Legal
Page: 65
A federal judge ruled Friday (Aug. 18) that U.S. copyright law does not cover creative works created by artificial intelligence, weighing in on an issue that’s being closely watched by the music industry.
In a 15-page written opinion, Judge Beryl Howell upheld a decision by the U.S. Copyright Office to deny a copyright registration to computer scientist Stephen Thaler for an image created solely by an AI model. The judge cited decades of legal precedent that such protection is only afforded to works created by humans.
“The act of human creation — and how to best encourage human individuals to engage in that creation, and thereby promote science and the useful arts — was … central to American copyright from its very inception,” the judge wrote. “Non-human actors need no incentivization with the promise of exclusive rights under United States law, and copyright was therefore not designed to reach them.”
In a statement Friday, Thaler’s attorney Ryan Abbot said he and his client “disagree with the district court’s judgment” and vowed to appeal: “In our view, copyright law is clear that the public is the main beneficiary of the law and this is best achieved by promoting the generation and dissemination of new works, regardless of how they are created.”
Though novel, the decision was not entirely surprising. Federal courts have long strictly limited to content created by humans, rejecting it for works created by animals, by forces of nature, and even those claimed to have been authored by divine spirits, like religious texts.
But the ruling was nonetheless important because it came amid growing interest in the future role that could be played in the creation of music and other content by so-called generative AI tools, similar to the much-discussed ChatGPT. The question of copyright protection is crucial to the future role of AI since works that are not protected would be difficult to monetize.
“Undoubtedly, we are approaching new frontiers in copyright as artists put AI in their toolbox to be used in the generation of new visual and other artistic works,” the judge wrote. “The increased attenuation of human creativity from the actual generation of the final work will prompt challenging questions.”
The current case, however — dealing with a work that was admittedly created solely by a computer — “is not nearly so complex,” the judge wrote. Given the lack of any human input at all, she said, Thaler’s case presented a “clear and straightforward answer.”
Though Friday’s ruling came with a clear answer, more challenging legal dilemmas will come in the future from more subtle uses of AI. What if an AI-powered tool is used in the studio to create parts of a song, but human artists add other elements to the final product? How much human direction on the use of those tools is needed for the output to count as “human authorship”?
Earlier this year, a report by the U.S. Copyright Office said that AI-assisted works could still be copyrighted, so long as the ultimate author remains a human being. The report avoided offering easy answers, saying that protection for AI works would be “necessarily a case-by-case inquiry,” and that the final outcome would always depend on individual circumstances.
Read the full opinion here:
French Montana is facing a copyright lawsuit claiming his 2022 song “Blue Chills” features an unlicensed sample from a singer-songwriter – who says the rapper tentatively agreed to pay her for the clip but then never actually did so.
Skylar Gudasz’s ghostly 2020 song “Femme Fatal” can be heard playing throughout French’s track, and she claims that the rapper’s reps offered to pay her for the sample – both in upfront fees and an ongoing payments, including a fifty-percent share of the publishing copyright.
But in a lawsuit filed Thursday in North Carolina federal court, the singer says French (whose real name is Karim Kharbouch) then dropped “Blue Chills” without ever actually signing that deal.
“Despite repeated promises from defendants …. no signed agreement, fees, royalties, licensing agreements or monies have ever been sent to plaintiff,” Gudasz’s lawyers wrote in the lawsuit.
A rep for French Montana did not immediately return a request for comment.
Gudasz says she was first contacted in May 2022 by Deborah Mannis-Gardner, a well-known industry exec who has been called the “queen” of sample clearance, about French using “Femme Fatal” in an upcoming song. Gudasz says she and her lawyer then negotiated a deal in which she would receive more than $7000 in upfront fees, an .08 percent cut on master royalties, and a fifty-percent share of the copyright for French’s new composition.
But a month later, she claims that French, without notice, released the song “prior to finalizing and signing a licensing agreement.” Gudasz says that her lawyer quickly alerted Mannis-Gardner about the problem.
“Oh jeez,” Mannis-Gardner allegedly wrote in a response email, saying she would reach out to French’s attorney about the issue. But Gudasz says the situation was never resolved: “DMG continued to maintain there would be a final agreement, sent emails finalizing the licensing agreement and requested invoices from plaintiff, which plaintiff timely sent … and even sent plaintiff a congratulatory email.”
Gudasz says the aborted negotiations show that French “knowingly infringed” the earlier song, because they show that he was aware that he needed a license but chose to proceed without one. She claims that French even posted comments to Instagram congratulating her, and acknowledged her role in “Blue Chills” on an episode of Apple Music’s Rap Life Radio.
“The unauthorized and infringing use by defendants of the song ‘Femme Fatale’ has caused irreparable harm, damage and injury,” Gudasz’s lawyers wrote. “Plaintiff has been deprived of the rightful experience of benefitting and enjoying the fruits of her labor.”
In addition to French Montana, the lawsuit also names producer Harry Fraud (real name Rory William Quigley) as a defendant, as well Sony Music Entertainment and several other companies involved in French’s song. Mannis-Gardner is not named as a defendant in the lawsuit and is not accused of any wrongdoing.
Representatives for Britney Spears’ estranged husband, Sam Asghari, are denying reports that the fitness instructor/actor has threatening to challenge the couple’s pre-nuptial agreement and release damaging information about the singer in the midst of their divorce proceedings. Asghari, 29, filed for divorce from the pop icon on Wednesday (Aug. 16) in Los Angeles Superior Court, per documents obtained by Billboard. […]
Smokey Robinson has won a protracted legal battle with a former manager who claimed he was owed nearly $1 million in touring profits from the legendary Motown singer. Explore Explore See latest videos, charts and news See latest videos, charts and news Following a three-day trial that saw extended testimony from the star himself, an […]
SoundExchange is suing SiriusXM over allegations that the satellite radio giant has been “gaming the system” in order to withhold more than $150 million in royalties owed to artists.
In a lawsuit filed Wednesday in Virginia federal court, the royalties group claimed that SiriusXM has been using bookmaking trickery – namely, manipulating how it bundles satellite services with web streaming services – as part of a scheme to “grossly underpay the royalties it owes.”
“Through its contrived and improper apportionment, Sirius XM has engineered a windfall for itself and deprived artists of the important compensation to which they are legally entitled and desperately need,” wrote lawyers for SoundExchange in the complaint.
The allegations concern the royalties paid under so-called statutory licenses – government mandates that automatically give certain streaming services the ability to broadcast songs for a set price. Crucially, that system sets different rates for revenue from satellite broadcasts (like SiriusXM’s traditional satellite radio) versus that from so-called webcasting services, which are transmitted through the internet.
In Wednesday’s complaint, SoundExchange says SiriusXM has intentionally bundled the two products together as a single offering in recent years, allowing the company to mix the revenue in order to improperly lower its royalty bill.
“Sirius XM is gaming the system: to grossly underpay the royalties it owes, Sirius XM has unreasonably characterized revenue from its bundled product as ‘webcasting revenue’ that in actuality is “[satellite] revenue’,” SoundExchange wrote. “Sirius XM’s revenue apportionment is beyond the pale, and harms music creators.”
According to SoundExchange, that maneuver has allowed SiriusXM to shortchange artists to the tune of $150 million. The company has also allegedly refused to comply with an indepdent audit that found millions in such shortfalls.
“Sirius XM has not paid its bills,” SoundExchange wrote. “By purporting to comply with the statutory license without paying what it owes under the license, Sirius XM has unjustly enriched itself to the detriment of recording artists and copyright owners upon whose music Sirius XM has built its business.”
A representative for SiriusXM did not immediately return a request for comment.
In a statement, SoundExchange CEO Michael Huppe said the group had only resorted to litigation as a last resort. “In recent years we have viewed SiriusXM as a willingly lawful and compliant company that shares our desire for a robust streaming marketplace. But SiriusXM has and continues to wrongfully exploit the rules to significantly underpay the satellite royalties that it owes.”
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: Record labels sue the Internet Archive over a project to digitize old records; Dua Lipa loses a bid to dismiss one of the “Levitating” copyright lawsuits; a federal judge questions the fairness of Live Nation’s arbitration agreements with ticket buyers; and much more.
Want to get The Legal Beat newsletter in your email inbox every Tuesday? Subscribe here for free.
THE BIG STORY: Historical Preservation or Blatant Infringement?
Like almost anything implicating copyright law, the Great 78 Project is something of a Rorschach test.
To the Internet Archive, it’s a project of “preservation, research and discovery,” aimed at creating a “digital reference collection of underrepresented artists and genres.” Digitizing hundreds of thousands of old 78rpm records is a much-needed effort to “ensure the survival of these cultural materials for future generations to study and enjoy.”
But according to a new lawsuit filed last week by Universal Music, Sony Music and Concord, the Great 78 is nothing more than “blatant” copyright infringement under a “smokescreen” of preservation.
“The Great 78 website is a massive, unauthorized, digital record store of recordings,” lawyers for the music companies wrote in the massive lawsuit this week, which claims the Internet Archive infringed more than 2,700 songs and potentially owes as much as $412 million in damages.
“Although Internet Archive describes the Great 78 Project’s goal as ‘the preservation, research and discovery of 78 rpm records,’ the Great 78 Project is actually an illegal effort to willfully defy copyright law on an astonishing scale,” the labels wrote.
At issue in the case are so-called pre-1972 songs — a category of music that was, when the Great 78 Project launched in 2006, not covered by federal sound recording copyrights. But in 2018, federal lawmakers extended such protection to the old records as part of the Music Modernization Act.
While the new law contained carveouts that allowed “non-commercial” uses of certain old records, the labels say the Internet Archive simply “ignored the new law and plowed forward as if the Music Modernization Act had never been enacted.”
For more, go read our full breakdown of the lawsuit, including access to the actual legal complaint filed against the Internet Archive.
Other top stories…
10 YEARS FOR TORY LANEZ – The rapper was sentenced to 10 years in prison for shooting Megan Thee Stallion in the foot, capping off three years of legal drama over the violent 2020 incident. The sentence was much harsher than the penalty sought by Lanez’s lawyers (just probation) but less than the 13 years that prosecutors had requested.
DUA LIPA CAN’T BEAT DISCO CASE – A federal judge ruled that Dua Lipa must face a copyright lawsuit accusing her of copying “Levitating” from a 1979 disco song, refusing the star’s early bid to end the case. Though she ruled that Lipa’s accusers had failed to show that the pop star had ever heard the song she was accused of copying, the judge said they had shown “just enough” to proceed on their claim that the song was so “strikingly similar” that it constitutes infringement.
TWITTER FIRES BACK AT PUBLISHERS – Twitter filed its first real response to a lawsuit from music publishers alleging widespread copyright infringement on the platform, arguing that it cannot be held liable for the actions of its users. The case claims that Twitter infringed over 1,700 different songs from writers like Taylor Swift and Beyoncé, but in a motion to dismiss the case, lawyers for the Elon Musk-owned site (now rebranded to X) said the company itself was not on the hook for illegal posts by its users.
The 1975 KISS FALLOUT CONTINUES – The organizers of a Malaysian music festival are seeking 12.3 million ringgit ($2.7 million) in losses from British band The 1975 after lead singer Matty Healy’s on-stage protest of the country’s anti-gay laws prompted authorities to shut down the festival.
NO ARBITRATION FOR LIVE NATION – A federal judge ruled against Live Nation in an antitrust lawsuit over allegations of inflated ticket prices, declaring that the case should proceed as a federal class action rather than via private arbitration. Concertgoers opt into that out-of-court process when they buy tickets, but the judge ruled that the arbitration process posed a “serious risk of being fundamentally unfair” to consumers: “Because Defendants are often in effect the only ticketing game in town, would-be concertgoers are forced to accept Defendants’ [arbitration agreement] in full, or else forego the opportunity to attend events altogether.”
Twitter has filed its first formal response to a lawsuit from music publishers alleging widespread copyright infringement on the platform, arguing that it cannot be held liable for the actions of its users.
The filing came two months after dozens of music publishers sued the Elon Musk-owned site, claiming its users had infringed over 1,700 different songs from writers like Taylor Swift and Beyoncé — a claim that, if proven, could put the social media giant on the hook for $255 million in damages.
In a motion to dismiss the lawsuit filed Monday, lawyers for Twitter (now re-branded to X) argued that the company itself was not on the hook for illegal posts by its users. Among other things, they cited the Supreme Court’s high-profile 2005 ruling on the filing sharing service Grokster, which said that digital services cannot be sued unless they take active steps to encourage infringement by users.
“In this case, plaintiffs do not allege that X encouraged, induced, or took affirmative steps with the intent to foster the infringement of plaintiffs’ works,” wrote the company’s lawyers, hailing from the law firm Quinn Emanuel. “To the contrary, X’s anti-infringement policies and practices … belie any reasonable assumption that X has induced its users to infringe any copyrights.”
The case against Twitter was organized by the National Music Publishers’ Association, which has long argued that the site is the last major social media service refusing to license music. TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and Snapchat have all allegedly entered into such deals with publishers, providing a library of licensed music for users to legally add to their posts.
“Twitter stands alone as the largest social media platform that has completely refused to license the millions of songs on its service,” said NMPA president/CEO David Israelite when the case was filed in June. “Twitter knows full well that music is leaked, launched and streamed by billions of people every day on its platform.”
But in Monday’s response, Twitter’s lawyers argued that even if such licensing deals were the NMPA’s preferred outcome, they are not legally required to avoid a copyright lawsuit – and that the failure to secure one was irrelevant to the infringement case against it.
“The allegation … is just another way of saying that X could do more to address the unauthorized use of music on the site by purchasing licenses from Plaintiffs on behalf of X’s users,” Twitter’s attorneys wrote. “Whether X sought music licenses for users or elected not to do so has no bearing on this inquiry; it is not evidence of an intent to encourage infringement.”
Notably, this week’s filing from Twitter did not delve into the thorny issue of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a federal law that limits how websites like Twitter can be sued over copyright infringement by their users.
The DMCA provides sites like Twitter with immunity — a “safe harbor” — from litigation over material uploaded by their users, so long as they promptly remove infringing content and ban repeated violators from the platform. The publishers’ lawsuit goes to great lengths to argue that Twitter failed to do either of those things, meaning the site has legally forfeited the DMCA’s protections.
Twitter heavily refutes that point and, though they did not do so on Monday, its lawyers will undoubtedly invoke the DMCA’s protections at a later stage of the case if their current motion is denied.
The case against Twitter was filed by Concord, Universal Music Publishing Group, peermusic, ABKCO Music, Anthem Entertainment, Big Machine Music, BMG Rights Management, Hipgnosis Songs Group, Kobalt Music Publishing America, Mayimba Music, Reservoir Media Management, Sony Music Publishing, Spirit Music Group, The Royalty Network, Ultra Music Publishing, Warner Chappell Music and Wixen Music Publishing.
A rep for NMPA did not immediately return a request for comment on Twitter’s new filing.
Universal Music, Sony Music and Concord are suing the Internet Archive over a project to digitize old vinyl records from Frank Sinatra, Ella Fitzgerald, Bing Crosby and other iconic artists, calling it “blatant” copyright infringement under a “smokescreen” of preservation.
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
In a complaint filed Friday in Manhattan federal court, the labels took aim at the Internet Archive’s “Great 78 Project,” in which thousands of physical records have been digitized and made available to users for free. They called the project “wholesale theft of generations of music.”
“The Great 78 website is a massive, unauthorized, digital record store of recordings,” lawyers for the music companies wrote. “Although Internet Archive describes the Great 78 Project’s goal as ‘the preservation, research and discovery of 78 rpm records,’ the Great 78 Project is actually an illegal effort to willfully defy copyright law on an astonishing scale.”
Though they claim “hundreds of thousands” of songs have been illegally copied, the labels are specifically suing over 2,749 songs – every single one of which, they say, is already available on legal digital services. They include iconic tracks like Crosby’s “White Christmas” and Sinatra’s “I’ve Got the World on a String.”
“Defendants [cannot] justify their activities as necessary to preserve historical recordings,” the music companies wrote. “These recordings face no danger of being lost, forgotten, or destroyed.”
The lawsuit is hardly the Internet Archive’s first dust-up with copyright law. The group fought to invalidate legislation passed by Congress in the 1990s that added years onto the length of a copyright’s term of protection, and is currently embroiled in a lawsuit filed by the major book publishers over a COVID-era library project that scanned physical books and lent them to users for free. Earlier this year, a federal judge ruled that Internet Archive’s project was not a legal fair use of the publishers’ books.
In Friday’s complaint, the music companies cited the Internet Archive’s “long history of opposing copyright laws” and previous efforts to “improperly … wrap its infringing conduct in the ill-fitting mantle of fair use.”
“Having failed repeatedly in Congress and the courts, Internet Archive now chooses to simply willfully disobey the copyright laws of which it is acutely aware,” lawyers for the music companies wrote.
At issue in Friday’s complaint are so-called pre-1972 songs – a category of music that was previously not covered by federal sound recording copyrights. But in 2018, federal lawmakers extended such protection to the old songs as part of the Music Modernization Act. In their complaint, the music companies said they were suing to “vindicate the rights Congress has granted creators in pre-1972 sound recordings.”
“When Defendants exploit Plaintiffs’ sound recordings without authorization, neither Plaintiffs nor their artists see a dime,” the companies wrote. “Not only does this harm Plaintiffs and the artists or their heirs by depriving them of compensation, but it undermines the value of music.”
The lawsuit is seeking so-called statutory damages for each copyrighted song allegedly infringed, which could total $412 million if fully granted. But such damages totals are heavily litigated and could be substantially lower if the case ever reaches a final judgment.
In addition to naming the Internet Archive itself as a defendant, the lawsuit also individually names the group’s founder, Brewster Kahle, as well as George Blood, an audio engineer who allegedly worked on the Great 78 project.
The Internet Archive did not immediately return a request for comment.
Read the entire complaint filed against the Internet Archive here:
The organizer of a Malaysian music festival is seeking 12.3 million ringgit ($2.7 million) in losses from British band The 1975, after its lead singer’s on-stage protest of the country’s anti-gay laws prompted authorities to shut down the festival, the company’s lawyer said Friday (Aug. 11).
Future Sound Asia sent a letter to the band on Monday demanding compensation over a breach of contract, said FSA lawyer David Dinesh Mathew.
During the July 21 performance, Matty Healy used profanities in his speech criticizing the Malaysian government’s stance against homosexuality, before kissing bassist Ross MacDonald during the opening show at the Good Vibes Festival in Kuala Lumpur. Footage of the performance was posted on social media and sparked backlash in the predominantly Muslim country.
In Malaysia, homosexuality is a crime punishable by up to 20 years in prison and caning.
The government slammed Healy’s conduct, blacklist the band from the country and cut short the three-day festival. Some in the LGBTQ+ community also took to social media to criticize the band, saying Healy had disrupted the work of activists pushing for change and also endangered the community.
In the letter, Mathew said the band had given a written pledge before the show that it would adhere to all local guidelines and regulations. Instead, Healy’s “use of abusive language, equipment damage, and indecent stage behaviour” caused financial losses to FSA.
“Unfortunately, the assurance was ignored,” Mathew said Friday in a written statement to The Associated Press. “Their actions have had repercussions on local artists and small businesses, who relied on the festival for creative opportunities and their livelihoods.”
As such, he said FSA demanded that The 1975 acknowledge their liability and pay 12.3 million ringgit in compensation for damages incurred. On its website, FSA said it is in the midst of accommodating all refund requests.
The lawyer said FSA will take legal action in the courts of England if the band fails to respond by Monday, a week after the legal letter of claim was sent.
The band canceled its shows in Taiwan and Jakarta, Indonesia, after the fiasco in the Malaysian capital. It wasn’t the first such provocative on-stage display by Healy in the name of LGBTQ+ rights: In 2019, he kissed a male fan during a concert in the United Arab Emirates, which outlaws same-sex sexual activity.
Following his 10-year prison sentence this week for shooting Megan Thee Stallion, Tory Lanez took to Instagram late Thursday (Aug. 10) to maintain his innocence and declare that he won’t “stop fighting till I come out victorious.”
Lanez (real name: Daystar Peterson) — who was convicted on three felony counts in December over the 2020 shooting — addressed the note to his “Umbrellas” fan group.
“I have never let a hard time intimidate me,” he wrote. “I will never never let no jail time eliminate me. Regardless of how they try to spin my words, I have always maintained my innocence and I always will.”
He writes that during his sentencing hearing, he took responsibility for “verbal and intimate moments that I shared with the parties involved,” but not for the shooting itself. “In no way shape or form was I apologizing for the charges I’m being wrongfully convicted of. I remain on the stance that I refuse to apologize for something that I did not do.”
Tuesday’s decadelong prison sentence for Lanez — which comes more than three years after the July 2020 shooting — was more than the probation sought by his lawyers but less than the 13 years prosecutors had suggested. The shooting occurred after Lanez, Megan Thee Stallion (real name: Megan Pete) and their friend Kelsey Harris left a party. According to prosecutors, Meg exited the vehicle and Lanez shot at her feet while shouting, “Dance, bi—!” Lanez was charged with the shooting in October 2022.
Read Lanez’s new statement in full below:
To The Umbrellas,
I have never let a hard time intimidate me. I will never never let no jail time eliminate me. Regardless of how they try to spin my words, I have always maintained my innocence and I always will.
This week in court I took responsibility for all verbal and intimate moments that I shared with the parties involved. … That’s it.
In no way shape or form was I apologizing for the charges I’m being wrongfully convicted of. I remain on the stance that I refuse to apologize for something that I did not do.
I’ve faced adversity my whole life and every time it looked like I would lose, I came out on top. This is nothing but another moment where my back is against the wall and I refuse to stop fighting till I come out victorious.
Tough times don’t last, tough people do.
To my family, friends and umbrellas thank you for your continued support.
See you soon.