Legal
Page: 66
A federal judge ruled Wednesday (Jan. 31) that a tribute band sued by Earth, Wind & Fire for trademark infringement can continue to try to prove its bold counterargument: That the legendary R&B group abandoned the intellectual property rights to its name.
Faced with a lawsuit for using the name “Earth Wind & Fire Legacy Reunion” at concerts, the smaller act argued last summer that the original group had allowed plenty of other tribute bands to use its name without repercussion — so many, in fact, that it could no longer claim any exclusive legal rights to it.
Lawyers for Earth, Wind & Fire have called that argument meritless and demanded that it be dismissed, but in a decision Wednesday, Judge Federico A. Moreno refused to do so. Though he said Legacy Reunion might ultimately find it “difficult” to prove that “abandonment” argument, he said they had “done enough” to avoid having it tossed out entirely in the early stages of the case.
Earth, Wind & Fire has continued to tour since founder Maurice White died in 2016, led by longtime members Philip Bailey, Ralph Johnson and White’s brother, Verdine White. The band operates under a license from an entity called Earth Wind & Fire IP, a holding company owned by Maurice White’s sons that formally owns the name.
In a March lawsuit, that company accused Legacy Reunion of trying to trick consumers into thinking it was the real Earth Wind & Fire. Though it called itself a “Reunion,” the lawsuit said the tribute band contained only a few “side musicians” who briefly played with Earth, Wind & Fire many years ago.
“Defendants did this to benefit from the commercial magnetism and immense goodwill the public has for plaintiff’s ‘Earth, Wind & Fire’ marks and logos, thereby misleading consumers and selling more tickets at higher prices,” the group’s lawyers wrote.
Tribute acts — groups that exclusively cover the music of a particular band — are legally allowed to operate, and they often adopt names that allude to the original. But they must be clear that they are a tribute band, and they can get into legal hot water if they make it appear that they are affiliated with or endorsed by the original. In 2021, ABBA filed a similar case against a what it called a “parasitic” band called ABBA Mania.
Facing the lawsuit filed by Earth, Wind & Fire, Legacy Reunion filed a response in August that listed out a dozen other tribute acts that allegedly feature “Earth, Wind & Fire” as part of their name. Legacy Reunion argued that since the original band had “taken no action to enforce its purported trademark rights,” it had legally abandoned them.
“Due to the unchecked third-party use of the phrase, [EW&F] has abandoned ‘Earth, Wind & Fire,’ and [the name] has lost its trademark significance,” wrote attorneys for Substantial Music Group, which operates Legacy Reunion.
In a response fired back in September, attorneys for Earth, Wind & Fire said the band had very obviously not abandoned its rights to the name, adding that the “bare allegations” made by Legacy Reunion, combined with just a “handful” of other tribute bands, falls “woefully short” of what they would need to prove.
Wednesday’s decision by Moreno rejected Earth, Wind & Fire’s motion to dismiss the abandonment argument, but it does not mean that Legacy Reunion has evaded the band’s infringement allegations. To the contrary, the smaller group must now actually prove that argument in future proceedings.
An attorney for the Earth, Wind & Fire did not immediately return a request for comment.
Showtime is facing a lawsuit over its 2022 television series centered on country music legends George Jones and Tammy Wynette, filed by the estate of Wynette’s late husband over allegations the show unfairly turned him into “the villain.”
The case, filed Wednesday (Jan. 31) in Delaware court, claims that “George & Tammy” conveyed a “negative and disparaging portrayal” of the late George Richey, a songwriter and producer to whom Wynette was married for decades after her split from Jones.
“The series depicts Richey as a devious husband who abused Wynette and Richey’s prior wife, facilitated and encouraged Wynette’s addiction to prescription painkillers, and engaged in financial and managerial manipulation of Wynette,” write attorneys for Richey’s daughter, Sheila Slaughter Richey.
Though the allegations sound like a defamation lawsuit, they’re not. Instead, the case actually accuses Showtime of violating a 2019 settlement agreement that allegedly barred Wynette’s daughter, Georgette Jones, from making disparaging statements about Richey.
Since George & Tammy was based on Georgette’s 2011 memoir about her parents, the lawsuit claims that Showtime committed so-called tortious interference with contract — meaning the network essentially encouraged Georgette to breach her settlement with Richey’s estate.
“The defendant [was] specifically told, in a written letter delivered prior to the broadcast of the Series, that the Series was based on and featured disparaging information that was the ill-gotten product of Georgette’s violation of the agreement,” the estate’s lawyers wrote. “Nonetheless, Showtime chose to broadcast the Series anyway.”
The case was filed by estate executor Sheila Slaughter Richey, who married Richey in 2001 after Wynette’s 1998 death, and by their son Tatum Richey. In a statement to Billboard, Sheila and Tatum’s attorney, Todd McMurtry, said the case raises “many serious issues” and that he and his clients “look forward to addressing them with the court.”
“Showtime transformed George Richey into the villain of its story, raking in profits and views,” McMurtry said. “Showtime unjustly benefitted from Georgette’s violation of her prior contractual promise to never again disparage or encourage the disparagement of the Richey family.”
A spokesperson for Showtime did not immediately return a request for comment on Wednesday.
Released in December 2022, George & Tammy was well-received by critics — particularly Michael Shannon and Jessica Chastain’s respective portrayals of Jones and Wynette. Both were later nominated for Emmy Awards for their performances.
The six-episode limited series was based on The Three of Us: Growing Up with Tammy and George, Georgette Jones’ 2011 memoir, and she’s listed in credits as a “consulting producer” on the series. In an August interview with The Hollywood Reporter, Georgette said she had “many, many conversations with the creative team” ahead of the production.
According to Wednesday’s lawsuit, Georgette was tightly restricted in what she could say about Richey. That’s because Sheila previously sued her in 2015 over allegations that she made “false accusations” about Richey and his family. That case settled in 2019, with Georgette allegedly signing a strict non-disparagement clause.
Under the terms of that deal, she agreed to not make “any statements, written or verbal, or cause or encourage others to make any statements, written or verbal, that defame, disparage, or in any way criticize the personal or business reputation practices or conduct” of Richey or his heirs.
But despite that agreement, the lawsuit claims that Showtime “repeatedly disparages” Richey inGeorge & Tammy. The lawsuit claims that in the series, Richey — portrayed by Steve Zahn — encourages Wynette’s drug addiction, is physically abusive toward her and manipulates her to maintain complete control over her career.
The lawsuit takes particular exception to the series finale. In one scene, Jones appears to find a will that Wynette has written on a yellow note pad. Later, a series of text epilogues flash on screen, telling viewers that “George Richey inherited the vast majority of her estate” and that “Tammy’s yellow note pads were never found.”
“The obvious implication is that Richey destroyed the yellow note pads that contained Wynette’s will,” the estate’s lawyers write.
A federal judge says prosecutors cannot cite rap lyrics written by Jam Master Jay’s alleged killer during his murder trial, warning that “music artists should be free to create without fear that their lyrics could be unfairly used against them.”
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
In a decision issued Tuesday, Judge LaShann DeArcy Hall ruled that the lyrics prosecutors wanted to use against Karl Jordan Jr. – one about shooting a man in the head, another alluding to drugs – were not directly connected to the Run DMC star’s 2002 murder, so they couldn’t be presented to the jury.
The ruling came amid a broader debate over the use of rap lyrics in criminal trials, a controversial practice that has drawn backlash from the music industry and efforts by lawmakers to stop it. A gang trial in Atlanta, in which prosecutors are using Young Thug’s lyrics against him, has drawn particular scrutiny.
In that case, the judge allowed the lyrics to be used, as have most judges confronted with the issue. But on Tuesday, Judge Hall not only barred them from being cited in Jordan’s case, but offered a detailed analysis of the practice and the risks that come with it.
“Courts should be wary of overly permissive rules allowing the use of rap lyrics and videos against criminal defendants at trial,” the judge wrote. “Music artists should be free to create without fear that their lyrics could be unfairly used against them at a trial.”
In a remarkable 14-page opinion, the judge offered a sweeping historical overview of hip hop’s past. She took readers from the genesis of hip hop in the Bronx to the present day, name-dropping Grand Master Flash, Public Enemy, Queen Latifah, Dr. Dre, Notorious B.I.G., Jay-Z, Nas, Future and Ice Spice along the way.
Because rappers have “played the part of storytellers, providing a lens into their lives and those in their communities,” the judge wrote, their music has often depicted “criminal conduct” and other real-life issues – something that has attracted scrutiny “not only from the public, but also from law enforcement.”
“As a result, the admissibility of rap lyrics has become the subject of dispute in courtrooms across the country,” Judge Hall wrote.
In Jordan’s case, prosecutors wanted to play a lyric in which he rapped “We aim for the head, no body shots, and we stick around just to see the body drop.” Since Jay was shot in the head, the government argued that the lyric “speaks directly to the issues in the case.”
But Judge Hall disagreed. Citing lyrics by Nas (“two in the dome, he’s laid down”) and Ice Cube (“two shots hit him in the face when they blasted”), the judge ruled that lines Jordan wrote “merely contain generic references to violence that can be found in many rap songs.”
She applied the same analysis to another lyric cited by prosecutors, in which Jordan rapped about “breaking down bricks” – an line that the government argued was an allusion to the drug charges he’s also facing. But again, Judge Hall cited other songs in which rappers say the same thing, like Migos’ 2021 track “Modern Day.”
“The members of Migos, however, do not stand accused of drug trafficking in this or any other case,” the judge wrote. “Jordan’s lyrics are simply too imprecise.”
The big problem, the judge wrote, is that rappers not only have a right to tell stories about violence and crime, but are also “increasingly incentivized to create music about drugs and violence to gain commercial success.” She warned that many “will exaggerate or fabricate the contents of their music in pursuit of that success.”
In all cases involving lyrics, Judge Hall said the core question should be whether the music has a “nexus to the criminal conduct” – meaning, a direct, literal connection to alleged crime. If prosecutors can’t show that, then lyrics should be avoided.
“Juries should not be placed in the unenviable position of divining a defendant’s guilt, in whole or in part, from a musical exposition with only a tenuous relationship to the criminal conduct alleged,” the judge wrote.
Judge Hall was careful to say that she was not banning all lyrics from cases. As a hypothetical, she referenced Kendrick Lamar’s 2012 track “The Art of Peer Pressure,” in which he raps about ripping off a house while “The sun is goin’ down” and “somebody in this room.”
“If the government wished to admit these lyrics into evidence at a subsequent trial accusing Lamar of burglarizing an occupied residence with his friends at sunset, there would be a more than sufficient basis to do so,” the judge wrote. “Individuals who choose to confess unmistakable details of their crimes should be held to those statements, to be sure.”
But Judge Hall said that was not the case with Jordan’s lyrics – nor with huge numbers of other rap songs that feature references to dark subjects.
“Themes of violence and criminality have become so prevalent within the genre that they have little, if any, probative value at trial,” the judge wrote. “It is critical that resolution of guilt and innocence emerge from evidence with a close relationship to a specific criminal act, and not be based on perceptions born from the commercial and artistic promotion of a criminal lifestyle.”
The trial over Jam Master Jay’s 2002 killing, in which Jordan and Ronald Washington stand accused of murdering the Run DMC star as payback for a failed drug deal, kicked off Monday. The proceedings are expected to run for several more weeks.
Read the entire decision here:
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 long-simmering feud between the families of Joey Ramone and Johnny Ramone has erupted into a new lawsuit over a proposed Netflix biopic; Madonna’s team vows to “vigorously” fight a lawsuit over her late concert starts; a man stalking Taylor Swift is arrested three times before he’s kept behind bars; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: Hey, Ho, Let’s Go … To Court
Joey Ramone and Johnny Ramone — who were very much not actual brothers — didn’t like each other much in life. And guess what? Their heirs don’t like each other much either.
In a lawsuit filed last week in Manhattan court, Johnny’s widow, Linda Ramone, sued Joey’s brother, Mickey Leigh, over allegations that he had “covertly” developed a planned Netflix movie starring Pete Davidson as Joey. She says that any movie based on the pioneering punk band requires her sign-off.
“To permit defendants alone to tell the authoritative story of the Ramones would be an injustice to the band and its legacy,” Linda’s lawyers wrote.
The case is the latest in years of battles between Linda and Mickey, who split 50-50 ownership of the Ramones IP. And it raises interesting legal questions about so-called life rights deals — and how they raise unique challenges in the context of musical biopics.
To learn more, go read our full story, featuring the full backstory, legal analysis and access to the actual court docs.
Other top stories this week…
LATE DEBATE – Madonna’s management team and Live Nation responded to a high-profile lawsuit claiming the music legend harmed her fans by starting New York City concerts later than scheduled, disputing some allegations and saying they plan to “defend this case vigorously.”
TAYLOR’S STALKER HELD IN JAIL – David Crowe, the man charged with stalking Taylor Swift outside her Manhattan home, was ordered by a New York judge to remain in custody after he was arrested for a third time shortly after being released from jail the first time.
JAM MASTER JAY MURDER TRIAL – Two men accused of murdering Run-DMC‘s Jam Master Jay, Karl Jordan, Jr. and Ronald Washington, finally headed to trial this week, more than 21 years after the rap icon’s killing. Prosecutors say the two men killed Jay as payback after a failed cocaine deal; if convicted, they each face the possibility of life in prison.
JIMI HENDRIX ROYALTIES CASE – A London judge issued a ruling that the heirs of Jimi Hendrix’s former bandmates could continue to sue Sony Music over the rights to three classic albums, clearing the way for a trial next year to resolve the contentious lawsuit.
RIDESHARING … A GLOCK? – Chicago rapper Lil Zay Osama was indicted on two federal charges of illegal firearm possession after he allegedly left an automatic Glock pistol in the back of an Uber after a ride in New York City.
50 CENT SUED OVER MIC TOSS – The rapper was hit with a civil lawsuit over an incident last summer in which he was captured on video throwing a microphone at a concert, filed by a Los Angeles radio host who says she was struck by the mic and suffered “severe and permanent injuries.”
FUGEE LAWYER LEAKS – David Kenner, the attorney who unsuccessfully represented Fugees rapper Pras Michel in his criminal trial case year, pleaded guilty to a criminal contempt charge over allegations that he leaked grand jury materials to reporters ahead of the trial. The lawyer was sentenced to one year of unsupervised probation and will have to pay a fine.
KAT VON D CLEARED – A jury found that celebrity tattoo artist Kat Von D did not violate a photographer’s copyrights when she used his portrait of Miles Davis as the basis for a tattoo she put on the arm of a friend, capping off a closely-watched case against the LA Ink star.
A judge on Monday rejected Cher’s request that her adult son be put into a court conservatorship controlling his money.
The Oscar- and Grammy-winning singer and actor had argued in a petition that 47-year-old Elijah Blue Allman’s large payments from the trust of his late father, rocker Gregg Allman, are putting him in danger because of his struggles with mental health and substance abuse.
But Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Jessica A. Uzcategui was not convinced that a conservatorship was urgently needed and declined the petition, though she will still consider a larger, long-term conservatorship at a hearing in March.
Cher observed the hearing remotely. She appeared on a large screen in the courtroom throughout, but did not take part in the arguments.
Allman was in the courtroom with his his attorneys, who acknowledged his previous struggles but argued that he is in a good place now, attending meetings, getting treatment and reconciling with his previously estranged wife.
“We are thrilled that the court saw that he does not need a temporary conservatorship,” Allman’s lawyer said as he stood alongside him outside the courthouse. “He’s got a lot of support, he’s doing great.”
Cher’s attorneys argued that the support Allman was getting was from people who tell him what he wants to hear and downplay the size of his problems. They said his current apparent sobriety and mental health were illusory. They said he suffers from bipolar disorder, has been recently homeless, and that having large amounts of money might lead to access to drugs that could endanger his life.
Blue and his attorneys have consistently argued since the petition was first filed in December that none of this is true.
Uzcategui had already signaled at a hearing on January 5 that she wasn’t inclined to establish a conservatorship, delaying the decision until Monday because documents had not been shared in time with Allman’s attorneys.
Cher’s attorneys said that she was not necessarily seeking any direct control over Allman’s money, and would be happy to have a court-appointed fiduciary manage his finances. They did not immediately reply to a request for comment on the judge’s decision.
Court conservatorships, known as guardianships in some states, have come under far greater scrutiny in recent years after a temporary conservatorship imposed on Britney Spears in 2008 would end up leaving her without control of her money and major life affairs for nearly 14 years.
Though all charges against singer-songwriter Chris Young were recently dropped a following his arrest after an alleged incident that took place at Nashville bar Dawg House on Jan. 22 between Young and Alcoholic Beverage Commission agents, it seems some online trolls are still coming after Young.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
The singer has posted a video on TikTok, with a message for those who have continued suggesting that Young was in the wrong.
He shared a clip of the security footage of the incident on social media, and wrote alongside the video: “For all the trolls saying ‘Don’t touch a cop,’ I didn’t touch him.” He also captioned the video, “Stop coming at me.”
Billboard has reached out to Young’s team for comment.
The arrest affidavit, which WSMV and The Tennessean obtained, noted that Young had been at Nashville bar Tin Roof on Jan. 22, when the TNABC agents were doing compliance checks on various bars in the area. The affidavit stated that the agents checked Young’s ID and that he questioned and videotaped them before following them to Dawg House. According to the affidavit filing, Young then “struck” one of the agents on the shoulder as they were leaving. Young was charged with three misdemeanors that have since been dropped: resisting arrest, assaulting an officer and disorderly conduct.
However, security footage from the incident appeared to show that Young had not behaved aggressively toward the agents. Instead, he seemed to reach out to get an agent’s attention, and then was pushed to the floor by an ABC officer. The musician got up, put his hands up and began backing away from the agents, as one stepped forward to begin speaking with Young.
That security footage was part of the reviewed evidence that led to Nashville District Attorney Glenn Funk dropping all charges against the singer on Jan. 26, stating, “Regarding the Chris Young incident, after a review of all the evidence in this case, the Office of the District Attorney has determined that these charges will be dismissed.”
After the charges were dropped, Young’s attorney Bill Ramsey said in a statement, “Mr. Young and I are gratified with the DA’s decision clearing him of the charges and any wrongdoing.”
Young will release his ninth studio album, Young Love & Saturday Nights, via Sony Music Nashville, on March 22. Young has earned 11 No. 1 Billboard Country Airplay hits since his debut in 2006, including “I’m Comin’ Over,” “Voices” and “At the End of a Bar.”
A contentious lawsuit over Jimi Hendrix’s music is going to trial, after a London judge ruled that the heirs of his former bandmates could continue to sue Sony Music over the rights to three classic albums.
The estates of bassist Noel Redding and drummer Mitch Mitchell say they own a share of the rights to three albums created by the trio’s Jimi Hendrix Experience, and they’ve been battling in court for more than two years to prove it.
Sony had argued that the case should be dismissed because Redding and Mitchell both signed away their rights in the early 1970s shortly after Hendrix died, but a judge on London’s High Court ruled Monday that the dispute – over “arguably the greatest rock guitarist ever” — must be decided at trial.
“My overall conclusion is that the claims in respect of copyright and performers’ property rights survive and should go to trial,” Justice Michael Green wrote in his ruling, obtained by Billboard. The judge wrote that Redding and Mitchell’s heirs had “a real prospect of succeeding” on their argument that the decades-old releases “do not provide a complete defence” for Sony.
It’s unclear when the trial will take place. A rep for Sony did not immediately return a request for comment on the court’s decision. An attorney for the Hendrix estate, which is not formally a party to the U.K. case, did not immediately return a request for comment.
In a statement to Billboard, Redding and Mitchell’s attorneys said the ruling would mean “we can hopefully obtain some justice for the families” of the two musicians. “No one is denying that Jimi Hendrix was one of, if not, the greatest guitarist of all time. But he didn’t make his recordings alone, and they could not have achieved any success without the contributions of Noel and Mitch.”
Hendrix teamed up with Redding and Mitchell in 1966 to form the Experience, and the trio went on to release a number of now-iconic songs before Hendrix’s death, including “All Along The Watchtower,” which spent nine weeks on the Billboard Hot 100 in 1968 and peaked at No. 20.
The current fight kicked off in 2021, when Redding and Mitchell’s heirs sent a letter in the U.K. claiming they own a stake in Hendrix’s music and arguing that they’re owed millions in royalties. Hendrix’s own estate and Sony responded a month later by preemptively suing in New York federal court, aiming to prove they were in sole control of the music. Redding and Mitchell’s heirs then filed their own case against Sony in British court.
The transatlantic dispute centers on agreements that Redding and Mitchell signed in New York in 1973 to resolve litigation after Hendrix died suddenly at the age of 27. In the settlement, the two men agreed not to sue Jimi’s estate and any record companies distributing his music in return for one-time payments — $100,000 paid to Redding and $247,500 to Mitchell.
Sony and the Hendrix estate have argued in court filings that those “broad releases” prohibit Redding and Mitchell’s heirs from making any legal claim to the band’s music. The heirs, on the other hand, say the two men died in poverty and that they’re legally entitled under U.K. law to a cut of the lucrative Hendrix Experience music they helped create.
On Monday, Justice Green did not rule on that core dispute, saying he “cannot decide those contentious issues” about the power of the release agreements signed by Redding and Mitchell. Instead, he ruled simply that there are “sustainable arguments on such issues that will have to be decided at a trial.”
In statement, a rep for the Redding and Mitchell estates said they looked forward to the trial. “Noel and Mitch died in penury despite being two thirds of the Jimi Hendrix Experience and owning the copyright in the recordings jointly with Jimi,” Edward Adams said. “We see our case as carrying a torch for Noel, in particular, who spent over three decades seeking justice.”
The trial will come after years of jockeying over whether the dispute should be heard first in American or British courts. In May, a U.S. federal judge ruled that the English litigation could take precedence, citing the fact that it had kicked off nearly a month earlier than the American case, and that a British appeals court had already ruled that their case could move forward. The U.S. case, filed in Manhattan federal court, is currently paused.
Two men accused of murdering Run-DMC‘s Jam Master Jay will finally head to trial Monday (Jan. 29), more than 21 years after the rap icon’s killing.
Karl Jordan, Jr. and Ronald Washington, who were charged with Jay’s long-unsolved 2002 murder in 2020, will stand trial at a Brooklyn federal courthouse. Prosecutors say the two men killed Jay as payback after a failed cocaine deal; if convicted, they each face the possibility of life in prison.
Following the selection of a jury last week, opening statements are slated to begin at 9:30 a.m. Monday. The trial, before U.S. District Judge LaShann DeArcy Hall, is expected to run for a month.
Run-DMC, a trio consisting of Jason “Jam Master Jay” Mizell, Joseph “Rev. Run” Simmons and Darryl “DMC” McDaniels, is widely credited as one of the most influential early acts in hip-hop history. The trio’s 1985 release, King of Rock, was hip-hop’s first platinum album, and the group’s 1986 cover of Aerosmith’s “Walk This Way” reached No. 4 on the Billboard Hot 100.
Jay’s shocking 2002 killing had long been one of hip hop’s famous cold cases, joining the unsolved murders of Tupac Shakur and The Notorious B.I.G. Though witnesses were in the room when the murder happened, and police generated a number of leads, no charges were filed until August 2020, when prosecutors finally unveiled the case against Washington and Jordan.
According to charging documents and statements by prosecutors, Washington and Jordan broke into Jay’s studio on the night of Oct. 30, 2002. Washington allegedly initially pointed a gun at another individual in the studio; as he was doing so, Jordan allegedly fired two shots, one of which struck Jay in the head at close range, killing him almost instantly.
The motive for the killing was allegedly a drug deal gone bad. Prosecutors say Jay had arranged to purchase 10 kilograms of cocaine that would be distributed in Maryland by Washington, Jordan and others. When Jay backed out of the deal, prosecutors say, the two decided to kill him.
“The defendants allegedly carried out the cold-blooded murder of Jason Mizell, a brazen act that has finally caught up with them thanks to the dedicated detectives, agents and prosecutors who never gave up on this case,” prosecutors said at the time. “The charges announced today begin to provide a measure of justice to the family and friends of the victim, and make clear that the rule of law will be upheld, whether that takes days, months, or decades.”
Jay Bryant, a third man allegedly involved in the killing who prosecutors charged with murder last May, will have a separate trial later this year.
Ahead of the trial, Jordan and Washington argued that prosecutors waited too long to charge them, meaning they wouldn’t be able to properly defend themselves. For instance, Jordan said cell phone records that would support his alibi were no longer available, and that key witnesses would have trouble remembering information.
But in September 2022, the federal judge overseeing the case rejected those arguments, calling them “speculative” and unsupported by evidence: “The court has no idea what Jordan believes the phone records contain, how they could conceivably contradict the Government’s evidence, and how those contradictions could conceivably demonstrate that Jordan did not commit the crime.”
A jury found Friday that celebrity tattoo artist Kat Von D did not violate a photographer’s copyright when she used his portrait of Miles Davis as the basis for a tattoo she put on the arm of a friend.
The Los Angeles jury deliberated for just over two hours before deciding that the tattoo by the former star of the reality shows “Miami Ink” and “LA Ink” was not similar enough to photographer Jeffrey Sedlik’s 1989 portrait of the jazz legend that she needed to have paid permission.
“I’m obviously very happy for this to be over,” Von D, who inked her friend’s arm with Davis as a gift about seven years ago, said outside the courtroom. “It’s been two years of a nightmare worrying about this, not just for myself but for my fellow tattoo artists.”
The eight jurors made the same decision about a drawing Von D made from the portrait to base the tattoo on, and to several social media posts she made about the process, which were also part of Sedlik’s lawsuit. And they found that the tattoo, drawing and posts also all fell within the legal doctrine of fair use of a copyrighted work, giving Von D and other tattoo artists who supported her and followed the trial a resounding across-the-board victory.
“We’ve said all along that this case never should have been brought,” Von D’s attorney Allen B. Grodsky said after the verdict. “The jury recognized that this was just ridiculous.”
Sedlik’s attorney Robert Edward Allen said they plan to appeal. He said it the images, which both featured a close-up of Davis gazing toward the viewer and making a “shh” gesture, were so similar he didn’t know how the jury could reach the conclusion they did.
“If those two things are not substantially similar, then no one’s art is safe,” Allen said.
He told jurors during closing arguments earlier Friday that the case has “nothing to do with tattoos.”
“It’s about copying others’ protected works,” Allen said. “It’s not going to hurt the tattoo industry. The tattoo police are not going to come after anyone.”
Allen emphasized the meticulous work Sedlik did to set up the shoot, to create the lighting and mood, and to put Davis in the pose that would make for an iconic photo that was first published on the cover of JAZZIZ magazine in 1989. Sedlik registered the copyright in 1994.
And he said that subsequently, licensing the image to others including tattoo artists was a major part of how he made his living.
Von D said during the three-day trial that she never licenses the images she recreates, and she considers work like the Davis tattoo a form of “fan art.”
“I made zero money off it,” she testified. “I’m not mass-producing anything. I think there is a big difference.”
Her attorney Grodsky emphasized for jurors that that lack of an attempt to cash in on the image was essential to the tattoo being a form of fair use, an exception in copyright law used for works including commentary, criticism and parody.
Allen argued in his closing that the social media posts about the tattoo were a promotion of her and her studio, and thus a form of monetizing the image.
If jurors had sided with Sedlik, they could have awarded him as little as a few hundred dollars or as much as $150,000.
Von D was among the stars of the reality series “Miami Ink” then was the featured artist on its spinoff “LA Ink,” which ran on TLC from 2007 to 2011.
The 41-year-old Von D, whose legal name is Katherine von Drachenberg, was already a prominent young tattoo artist when she became a TV personality through her appearances on TLC’s “Miami Ink” starting in 2005 on TLC. She was the central star of its spinoff, “LA Ink,” which ran from 2007 to 2011 and made her possibly the most famous tattoo artist in the country.
Von D said that despite the victory, she’s not enthused about getting back to work.
“I think I don’t want to ever tattoo again, my heart has been crushed through this in different ways,” she said. “We’ll see with time.”
50 Cent is facing a new civil lawsuit over an incident last summer in which he was captured on video throwing a microphone at a concert, filed by a Los Angeles radio host who says she was struck by the mic and suffered “severe and permanent injuries.”
In a lawsuit filed Thursday in Los Angeles court, Power 106 host Bryhana Monegain accused 50 Cent (Curtis Jackson) and concert giant AEG of legal negligence over the August episode, in which the rapper chucked the mic off to the side of the stage after he became frustrated that it was not working.
Monegain – who publicly shared images of gash on her forehead the next day – claims in her lawsuit that the microphone hit her in the face and left wrist, causing major injuries.
“Plaintiff was transported by ambulance to the Los Angeles General Medical Center emergency department for treatment of injuries, including but not limited to, a concussion, laceration over her forehead, and pain in her left wrist,” her lawyers write. “Plaintiff complained of dizziness, headaches, light and sound sensitivity, and nausea [and] continues to suffer from here severe injuries and emotional distress.”
Part of the incident — which happened on Aug 30. while 50 Cent was performing at Crypto.com Arena in Los Angeles as part of his Final Lap Tour — was captured in viral videos. In them, the rapper is seen looking frustrated with a microphone, then throwing it down off the side of the stage. Later in the performance, while Nas was onstage, videos show 50 getting annoyed again before hurling the new mic to the same offstage section.
While the viral video doesn’t show the microphone hitting anyone, Monegain appeared in photos shared on social media with a wound on her forehead that was allegedly caused by 50 Cent’s mic.
Reps for 50 Cent did not return a request for comment on Friday. In a statement at the time, his lawyer Scott Leemon told Billboard that “Curtis would never intentionally strike anyone with a microphone.”
Thursday’s lawsuit is purely a civil matter. At the time of the incident, Monegain reportedly filed a police report on the night of the concert alleging criminal battery. But court records show that no charges were ever filed, and TMZ later reported that both the L.A. District Attorney’s office and the L.A. City Attorney’s office had both declined to bring a criminal case against the rapper.
As in any negligence lawsuit, Monegain claims that 50 Cent and AEG had a duty to keep her and other attendees safe from any dangers that they either knew about or should have seen coming. Instead, she says they “failed to create an environment that was safe for attendees on the subject premises.” She claims that 50 Cent should have known “the dangerous nature of a performer throwing a microphone into a crowed area” but did so anyway.
The lawsuit does not say how much money Monegain is seeking, but asks for “past and future wage loss, hospital and medical expenses” and other unspecified “general damages” over the harm she allegedly suffered.
A spokesperson for AEG did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the lawsuit’s allegations.