crew member after the crew member threatened to quit and saying that she would “kill a bitch if it came down to it” if anyone threatened her job. She also claims that Nomura discouraged her from interacting directly with Lizzo or Lizzo’s boyfriend — and that if she ever did, she should avoid dressing “attractively” to avoid the singer becoming “jealous.”
More broadly, Daniels claims she experienced frequent sexual harassment by the Big Grrrl Big Touring team. Among other offenses, she alleges that a backstage manager “sent a photo graphically depicting male genitalia” on a group chat that included her and more than 30 other tour employees. In another accusation that distinctly echoes the lawsuit filed by Lizzo’s former dancers, Daniels says she witnessed Nomura, crew members and Lizzo’s management “openly discussing hiring sex workers for lewd sex acts, attending sex shows, and buying hard drugs” and that she felt pressured to join those activities.
Daniels further claims that after informing Gugliotta of the behavior she’d witnessed — and after being “informed” that her complaints were relayed to Lizzo — she was fired by Lizzo’s team roughly a month after she began work on the tour. On the day she was fired but before she was informed of her termination, she also alleges she was “denied medical care” after suffering “an allergic reaction” and “pressured” to continue working after informing Nomura and Lizzo’s management about it.
In the aftermath of her experiences, Daniels claims she “continues to suffer ongoing anxiety and PTSD,” “migraines,” “brain fog, and “fatigue” from the experience.
Gugliotta and a representative for Lizzo did not immediately respond to Billboard‘s request for comment. A contact for Nomura could not immediately be located.
Daniels is asking for damages including unpaid wages, loss of earnings and deferred compensation; general damages “including but not limited to” emotional distress; other special damages including for medical expenses; punitive damages; and more.
Two days after the August lawsuit was filed, Lizzo refuted the allegations on social media, stating the dancers’ claims were as “unbelievable as they sound and too outrageous to not be addressed.”
“These sensationalized stories are coming from former employees who have already publicly admitted that they were told their behavior on tour was inappropriate and unprofessional,” she added. Later that day, the dancers appeared on CNN This Morning to rehash their allegations and called Lizzo’s statement “disheartening” and “incredibly frustrating.”
Two weeks later, Lizzo’s Big Grrrls dance team released a statement in support of the singer, saying they “had the time of our lives” on the tour and continuing, “The commitment to character and culture taking precedence over every movement and moment has been one of the Greatest lessons and Blessings that we could possibly could ask for.”
Following the initial lawsuit, lawyers for the dancers stated that six more people had approached them with similar stories about Lizzo, though Daniels’ lawsuit is the first to emerge in the nearly two months since.
Lizzo is due to be honored with the Black Music Action Coalition’s Quincy Jones Humanitarian Award at the organization’s 2023 gala on Thursday.
The divorce proceedings between Jonas Brothers member Joe Jonas and estranged wife Sophie Turner took a dramatic turn on Thursday (Sept. 21) when the former Game of Thrones actress filed a lawsuit in Manhattan demanding the return of the couple’s two minor daughters to her native England.
The Messenger was first to report the news that Turner’s suit — which Billboard has reviewed — requested the “immediate return of children wrongfully removed or wrongfully retained.” The legal filing claims the “wrongful retention” began on Wednesday (Sept. 20). The suit also notes that Turner, 27, and Jonas, 34, agreed last Christmas that despite having a “peripatetic lifestyle” due to their careers in entertainment, their “forever home” would be in England and that they would start looking for schools for eldest daughter, Willa, 3. The Turner filing lists more than a dozen rental properties the couple lived in between September 2022 and April 2023, including several in New York and London, as well as ones in Italy, Lake Tahoe and Las Vegas.
Both children have dual citizenship in the U.K. and U.S., and Turner’s suit claims that the couple found a “beautiful country property” in Henley on Thames in England during a nearly eight-month search for a U.K. residence, and “both agreed they would purchase the home for their permanent residence” with plans to move into their new house in December in time for the Christmas holidays.
The lawsuit claims the couple entered a contract to sell their Miami home on April 16 after relocating to England a week earlier, around the time when Turner began filming the mini-series Joan and Jonas launched the Five Albums. One Night. The World Tour trek with brothers Nick and Kevin. It also states that Jonas and Turner agreed “with hesitation” that Willa and their second daughter, born in June 2022 (whose name has not been revealed yet), would travel on tour with the singer (and the family’s nanny) because he had more free time during the day than the actress, but that the arrangement was only “temporary.”
“The children would then at least be able to spend some time during the day with one of their parents until the Mother finished her filming commitments,” the document claims.
Jonas filed a petition for the dissolution of the marriage on Sept. 5, stating that that “the marriage between the parties is irretrievably broken,” following what Turner described in her lawsuit as an argument on the singer’s birthday on Aug. 15. The day after Jonas’ filing, the couple released a joint statement on their respective social media accounts confirming the split.
“After four wonderful years of marriage we have mutually decided to amicably end our marriage,” their statement read. “There are many speculative narratives as to why but, truly this is a united decision and we sincerely hope that everyone can respect our wishes for privacy for us and our children.”
Turner’s suit also claims she found out about the divorce “through the media” on Sept. 5, and she has yet to respond to his filing. Two weeks later, the couple reportedly met up to discuss the separation plans, at which point Turner allegedly “reiterated” her desire to have the children move to England.
Jonas’ Florida divorce filing stated that the children had been living with him in Miami and other U.S. locations, but that “it is in the best interests of the minor children that the parties have shared parental responsibility.”
However, Turner claims in her filing that “the Father has possession of the children’s passports… he refuses to return the passports to the Mother and refuses to send the children home to England with the Mother.” According to her suit, she filed her action after Jonas’ attorney said the singer would not return the passports or consent to the move on Sept. 19. “The Father has prevented the children’s return to England, which is a breach of the Mother’s rights of custody under English law, England being the children’s habitual residence,” reads the Turner filing.
In a statement to Billboard, a representative for Jonas denied the actress’ claim that she learned about his divorce filing via the media, and said that the former couple had met Sunday in New York, where they agreed to “work together towards an amicable co-parenting setup.”
“Joe is seeking shared parenting with the kids so that they are raised by both their mother and father, and is of course also OK with the kids being raised both in the U.S. and the U.K.,” the statement continued. “This is an unfortunate legal disagreement about a marriage that is sadly ending.”
“His wish is that Sophie reconsider her … legal position and move forward in a more constructive and private manner. His only concern is the well-being of the children.”
Reps for Turner have not returned Billboard‘s request for comment.
Turner and Jonas began dating in 2016 and married in a low-key ceremony in Las Vegas in May 2019, followed by a lavish wedding at the Chateau de Tourreau in the south of France in June of that year.
Even if you don’t know the name or the backstory, you probably know the sound: Boom-ch-boom-chick, boom-ch-boom-chick, boom-ch-boom-chick. Listen to pretty much any reggaetón song, and you’ll hear that infectious percussion — dubbed the dembow rhythm — playing underneath. That single key element, a historian of the genre once wrote, “underpins the vast majority of reggaetón tracks as an almost required sonic signpost.”
There was nothing controversial about that fact until 2021, when lawyers for the Jamaican duo Steely & Clevie — Cleveland “Clevie” Browne and the estate of the late Wycliffe “Steely” Johnson — filed a copyright lawsuit over the origins of dembow. In it, they argued that the rhythm was ultimately derived from a single song, called “Fish Market,” that the pair wrote in 1989.
[embedded content]
When it was first filed, the lawsuit targeted only two tracks and a few artists. But the implication was clear: if their argument was valid, hundreds of artists across reggaetón — a genre that has risen from an underground fusion of rap, dancehall and reggae in the clubs of San Juan, Puerto, Rico, to the very apex of the music industry in the past decade — would also have infringed Steely & Clevie’s intellectual property.
Now, two years later, those stakes are no longer theoretical. The duo’s lawyers are suing more than 150 different artists, including Bad Bunny, Karol G, Pitbull, Drake, Daddy Yankee, Luis Fonsi and Justin Bieber, plus units of all three major music companies. They claim that over 1,800 reggaetón songs featuring iterations of the dembow rhythm were, at root, illegally copied from “Fish Market” — and that their clients deserve monetary compensation for them.
If that sounds both unusual and potentially disruptive to you, music law experts would agree.
“This case is jaw-dropping — the plaintiffs are suing over a hundred artists for over a thousand songs, 30 years after the release of their song,” says Jennifer Jenkins, a professor at Duke University School of Law who has written a history of musical borrowing and regulation. “If they win, this would confer a monopoly over an entire genre, something unprecedented in music copyright litigation.”
Musical pioneers
Legal claims aside, nobody really disputes that the genealogy of dembow leads back to Steely & Clevie, a legendary duo who are widely credited with playing an influential role in the evolution of Jamaican music. When Steely died in 2009, The New York Times said he had perhaps “participated in more sessions than anyone else in the history of reggae.”
According to most experts, the story goes like this: Aspects of Steely & Clevie’s “Fish Market” were incorporated into a 1990 song called “Dem Bow” by the artist Shabba Ranks, which itself was then re-used by producer Dennis “The Menace” Thompson in another 1990 song called “Dub Mix II.” It was this track that was then heavily sampled and interpolated in the early days of reggaetón, providing an essential rhythmic element to the nascent genre. According to an article by Wayne Marshall, a historian of Caribbean music and a professor at Berklee College of Music, that portion from “Dub Mix II” has since “provided the basis for hundreds if not thousands of other tracks.”
Over the decades that followed, reggaetón blossomed into a global sensation. With roots in the Panamanian “reggae en espanol” movement and then evolving with Puerto Rican trailblazers like Ivy Queen and DJ Nelson, reggaetón exploded onto the world stage with Daddy Yankee’s 2004 breakout single, “Gasolina,” which spent 20 weeks on the Hot 100. The genre then rose to new heights in 2017 with Luis Fonsi’s mega-hit “Despacito,” which topped the Hot 100 for a record-tying 16 weeks. And last year, Bad Bunny’s Un Verano Sin Ti became the first Latin album to finish as the No. 1 Billboard 200 album of the year after ruling the chart for 13 nonconsecutive weeks. According to Billboard Boxscore, he also grossed a record-setting $435 million across two tours — El Último Tour del Mundo and World’s Hottest Tour — cementing his place as one of pop’s biggest stars.
All of it, according to Steely & Clevie’s lawsuit, on the backs of their intellectual property.
A growing case
The duo first headed to federal court April 2021, accusing Panamanian reggaetón artist and producer El Chombo of infringing “Fish Market” with his “Dame tu Cosita,” a 2018 hit that reached No. 36 on the Hot 100. The suit also named Karol G and Pitbull, who later released a remix of the track.
In their complaint, the lawyers for Steely & Clevie said the “primary rhythm and drum sections” of “Dame tu Cosita” were pulled directly from the earlier song: “At no point did defendants seek or obtain authorization from plaintiffs to use ‘Fish Market’ in connection with the infringing works.”
When the case was first filed, few people took notice. But the lawsuit quickly grew. In October 2021, Steely & Clevie added 10 more songs to the case, including Fonsi’s “Despacito.” In May 2022, they alleged that an additional 44 songs had infringed “Fish Market,” including Daddy Yankee’s “Gasolina.” By September 2022, the lawsuit had ballooned: More than 150 total defendant-artists, including Bad Bunny, accused of releasing a staggering 1,800 infringing songs.
The newer versions of the lawsuit also claimed broader intellectual property rights. In the original, Steely & Clevie claimed only to own a copyright to “Fish Market” itself; as the case evolved, they claimed they also owned rights to “Dem Bow” and “Dub Mix II,” the later songs that utilized “Fish Market.”
In the most recent version of the complaint, filed in April, it takes a full 25 pages to list out all of the defendants, which also include units of Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group and Sony Music Entertainment. Other notable defendants include Anitta, Becky G, Maluma, Tainy, Rauw Alejandro, and Enrique Iglesias, as well as companies BMG Rights Management, Hipgnosis and Kobalt.
Over a whopping 228 pages, the document lays out how each song, like “Despacito,” allegedly infringed what it calls “groundbreaking” drum and bass patterns in the earlier songs.
“The rhythm section of ‘Despacito’ and the ‘Despacito Remix’ copies original elements of the ‘Fish Market’ rhythm section,” Steely & Clevie’s lawyers wrote. “The musical backbones of ‘Despacito’ and the ‘Despacito Remix’ are substantially similar, if not virtually identical, to ‘Fish Market.’”
“Monopolistic”? Or “sensationalist”?
A trial on all those allegations is still years away, even in the fastest scenario. But this past summer, the attorneys representing the artists and labels have been trying to make sure it never gets there.
In a motion filed in June, Bad Bunny’s lawyer Kenneth D. Freundlich demanded that the case be dismissed immediately, calling it a “transparent” attempt by Steely & Clevie to “stake monopolistic control over the reggaetón genre.”
“Plaintiffs’ [lawsuit] impermissibly seeks to monopolize practically the entire reggaetón musical genre for themselves by claiming copyright ownership of certain legally irrelevant and/or unprotectable, purported musical composition elements,” Freundlich wrote for his superstar client.
When the lawsuit’s allegations are “defrocked” of their “façade,” Bad Bunny’s lawyer wrote, all that is left is a simple rhythm itself — and “courts have been consistent in finding rhythm to be unprotectable.”
The majority of the other defendants named in Steely & Clevie’s lawsuit (including Anitta, Pitbull, Karol G, Ricky Martin, Daddy Yankee, Fonsi, Bieber, units of all three majors and more than 70 other defendants) are represented by a single team of lawyers from the law firm Pryor Cashman. That’s the same firm, and some of the same lawyers, that won Ed Sheeran’s big copyright trial in May.
In their motion, the Pryor lawyers echoed Bad Bunny’s genre-monopoly arguments, but they also claimed that the size of the case had turned it into a procedural disaster — a confusing mess in which nobody knows exactly what they’re accused of doing wrong. They said Steely & Clevie had failed to satisfy “the fundamental elements of a copyright infringement claim.”
“The [complaint] is a ‘shotgun pleading’ filled with conclusory allegations that lump defendants together, making it impossible for defendants to determine what each is alleged to have done, what works are at issue and what in those works is allegedly infringing,” the attorneys wrote.
In their own response filings, Steely & Clevie remained undeterred. In an August filing, they argued that the gripes about the size and complexity of the case were unfounded — and that the scale of the lawsuit actually underscored the central point of their allegations.
“While the copyists are legion here, they certainly did copy, and the sheer amount of copying proves the creative and original nature of plaintiffs’ work,” wrote the duo’s lawyers from the Los Angeles-based law firm Doniger/Burroughs. “Defendants want to exploit plaintiffs’ creativity to build careers and reap financial success while denying plaintiffs their just credit and compensation.”
And in a separate response to Bad Bunny’s filing, Steely & Clevie’s attorneys blasted the accusation that they were aiming to own an entire genre of music.
“In the end, Bad Bunny’s motion boils down to a sensationalist, unsupported suggestion that this case somehow ties up the reggaetón genre. Not so,” the duo’s lawyers wrote. “To be sure, the unauthorized copying of the Fish Market pattern now is widespread — copying that necessitated this case. But Bad Bunny cites no authority for the proposition that widespread copying of an original work somehow renders that work unprotectable.”
A hearing before a federal judge, where those arguments will be tested in open court, is set for Friday. Attorneys for both sides declined to comment.
“A pretty wild claim”
With just about every artist in one of the industry’s hottest genres now facing the possibility of copyright liability over a core part of their music, Steely & Clevie’s case could pose something of an existential problem for reggaetón. Artists who want to make songs in the future featuring a similar rhythm would need to ask (and pay for) permission to do so for decades to come — that is, if the case is ultimately successful.
Some copyright experts are skeptical. “This is a case that zeros in on a particular beat that characterizes an entire genre, and they’re basically saying, you can trace it all back to our song, and a piece of everything that flows from that belongs to us,” says Peter DiCola, a professor at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law who has written extensively about music sampling. “I think that’s a pretty wild claim.”
Part of what makes the “Fish Market” case unusual is the long delay. Steely & Clevie waited 30 years to sue, as an entire world of music built up around a rhythm that they now claim to own — no doubt leading some reggaetón artists to think, perhaps reasonably, that dembow was fair game.
But even if that delay seems vaguely unfair, it’s probably not a great defense. In a 2014 case over the movie Raging Bull, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that there are essentially no time limits to bringing a copyright suit. That decision directly sparked a battle over Led Zeppelin’s “Stairway to Heaven” decades after it was released, as well as many other lawsuits over years-old allegations of infringement.
Instead, the harder questions posed by Steely & Clevie’s case concern the dividing line between historical acknowledgment and exclusive legal ownership. Music historians don’t doubt that Steely & Clevie played a key role in reggaetón’s evolution, but does that entitle them, decades later, to control a crucial part of an entire genre? Put another way, the real question — and it’s potentially a multi-billion-dollar question — is whether they can claim a copyright on the dembow rhythm.
In the abstract, sure. Rhythms are just collections of sounds arranged creatively, like the melodies and lyrics that are clearly covered by copyrights. But in reality, U.S. courts have been hesitant to extend protection to musical elements like rhythms, chord progressions and song structures. Earlier cases have declared them either simply too unoriginal for copyright coverage, or ruled they are “scènes à faire” — a copyright law term for stock elements of a given genre that anyone is entitled to use.
Recent legal battles over music have been dismissed with rulings that the accuser could not claim a monopoly on basic “building blocks” of songs. Led Zeppelin won a case involving “Stairway to Heaven” in 2020, followed by a similar decision in 2022 on Katy Perry’s “Dark Horse.” In May, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit that accused Ed Sheeran’s “Thinking Out Loud” of infringing Marvin Gaye’s “Let’s Get It On” saying the case — over a chord progression and harmonic rhythm – was seeking an “impermissible monopoly over a basic musical building block.”
Legal experts wonder if the claims about dembow may face similar limitations.
“All credit to them for being really talented musicians,” DiCola says. “But this thing that they’ve created, this common element that runs through as kind of the DNA of these reggaetón tracks — is that really something anyone can own? To me, it seems very much like a basic building block.”
Trigger warning: This article contains descriptions of sexual violence.
The fallout from allegations of sexual assault against comedian Russell Brand continued to pile up on Monday (Sept. 18), when YouTube said that it had suspended the monetization of Brand’s account “following serious allegations against the creator,” according to the Associated Press. The move means that Brand, 48, will no longer make money from the site — where his feed has 6.6 million subscribers — in the wake of a four women accusing the stand-up-turned-social-influencer of rape, sexual assault and abuse.
In addition to losing out on money from the ads that run alongside his YouTube videos, the AP reported that one-time employer the BBC had removed some of Brand’s material from its streaming archive as a number of organizations distanced themselves from the polarizing performer, who has denied the allegations and has not been charged with any criminal offenses to date.
Brand was a host/presenter for BBC from 2006-2008 and some of the incidents he’s accused of happened during that time period, leading the BBC to say it is “urgently looking into the issues raised” by a bombshell investigative documentary published jointly last week by The Sunday Times, The Times of London and Channel 4’s Dispatches program.
In a statement, Brand denied the allegations from the unnamed women and said that all of his relationships have been consensual. “Amidst this litany of astonishing, rather baroque attacks are some very serious allegations that I absolutely refute,” he said in the statement. “These allegations pertain to the time when I was working in the mainstream, when I was in the newspapers all the time, when I was in the movies and, as I have written about extensively in my books, I was very, very promiscuous.”
The investigation included claims from one woman who alleged she’d been raped by Brand in Los Angeles in 2012, while three others accused Brand of sexual assault ,including one who said the alleged assault occurred during a relationship with him when she was 16. One of the women also said he had been physically and emotionally abusive; the allegations date from 2006-2013, with the London Metropolitan Police saying that since the allegations were publicly aired they’ve received a report of another alleged sexual assault from 2003.
Brand also suggested in his statement that the reports were part of a coordinated attack designed to discredit him because of his divisive views, which he has aired on YT in such clips as “What REALLY Started the Hawaii Fires?” and “Covid Tsar Admits Lockdowns Were NEVER About Science.” Brand has been criticized for expressing skepticism about COVID-19 vaccines and interviewing contentious podcasters, including Joe Rogan and fired Fox News commenter Tucker Carlson as part of his recent shift from routines aimed at dissecting religion, social inequity and political hypocrisy toward bits seemingly aimed at a conservative American audience.
Though Brand performed in London on Saturday, the final three dates of his current “Bipolarisation” tour has been postponed according to the promoter, even as Brand has been dropped by his talent agency and publisher, Bluebird, over the past week. NBC News also reported that Brand’s literary talent agency, Tavistock Wood, had dropped him following the Times report, which claimed that one of Brand’s accusers had made allegations to the agency in 2020 and received a “very aggressive” response from Brand’s legal team.
“Russell Brand categorically and vehemently denied the allegation made in 2020, but we now believe we were horribly misled by him,” the agency said in a statement. “TW has terminated all professional ties to Brand.” NBC also reported that the U.K. women’s charity for women in recovery, Trevi Women, had cut ties with Brand after the doc aired.
“We have ended our association with Russell Brand and the Stay Free Foundation,” the charity said in a statement, referring to Brand’s charity that supports people recovering from addiction.
One Brand’s former co-stars, Kristen Bell, appeared to have issued a warning about the comedian in a 2010 interview with the Scottish Daily Record, in which she said, “He didn’t try to mess with me on the set or get in my pants. He knew I would lop his nuts off.” Bell appeared with Brand in the 2008 comedy Forgetting Sarah Marshall, in which she breaks up with boyfriend Peter (Jason Segel) and begins a relationship with narcissistic, sex-addicted rocker Aldous Snow (Brand) during a trip to Hawaii.
In another interview with the Daily Mail that same year, Bell — who did not respond to the new reports of Brand’s alleged actions — said, “I made it really clear from the beginning that I would sock him in the balls if he tried anything. So he was intimidated. Noting that she “loved” working with Brand, Bell added that she was possibly “the only woman in the world who would shout that from the rooftops.”
Stories about sexual assault allegations can be traumatizing for survivors of sexual assault. If you or anyone you know needs support, you can reach out to the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN). The organization provides free, confidential support to sexual assault victims. Call RAINN’s National Sexual Assault Hotline (800.656.HOPE) or visit the anti-sexual violence organization’s website for more information.
Travis Scott was questioned for several hours on Monday (Sept. 18) in a civil deposition he gave in connection with hundreds of lawsuits that were filed against him and others over the deaths and injuries at the 2021 Astroworld festival. Scott was questioned in Houston during a deposition that lasted around eight hours, two people with knowledge about the litigation said.
Lawyers and others connected to the civil lawsuits are under a gag order, preventing them from saying little beyond what happens during court hearings.
“Travis Scott’s deposition is typical legal procedure. What is not typical is how the media continues to focus on him despite being cleared of any wrongdoing by extensive government investigations, including by the Houston Police Department,” Ted Anastasiou, a spokesperson for Scott, said in a statement. “Travis is fully cooperating with the legal process while still remaining committed to his tour in support of his record-breaking album, Utopia, and his charitable efforts to support at-risk communities.”
Following an investigation by Houston Police, no charges were filed against Scott after a grand jury in June declined to indict him and five other people on any criminal counts related to the deadly concert. Police Chief Troy Finner declined to say what the overall conclusion of his agency’s investigation was.
In July, the police department made public its nearly 1,300-page investigative report in which festival workers highlighted problems and warned of possible deadly consequences.
According to a summary in the investigative report of a police interview conducted two days after the concert, Scott told investigators that although he did see one person near the stage getting medical attention, overall the crowd seemed to be enjoying the show and he did not see any signs of serious problems.
This was the first time Scott was questioned by attorneys for those who have filed lawsuits since a crowd surge at his Nov. 5, 2021, concert in Houston killed 10 festivalgoers. Those killed, who ranged in age from 9 to 27, died from compression asphyxia, which an expert likened to being crushed by a car.
Similar crushes have happened all over the world, from a soccer stadium in England to the hajj pilgrimage in Saudi Arabia to Halloween festivities in the South Korean capital. Most people who who die in crowd surges suffocate.
Scott’s deposition comes as a judge earlier this year scheduled the first trial from the lawsuits for May 6, 2024. That first trial would take place nearly 2.5 years since the deadly concert. Documents filed in court in April listed more than 1,500 active cases, many of which were filed against Scott and Live Nation, the concert promoter.
Of these, 992 were cases with physical injuries and 313 were cases of “emotional distress, pain, suffering and mental anguish.” Orthopedic surgeries have been completed in 17 of these cases, with other surgeries recommended in another 21.
Some of the lawsuits have since been settled, including those filed by the families of three of the people killed during the concert.
Scott’s deposition on Monday took place on the same day that hip-hop artist Drake, who performed several songs with Scott during the Astroworld concert, was performing in Houston. Drake was also sued in connection with the deadly concert.