Legal
Page: 68
SiriusXM and Stitcher will not have to face a lawsuit from former Dawson’s Creek star James Van Der Beek accusing them of reneging on a $700,000 podcast deal.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Robert Broadbelt, in a tentative order issued on Friday, dismissed the suit, finding that the audio giant “did not enter into a contract” with the actor since they didn’t finalize the agreement.
Van Der Beek said he reached a deal over email with executives from SiriusXM to host 40 episodes in exchange for a $700,000 minimum guarantee and a 50 percent cut of the net ad revenue. He sued in 2022 after the company walked away from the agreement.
Ruling in favor of SiriusXM on summary judgment, the court concluded that the two sides aren’t bound by an April 2022 document outlining the terms of the deal. It pointed to the first page of the proposal, which states that it’s for “discussion purposes only, is not a binding commitment in any respect, and is not to be interpreted in any respect as a binding commitment to negotiate.”
There was extensive evidence presented to the court referencing the need to sign a definitive, longform agreement contemplated in the initial proposal. Included among them was an email from Stitcher’s Associate Director of Business Development Leah Reis-Dennis, who stated in an April 2022 email “we are ready to call terms officially closed and (finally!) get the longform started.”
Van Der Beek argued that the proposal constitutes a valid, binding contract because Reis-Dennis made various comments indicating that the terms were “closed.”
“However, in those emails, Reis-Dennis also stated that Defendants would be working to begin drafting the longform agreement or request that the longform be drafted,” stated the order, which noted that the actor’s transactional lawyer also discussed having to sign the document to lock down the deal.
Broadbelt also rejected arguments that SiriusXM should be bound by the April 2022 document because the company already started to fulfill some of its terms by beginning the process of hiring a senior producer and requesting Van Der Beek’s payroll information.
In a declaration to the court, Reis-Dennis testified that she requested “loanout info” in order to set up payments to the actor but clarified that she would pay him only “if that agreement was signed.”
The order explained, “Plaintiff has not presented any evidence or argument showing that Reis-Dennis’s request for information to set up payments in the future (1) is inconsistent with the earlier statements that the parties would be bound only upon the execution of a longform agreement, or (2) constitutes an outward manifestation that Defendants intended to be bound by the terms of the April 28 Proposal without such a longform agreement.”
Van Der Beek brought claims relating to breach of contract and sought damages exceeding the $700,000 agreement.
SiriusXM, which was represented by Jordan Susman of Nolan Heimann, didn’t respond to a request for comment.
This article was originally published by The Hollywood Reporter.
Notorious B.I.G.’s estate has reached a settlement with the widow of late hip hop photographer Chi Modu, resolving long-running litigation over other merch bearing Modu’s famed image of the late rapper standing in front of the World Trade Center.
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
Biggie’s estate sued in 2019, claiming Modu had illegally authorized the use of his 1996 photograph of the rapper (real name Christopher Wallace) on commercial products like skateboards and shower curtains. In 2022, a judge ruled that such merch likely violated the rapper’s likeness rights.
Terms of the settlement, first disclosed in a court filing on Thursday, were not made public. But the estate’s attorney, Staci Jennifer Trager of the law firm Nixon Peabody, said she and her client were “satisfied to bring this high-profile matter to an end.”
“Pictures of Christopher cannot be commercially exploited without a license from our client,” Trager said. “The settlement agreement is a testament to the dedication of our client as well as our team members in staying the course over several years.”
An attorney for Modu’s widow (the photographer himself passed away in 2021) did not immediately return a request for comment.
A longtime photographer for The Source, Modu captured images of some of hip-hop’s biggest names, including Tupac Shakur, Mary J. Blige, Mobb Deep and LL Cool J. In a 1996 cover shoot for the magazine, he snapped several images of Biggie standing in front of the Twin Towers – a year before the rapper was shot and killed, and five years before the towers were destroyed on Sept. 11, 2001.
In a 2011 interview, Modu said the shoot was partly inspired by the lyric in Biggie’s “Juicy,” in which he references the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center with the line “‘blow up like the World Trade.’”
“When the idea came to me to represent Notorious B.I.G as the King of New York, I thought what better setting than to have two of the quintessential New York City buildings in the background,” Modu said at the time. “This image remains fresh and can help to further immortalize these icons in the hearts and minds of a generation.”
But in 2019, Biggie’s estate took Modu to court over the image. In their complaint, they argued that he had moved beyond merely selling his image – and that he was instead trying to profit by exploiting the rapper’s likeness “in complete disregard for BIG’s rights.” The estate claimed that Modu had improperly licensed the image for use on snowboards, skateboards, shower curtains, NFTs and other goods.
“Unfortunately, when an artist’s work has touched people so significantly, there are often usurpers that want to capitalize on that connection,” the rapper’s lawyers wrote. “A strong brand attracts parasites that attempt to create profits through no work of their own.”
In June 2022, the federal judge overseeing the case granted a preliminary injunction to the estate. The judge was careful to rule that the photographer’s estate could continue to sell physical and digital reprints of his image, but that other merchandise likely violated Biggie’s likeness rights.
“Plaintiff’s use of Wallace’s image to promote and sell such merchandise constitutes an exploitation of his likeness on an unrelated product for that purpose, which extends beyond control of the artistic work itself,” the judge wrote at the time.
Since that ruling, the estate’s case against Modu’s estate and others had been moving toward a trial, with proceedings set to kick off next month.
The Michael Jackson estate is embroiled in a lawsuit with a Las Vegas tribute act called MJ Live, which claims that the King of Pop’s attorneys have unfairly begun threatening to sue over a show that’s been performed nightly on the Strip for more than a decade.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
In a complaint filed Wednesday in Nevada federal court, the organizers of MJ Live asked a judge to rule that they could continue to stage their concerts featuring a Jackson impersonator, which are held six nights per week at the Tropicana in addition to other venues around the country.
Despite the fact that the show has allegedly been performed more than 3,600 times since 2012, MJ Live says the Jackson estate has only recently begun threatening to sue – including sending cease-and-desist letters to other venues demanding that they cancel upcoming tour dates.
A rep for the Jackson estate did not immediately return a request for comment.
Wednesday’s lawsuit is primarily what’s known as a “declaratory judgment action” – a type of case aimed at proving that you’ve done nothing wrong. In their complaint, MJ Live’s lawyers argue that the group has not infringed any trademarks held by the estate, nor has it violated his likeness rights by impersonating him.
Notably, Nevada’s state likeness laws have an unusual carveout the allows for the legal use of a celebrity’s likeness by “impersonators in live performances” – likely a nod to the long-standing and beloved tradition of Elvis Presley look-alikes in Las Vegas. Citing that statute, as well as the First Amendment’s protections for free speech, MJ Live says it has a clear legal right “to impersonate Michael Jackson” in its shows.
But the group also goes further, boldly arguing that it’s actually the Jackson estate that’s infringing intellectual property. By using the “MJ Live” name for more than a decade, MJ Live’s lawyers say the group has developed its own trademark rights to that particular name – and that the estate’s recent use of “MJ The Musical” on a Broadway show is infringing of those rights.
“Over the past eleven and one-half years … plaintiff has spent millions of dollars advertising and promoting its MJ Live show,” MJ Live’s lawyers write. “Plaintiff estimates that over 2,500,000 audience members, clapping and singing in their seats, jumping to their feet, and dancing in the aisles, have experienced the joy, excitement, and thrill of MJ Live.”
The complaint also argues that the estate’s decision to send cease-and-desist letters to block future tour dates represents “intentional and wrongful interference” in MJ Live’s business. MJ Live says the letters, allegedly sent to six different venues in total, in California, Florida, Illinois, Ohio and Wisconsin, were “intended to harm Plaintiff.”
This isn’t the first time the estate of a famed artist has tried to crack down on Vegas impersonators. Back in 2022, Authentic Brands Group – the company that owns the rights to Elvis’ likeness – sent letters to a number of Las Vegas chapels where Presley impersonators officiate weddings, demanding that they obtain licenses. At the time, ABG said it was not seeking to shut down the impersonators, but partner with them to “safeguard his legacy.”
Authorities in the Dominican Republic have arrested U.S. rapper Tekashi 6ix9ine, who is scheduled to appear in court on Thursday on charges of domestic violence. The rapper, whose real name is Daniel Hernández, is being held at a jail in the capital of Santo Domingo, where he was arrested Wednesday, officials said. No further details […]
Madonna is facing a federal class action lawsuit because she allegedly started three New York City concerts later than scheduled, a delay that her accusers say caused real legal harm to ticket buyers who “had to get up early to go to work” the next day.
In a complaint filed Wednesday (Jan. 17) in Brooklyn federal court, ticket buyers Michael Fellows and Jonathan Hadden claim the Material Girl breached her contract with concertgoers and violated New York state laws by starting three December shows past 10:30 rather than the scheduled 8:30.
“Defendants’ actions constitute not just a breach of their contracts … but also a wanton exercise in false advertising, negligent misrepresentation, and unfair and deceptive trade practices,” attorneys for the two men write.
The three concerts at Brooklyn’s Barclays Center, stops on Madonna’s Celebration Tour, were originally scheduled for July but rescheduled to December due to the singer’s illness. Fellows and Hadden say they expected their show (Dec. 13) to start on time, and “would not have paid for their tickets had they known that the concerts would start after 10:30 p.m.”
“Defendants failed to provide any notice to the ticketholders that the concerts would start much later than the start time printed on the ticket and as advertised,” attorneys for the two men write.
Leaving Barclays Center after 1:00 a.m., the two men say ticket buyers were “left stranded in the middle of the night,” some “confronted with limited public transportation” options and others with increased prices for ride-share services. They also point out that the concert took place “on a weeknight,” meaning they “had to get up early to go to work and/or take care of their family responsibilities the next day.”
In addition to Madonna herself, the lawsuit also names Live Nation and Barclays Center as defendants. In technical terms, the complaint alleges breach of contract; violation of New York’s business practices and false advertising laws; and several other forms of wrongdoing, including unjust enrichment.
The lawsuit also includes a claim of so-called negligent misrepresentation, saying the concert organizers “knew or should have known” that the concerts would not start at 8:30 because of alleged past instances of Madonna taking the stage late — and should have warned fans.
“Madonna has a long history of arriving and starting her concerts late, sometimes several hours late,” attorneys for Fellows and Hadden write. “This history occurred throughout her 2016 Rebel Heart Tour, her 2019-2020 Madame X Tour, and prior tours, where Madonna continuously started her concerts over two hours late.”
Reps for Madonna and Live Nation did not immediately return requests for comment.
Read the entire lawsuit against Madonna here:
Ice Spice is facing a copyright lawsuit over allegations that her recent hit “In Ha Mood” was copied from a Brooklyn rapper’s earlier track.
In a complaint filed Wednesday in Brooklyn federal court, the rapper D.Chamberz (Duval Chamberlain) says Ice Spice’s 2023 song is “strikingly similar” to his own “In That Mood” that he released in 2021.
“By every method of analysis, ‘In Ha Mood’ is a forgery,” D.Chamberz’s attorneys write in their complaint, obtained by Billboard. “Any proper comparative analysis of the beat, lyrics, hook, rhythmic structure, metrical placement, and narrative context will demonstrate that ‘In Ha Mood’ was copied.”
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
In addition to naming Ice Spice (Isis Naija Gaston) as a defendant, the lawsuit also names her frequent producer, RiotUSA (Ephrem Lopez, Jr.), as well as Universal Music Group, Capitol Records and 10K Projects.
Released early last year following Ice Spice’s 2022 breakout, “In Ha Mood” reached No. 58 on the Hot 100 and No. 18 on the US Hot R&B/Hip Hop Songs chart. It was later included on her debut EP Like..?, and she performed the song during her October appearance as the musical guest on Saturday Night Live.
But D.Chamberz says the song shares so many similarities with “In That Mood” that the overlap “cannot be purely coincidental.” He says the similar elements “go the core of each work,” and are so obvious that they’ve already been spotted by listeners.
“Non-expert listeners have independently pointed out that Defendants ‘stole’ ‘In That Mood’ in creating In Ha Mood,” the rapper’s lawyers write. “The two songs clearly employ numerous noticeably similar composition elements and lyrics, which result in a sound and feel that are very much alike.”
In any copyright lawsuit, an accuser like D.Chamberz must show that an alleged infringer had “access” to their work in order to copy it. That requirement might seem technical, but it’s often the fatal flaw in copyright cases filed by lesser-known acts, like one filed against Dua Lipa over “Levitating.”
In an effort to show “access,” Tuesday’s lawsuit notes that D.Chamberz shared “In That Mood” to his Instagram followers, and that the song got “significant airplay” on New York City radio stations, including Hot 97 and Power 105.1. It even cites one instance in which Riot allegedly posted an Instagram story of him listening to Hot 97 “less than two minutes” before the song was played on the air. And Chamberz’s lawyers also point out that Riot’s father is the well-known New York City radio personality DJ Enuff, who hosts a show on Hot 97 and allegedly “actively engaged with D.Chamberz’s social media content.”
“Based on all of the facts and circumstances known to plaintiffs, as described above, it is probable – or, at the very least, reasonably possible – that defendants heard the work and knew about the work prior to the creation and publication of ‘In Ha Mood,’” his lawyers write.
Read the full lawsuit filed against Ice Spice here:
Former Games of Thrones actress Sophie Turner dropped her “wrongful retention” lawsuit against ex-husband Joe Jonas over the custody of their two daughters after the former couple signed a co-parenting consent plan approved by a U.K. judge last week. According to The New York Times, a judge in the U.S. District Court for the Southern […]
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: An ugly new legal battle erupts within the Prince estate; Madison Square Garden CEO James Dolan is sued for sexual assault; a judge issues a ruling on the ongoing battle between members of Mötley Crüe; and much more.
Want to get The Legal Beat newsletter in your email inbox every Tuesday? Subscribe here for free.
THE BIG STORY: Civil War in The Prince Estate
After Prince died without a will in 2016, it took more than six years of legal wrangling to settle his estate, as heirs, advisors, a court-appointed bank and Primary Wave all battled before a Minnesota probate judge over how exactly the star’s assets should be divided.
When the dust finally settled in 2022 — with tax issues resolved and the $146 million estate split evenly into two LLCs — it seemed that the case was closed. Primary Wave (which bought out three of the heirs) would control one-half of the estate, while the remaining heirs and a pair of advisors would control the other half. Each side vowed to bring Prince’s music to a new generation of music fans.
But less than two years later, the Prince estate is suddenly back in court — this time, over allegations of an attempted coup within one of the ownership groups, of severe dysfunction at Paisley Park and of attempts by two heirs to unilaterally sell more shares to Primary Wave. For more, go read our full story here.
Other top stories this week…
JAMES DOLAN UNDER FIRE – The Madison Square Garden executive was hit with a sexual assault lawsuit claiming he pressured a masseuse into unwanted sex while his band was touring with the Eagles — and that he later facilitated an incident in which she was also assaulted by Harvey Weinstein. The lawsuit also named Irving Azoff’s The Azoff Company, claiming it had “benefited from facilitating Dolan’s behavior.”
CRÜE’S COURT CLASH – Mötley Crüe co-founder Mick Mars won a court order against his former bandmates, requiring them to repay some of his legal bills after a judge said they refused to turn over key financial records and other information. The decision was a win for Mars, but the real battle — a private arbitration case over whether the band acted illegally when they tried to kick him out of the band — remains ahead.
DIDDY BOOZE SETTLEMENT – Sean “Diddy” Combs and alcohol giant Diageo reached a settlement to resolve a year-long lawsuit over their soured partnership for DeLeón tequila. The deal, which will end a bitter legal battle that saw Combs accuse the liquor company of racism, came just months after he was hit with multiple sexual assault lawsuits.
G HERBO SENTENCED – A federal judge sentenced the Chicago rapper to three years of probation after he pleaded guilty to participating in a scam involving stolen credit card information — a fraud that prosecutors say netted the Chicago rapper almost $140,000 in private jet flights, vacation lodgings and luxury car rentals.
ALLEGED TUPAC KILLER GETS BAIL – A judge set bail at $750,000 for Duane “Keffe D” Davis, the former Los Angeles-area gang leader charged with orchestrating the killing of hip-hop legend Tupac Shakur in 1996. The judge ruled that Davis, who is allegedly in poor health after battling cancer, can serve house arrest with electronic monitoring ahead of his trial in June.
AI LEGISLATION IN WASHINGTON – A bipartisan group of lawmakers in the U.S. House of Representatives introduced a bill called No Artificial Intelligence Fake Replicas And Unauthorized Duplications Act, or No AI FRAUD Act, legislation that would aim to regulate the use of artificial intelligence for cloning voices and other forms of likeness. The same day, lawmakers in Tennessee unveiled similar legislation called the Ensuring Likeness Voice and Image Security Act, or ELVIS Act, which would beef up existing state-level protections for such likeness rights.
Mötley Crüe co-founder Mick Mars has won a court order against his former bandmates, but the legal battle over his exit from the band is far from over.
In a decision Tuesday (Jan. 16), a Los Angeles judge ruled that the band should have handed over financial records, operating agreements and other key information earlier — and that Mars was therefore entitled to be repaid the legal bills he spent suing to win access to those files.
“The requests were not burdensome. Yet, Mars was compelled to file suit, and it appears plain that production would not have occurred without it. Mars is entitled to attorney fees,” Los Angeles Superior Court Judge James C. Chalfant wrote in the ruling, which was obtained by Billboard.
Since the band ultimately ended up handing over those files in December, the judge ruled Tuesday that Mars’ court case is now legally moot. But he ruled that the band’s delay had been improper, meaning they owed Mars reimbursement: “These documents should have been produced without the need for prodding by Mars.” The total amount of legal fees will be decided in future proceedings.
The decision is a win for Mars, who claimed in court filings that Mötley Crüe was trying to make sure he “spends as much money as possible” so that he would be “starved out.” But it does not mean he has won his case against the band. The real battle, over whether his bandmates breached their contract by kicking him out, is going to take place in a private arbitration case that remains pending.
The civil war within Crüe first burst into the open in April, when Mars filed his lawsuit claiming he had been unceremoniously terminated by his “brothers of 41 years.” Though technically only seeking access to the band’s records, the lawsuit disclosed for the first time that the two sides were already locked in arbitration proceedings over his exit from the band.
In the complaint, Mars argued the band had moved to illegally deprive him of his 25% ownership stake in the group, a move he claimed came after he made the “tragic announcement” that he could no longer tour due to an arthritic condition called ankylosing spondylitis.
The band quickly responded, saying it “did not owe Mick anything” under existing band agreements and had done nothing wrong. They cited sworn declarations in which numerous touring staffers stated that Mars had repeatedly made serious errors on stage before he exited the band, including suddenly “playing a different song in a middle of another one” and “forgetting chords and songs.”
With that core dispute still unresolved and set to be decided by an arbitrator later this year, both sides portrayed Tuesday’s court ruling as a victory.
The band’s lawyer, Sasha Frid, pointed to the fact the judge declared Mars’ case moot: “The case is over. That’s the key takeaway. By denying the petition as moot and ending the case, the court found that the band turned over all the documents to Mars and there is nothing more to do. The band went above and beyond its obligations by providing much more documents than the statute required.”
Mars’ lawyer Ed McPherson, meanwhile, sharply rejected that interpretation: “If it makes the band feel better to say that they won, that is fine — but they apparently haven’t read the judge’s decision. When the judge says that they failed to produce documents ‘without justification,’ and he orders them to pay Mick’s attorneys’ fees, that does not feel like a win for the band to me!”
Madison Square Garden executive James Dolan is facing a sexual assault lawsuit that claims he pressured a masseuse into unwanted sex while his band was touring with the Eagles — and that he later facilitated an incident in which she was also assaulted by Harvey Weinstein.
In a lawsuit filed Tuesday (Jan. 15) in Manhattan federal court, Kellye Croft says that Dolan coerced her into “unlawful and unwelcome sex acts” on repeated occasions after she was hired to serve as a massage therapist for the Eagles’ Glenn Frey during the 2013 tour.
Croft says she thought the job on the concert tour — on which Dolan’s band JD & The Straight Shot opened for the Eagles — was “her big break” and the “opportunity of a lifetime.” But she says she quickly realized the real reason she was there.
“Dolan was extremely assertive, and pressured Ms. Croft into unwanted sexual intercourse with him,” writes Croft’s attorney, Douglas Wigdor. “Ms. Croft was disgusted by Dolan, but her youth and extreme loneliness while on the road with strangers, as well as Dolan’s immense power, made it possible for Dolan to manipulate Ms. Croft and lure her under his control.”
Dolan is the majority owner/CEO of Madison Square Garden Entertainment Corp., a live music giant that operates the famed New York City arena in addition to Manhattan’s Radio City Music Hall, the Las Vegas Sphere and other prominent venues.
Tuesday’s lawsuit also claims that Dolan later secretly orchestrated a 2014 encounter between Croft and his friend Weinstein, the disgraced film producer whose many sexual assault allegations helped spark the #MeToo movement in 2017. Weinstein is currently serving a decades-long prison sentence after being convicted on multiple felony charges.
Croft’s lawyers say Dolan arranged the early 2014 meetup, during which Weinstein allegedly invited her to his hotel room under the guise of discussing an opportunity for her to work as a massage therapist for actors on movie sets. After she refused his “escalating” behavior and returned to her room, her lawyers say Weinstein chased her down the hall, “barged into Ms. Croft’s hotel room” and proceeded to sexually assault her.
In a response sent to Billboard, Dolan’s attorney, E. Danya Perry, said there was “absolutely no merit to any of the allegations against Mr. Dolan” and that the references to Weinstein were “simply meant to inflame.” Perry alleges the claims were an “act of retaliation” by Wigdor, describing him as “an attorney who has brought multiple cases against Mr. Dolan and has not, and cannot, win a judgment against him.”
“Mr. Dolan always believed Ms. Croft to be a good person and is surprised she would agree to these claims,” Perry wrote. “Bottom line, this is not a he said/she said matter and there is compelling evidence to back up our position. We look forward to proving that in court.”
In his own statement, Wigdor said that “our firm has not lost multiple cases to Dolan — that is a fabrication.” He said that with the filing of the lawsuit, “it is time to finally hold Dolan accountable for his outrageous conduct.”
In addition to Dolan and Weinstein, the lawsuit also names several entities owned by The Azoff Company, the privately held company founded by legendary music industry executive Irving Azoff. Though Azoff himself is not individually named as a defendant, the lawsuit claims he was “extremely close friends” with Dolan as well as a frequent business partner — and that Azoff’s companies thus enabled Dolan’s alleged abuse.
“In addition to the extremely close personal relationship between Dolan and Irving Azoff, Dolan was a critically important business partner for the Azoff Entities,” Croft’s lawyers write. “The Azoff Entities thus benefited from facilitating Dolan’s behavior to the extent it kept their partner, a notoriously erratic billionaire, happy.”
In a statement to Billboard, a representative for Azoff strongly denied the lawsuit’s allegations: “Irving Azoff is not a party to this lawsuit. Neither he nor his companies had any involvement in any alleged misconduct by others.”
An attorney for Weinstein did not immediately return a request for comment.