Legal
Page: 70
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 Atlanta judge rules that Young Thug’s rap lyrics can be used as evidence in his upcoming gang trial; two new sexual assault cases are filed against powerful music executives; R. Kelly sues the federal prison system for allegedly leaking private info to a gossip blogger; and more.
THE BIG STORY: Rap Lyrics Headed To Trial
After years of reporting on “rap on trial” — the controversial use of lyrics as criminal evidence against the artist who wrote them — it was remarkable to watch last week as prosecutors from America’s rap capital battled with defense attorneys for one of hip-hop’s biggest stars over that very subject in open court.
Is Atlanta’s district attorney “targeting the right to free speech” by using Young Thug’s lyrics in the upcoming gang trial? Or are prosecutors merely pointing out glaring admissions of criminal activity that “just happen to come in the form of lyrics”?
In the end, as they often do when it comes to lyrics, the judge sided with prosecutors: “They’re not prosecuting your clients because of the songs they wrote,” said Judge Ural Glanville, speaking to Thug’s lawyer Brian Steel during the hearing. “They’re using the songs to prove other things your clients may have been involved in. I don’t think it’s an attack on free speech.”
For a full recap of the hours-long hearing, go read our full story here. And look out for our upcoming coverage on the YSL trial, which is set to start Nov. 27.
THE OTHER BIG STORY: More Music #MeToo
The music industry saw two new lawsuits last week alleging sexual abuse by powerful men, continuing a wave of such cases filed over the past year.
The first, filed Wednesday (Nov. 8) in New York state court, accused former Recording Academy president/CEO Neil Portnow of drugging and sexually assaulting a woman in 2018. Those are the same allegations that were partially aired four years ago in an explosive discrimination complaint filed by Deborah Dugan, who briefly replaced Portnow as Academy boss after he stepped down in August 2019.
The second lawsuit, filed later that same day in New York federal court, accused legendary industry exec Antonio “L.A.” Reid of sexually assaulting A&R executive Drew Dixon and then derailing her once-promising career when she refused his further advances. Those claims, too, were already public to some extent: Dixon previously accused Reid of harassment in a 2017 article for The New York Times as well as a subsequent documentary.
Over the past year, such accusations have become troublingly common.
Two women are suing Atlantic Records over abuse allegations against late co-founder Ahmet Ertegun; country star Jimmie Allen is facing two sexual assault lawsuits; Backstreet Boys member Nick Carter has been sued by three different women who claim he sexually assaulted them as minors in the 2000s; Kenny MacPherson, the CEO of Hipgnosis Songs Fund’s publishing unit, is facing a lawsuit claiming he subjected an employee at a previous company to an “onslaught of unwanted sexual advances”; a woman is suing singer Jason Derulo for allegedly harassing her and then dropping her from a deal with his Atlantic imprint after she rebuffed him; and Kobalt Music Group is facing claims that it enabled former exec Sam Taylor as he leveraged his position of power to demand sex from a songwriter.
Other top stories this week…
R. KELLY SUES FEDS OVER LEAKS – The disgraced R&B singer filed a lawsuit against the federal Bureau of Prisons over allegations that someone at the agency leaked private information about him — including recordings of private phone calls with his girlfriend and lawyers — to social media personality Tasha K, who then shared them with millions of followers. Before you ask: Yes, that’s the same YouTube gossip host that Cardi B successfully sued for defamation last year after Tasha K posted false stories about drug use, STDs and prostitution by the superstar rapper.
LINKIN PARK LITIGATION – The band was hit with a lawsuit over the anniversary re-release of its smash hit 2000 debut album Hybrid Theory, filed by a bassist who says he performed on rare and unreleased recordings that were featured as part of the deluxe box set but has “never been paid a penny.”
OFFSET ASSAULT ACCUSATION – The Migos rapper (real name Kiari Kendrell Cephus) was sued by a security guard who claims he was assaulted two years ago by Offset and YRN Murk after he turned them away from ComplexCon, a cultural festival hosted by Buzzfeed’s Complex Networks.
R. Kelly is suing the federal Bureau of Prisons over allegations that the agency leaked private information about the disgraced singer to social media personality Tasha K — the same YouTube gossip host that Cardi B sued for defamation last year.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
In a complaint filed Monday (Nov. 13) in Chicago federal court, Kelly’s lawyers say an unnamed Bureau of Prisons (BOP) agent illegally accessed Kelly’s digital prison records — including recordings of private phone calls with his girlfriend and lawyers — and sold them to Tasha, who then broadcast them online to more than 1 million followers.
“The defendant United States of America breached its duty of care to the plaintiff when it allowed countless BOP officers to access plaintiff’s confidential information without any legal basis to do so,” Kelly’s lawyer Jennifer Bonjean writes.
The lawsuit, which also names Tasha K (Latasha Kebe) as a defendant, claims that the influencer then “rallied her massive following to harass the plaintiff with the use of the stolen information and created chaos in plaintiff’s personal life.”
The leaks left Kelly “isolated and fearful to communicate with his attorneys or other third parties,” the lawsuit claims, because he knew it could be “released to the general public for mass exploitation.”
Kelly was convicted in 2021 on racketeering and sex trafficking charges stemming from accusations that he orchestrated a long-running scheme to abuse women. In September 2022, he was convicted in Chicago on separate federal charges of child pornography and enticement of minors for sex. The singer, who is currently appealing both convictions, was later sentenced to 30 years in prison.
If Kebe’s name sounds familiar, it should. Last year, Cardi B won a $3.9 million defamation judgment against the blogger over false statements Kebe made about drug use, STDs and prostitution on her YouTube channel “UnWinewithTashaK.” Kebe has since filed for federal bankruptcy, citing her inability to pay that huge judgment.
In his new lawsuit, Kelly claims that Kebe first published private information in November 2019, starting with a video called “R. Kelly Can’t Control his Girlfriends while Behind Bars” that contained information Kebe said came from a “phone tap somewhere.” Later posts allegedly divulged more personal information, including highly-sensitive communications with his legal team.
“The communications … related to personal and family problems, romantic interests, health problems, literacy issues, and issues related to the defense of his pending criminal cases,” Kelly’s lawyers write.
According to the lawsuit, an internal BOP investigation revealed that an unnamed officer had pulled Kelly’s records from the agency’s TruView system, a digital database of information on prisoners. The officer then allegedly scanned them and “emailed that scan to third parties, including defendant Kebe.” But that probe ended without any action against the officer, Kelly’s lawyers claim.
“No charges were brought against defendant BOP Officer A, and the government has refused to reveal any details about the investigation including the identity of Officer A,” Bonjean wrote in Monday’s complaint. “In short, there has been a cover-up of the rampant BOP misconduct that is ongoing.”
Kelly’s lawyers claim that illegal leaks continued even after the BOP was made aware of the initial disclosures to Kebe. They cited a report last summer by the Washington Post about Kelly’s $25,000 in commissary funds — a report that resulted in federal prosecutors seizing the money to pay off his victims.
In technical legal terms, Kelly’s lawyers allege that the leaks amounted to negligence, an invasion of his privacy, an intentional infliction of emotional distress, civil theft and civil conspiracy. They also claim that the officer who stole the records violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act — a federal statute that makes computer hacking illegal.
A spokesperson for the BOP declined to comment, citing agency policy on pending litigation. An attorney who has represented Tasha K on other matters did not immediately return a request for comment.
Linkin Park is facing a lawsuit that claims it has refused to credit or pay royalties to an ex-bassist who played with the band in the late 1990s — a legal battle triggered by an anniversary re-release of the band’s smash hit 2000 debut album.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
In a complaint filed Wednesday (Nov. 8) federal court, Kyle Christner says he helped creating many songs that were included on the 2020 box-set edition of Hybrid Theory, which holds the lofty distinction as the best-selling rock album of the 21st century. But he says his contributions have been effectively erased.
“Christner has never been paid a penny for his work with Linkin Park, nor has he been properly credited, even as defendants have benefitted from his creative efforts,” his lawyers wrote in the lawsuit.
Christner claims he was a member of Linkin Park for several months in 1999, until he was “abruptly informed” that he had been fired shortly before the band signed a record deal with Warner Records. But before his exit, Christner claims he played bass on a self-released EP and on several demo recordings, some of which he says he “helped compose.”
His lawsuit claims that as many as 20 of those recordings were released as goodies on the 2020 re-release, making him “a joint creator of many tracks in the box set.” That includes a song called “Could Have Been,” a never-before-released demo track that has amassed 949,000 views on YouTube.
According to Christner, the situation came to a head earlier this year when he was contacted by a Linkin Park representative offering him royalties for the Hybrid Theory re-release. The email allegedly read: “You get mechanical royalties for 3 demos and the 6-song Hybrid Theory EP that you performed on.”
Christner responded by pressing the band for a more detailed explanation of his royalty breakdown, and arguing that he was entitled to a cut from a greater number of tracks — “more than twenty songs.” He later told the band: “If you do not believe I deserve writing credits on these songs, please state your reasons for that in your response.”
Later, after lawyers got involved, Christner says the band backtracked, denying that his work appeared in the box set at all.
“In other words, after admitting that Christner played on at least some tracks included in the box set and admitting that Christner was entitled to at least some ‘mechanical’ royalties, which are royalties paid for compositions, defendants repudiated Christner’s co-authorship and co-ownership of the works at issue,” his lawyers wrote in Wednesday’s complaint.
In technical terms, the lawsuit is asking a judge to issue a so-called declaratory judgment that says Christner is a co-author and co-owner of the copyrights in question, and to weigh in on the “rights and obligations of the parties” — meaning, whether the band owes him a cut of royalties and how much. He also is asking for a court-ordered accounting of royalties for the disputed songs.
As defendants, the lawsuit personally names Linkin Park’s living members (Mike Shinoda, Rob Bourdon, Brad Delson and Joseph Hahn), as well as its business entity, Machine Shop Entertainment LLC, and the band’s label Warner Records.
A rep for Linkin Park did not immediately return a request for comment.
An Atlanta judge ruled Thursday that he would allow many of Young Thug’s rap lyrics to be used as evidence against him and other alleged gang members in their upcoming criminal trial, rejecting arguments that doing so would violate the First Amendment.
The ruling came a day after Fulton County Superior Court Judge Ural Glanville held a hotly-anticipated hearing about the use of lyrics as evidence – a controversial practice that has drawn backlash from the music industry and efforts by lawmakers to stop it.
The lyrics could play a key role in the trial, which will kick off later this month. Prosecutors allege that Thug (Jeffery Williams) and his “YSL” were not really a popular music collective called “Young Stoner Life,” but a violent Atlanta gang called “Young Slime Life” that committed murders, carjackings, drug dealing and other crimes over the course of a decade.
Representing the superstar artist, attorney Brian Steel blasted prosecutors for attempting to use creative expression to convict his client. “They are targeting the right to free speech, and that’s wrong,” Steel said. “They are saying that just because he his singing about it, he is now part of a crime.”
But after an hours-long hearing that ran until nearly 9 pm on Wednesday evening, Judge Glanville largely rejected those arguments. “They’re not prosecuting your clients because of the songs they wrote,” Glanville said from the bench. “They’re using the songs to prove other things your clients may have been involved in. I don’t think it’s an attack on free speech.”
In a formal ruling on Thursday morning, the judge denied Thug’s request to ban the lyrics entirely, and granted a motion by prosecutors to preliminarily admit them. Though Judge Glanville said prosecutors would still need to establish why they were using them and that Steel could object during the trial, the judge repeatedly suggested at Wednesday’s hearing that he would allow lyrics to be admitted as evidence and that it would be up to jurors to decide how much weight to give them.
At the hearing, prosecutor Michael Carlson urged Judge Glanville to avoid sweeping questions about free speech. He said the actual issue before the court was not rap lyrics but rather “proclamations of violence” by alleged gang members that are “highly relevant in this case.”
“The issue here is not rap,” Carlson said. “This is not randomly the state attempting to bring in Run DMC from the 80s. This is specific. These are party admissions. They just happen come in the form of lyrics.”
Near the end of the hearing, Carlson sharply criticized the suggestion that the rap lyrics in question were simply works of art without a direct link to real events. “People can look at that indictment and see one thing that’s for sure not fantasy: People are dead. Murdered.”
“That’s not fantasy, your honor,” Carlson said. “That’s tragically real.”
Earlier on Wednesday, prosecutor Symone Hylton highlighted specific lyrics that the state plans to play for jurors during the trial and explained why they were relevant enough to be admitted. They included lines from Thug’s 2016 song “Slime Shit,” in which he raps about “killin’ 12 shit” and “hundred rounds in a Tahoe.”
Hylton argued that “12” is a well-known euphemism for police officers, and that the lyric referred to a specific incident in which an officer was shot by a YSL member. And she said that the “Tahoe” lyric was a boast about the 2015 murder of Donovan Thomas – a key allegation in the indictment.
“Not only did Donovan Thomas drive a Tahoe, there were multiple rounds of shell casings laid out on the ground where he was killed in front of his barber shop,” Hylton said. “While [the lyric] may on the surface seem irrelevant, when you put it to the facts that are going to come out in this case, that particular verse becomes very relevant.”
Among other songs, she also referenced the 2018 track “Anybody,” in which Thug raps “I never killed anybody/ But I got somethin’ to do with that body”; and the song “Really Be Slime,” a 2021 compilation track released by Young Stoner Life Records that features the line “You wanna be slime? Go catch you a body.”
“It’s the state’s contention that [the lyric] means you go out and you go murder someone,” Hylton said. “That’s how you become ‘slime’.”
Young Thug, Gunna and dozens of other alleged YSL members were indicted in May 2022. Gunna and several other defendants eventually reached plea deals, and other defendants were separated from the main case, leaving just Thug and five others to face a jury. If fully convicted, he could face a life sentence.
After months of delays, a jury was finally seated last week, clearing the way for the trial to kick off on Nov. 27 – proceedings that are expected to last well into 2024. But before then, Judge Ural Glanville must decide on whether the jury can hear his lyrics as part of the prosecution’s case.
Civil liberties activists and defense attorneys have long criticized the use of rap lyrics to win criminal convictions. They argue that it unfairly targets constitutionally protected speech, treating hyperbolic verse as literal confessions; they also say it can unfairly sway juries by tapping into racial biases.
Lawmakers in California enacted legislation last year restricting the use of creative expression as evidence in criminal cases, and a federal bill in Congress that would impose similar restrictions has been widely supported by the music industry. But absent such statutes, courts around the country have mostly upheld the right of prosecutors to cite rap lyrics, particularly in gang-related cases.
In his arguments Wednesday, Thug’s lawyer Steel echoed such concerns in pushing to exclude the lyrics from the case. He noted that many other artists had used similar phrases – he name-dropped Rick Ross, Meek Mill and Cardi B — and that rap lyrics are often exaggerated or wholly fictional. Steel argued that individual lyrics should only be admitted when prosecutors have linked them much more specifically to actual alleged actions – an analysis he said the DA’s office had failed to perform.
But Steel’s main message for Judge Glanville was that using the lyrics would violate the First Amendment and its protections for free speech, arguing that it would effectively criminalize the output of a “prolific songwriter.”
“A person in America can say I hate Brian Steel, I hate criminal defense lawyers, I hate prosecutors, I hate judges,” Steel said. “We believe that we flourish when we can share ideas even when they’re repugnant, even when you don’t agree with them.”
“If you allow this evidence,” Steel said, “it’s going to have a chilling effect.”
But Judge Glanville was skeptical of Steel’s arguments from the beginning, repeatedly suggesting that he believed some of the lyrics were relevant enough to be admitted in the case — and occasionally showing frustration with Steel’s arguments to the contrary. At one point, he interrupted Steel to say that “the First Amendment is not on trial.”
Later, Steel said that prosecutors were using Thug’s “words” to convince jurors that he was “a bad man” — the kind of improper “character” evidence that is typically rejected. But Judge Glanville again had a quick retort: “No they’re not. They’re using his words to show that he’s involved in a gang.”
Migos rapper Offset is facing a lawsuit that claims he assaulted a security guard two years ago at Complex’s yearly Los Angeles festival. In a complaint filed Tuesday (Nov . 7) in Los Angeles court, Daveon Clark says he was attacked by Offset (real name Kiari Kendrell Cephus) and fellow rapper YRN Murk (real name […]
With Young Thug’s gang trial set to start later this month, Atlanta prosecutors are defending their plans to cite his rap lyrics as evidence against him — including by arguing that a manifesto written by the infamous Unabomber would not be inadmissible in court merely if it had been “set to music.”
Thug’s lawyers say his music should be off-limits at the upcoming trial, echoing widespread criticism that the tactic violates the First Amendment and unfairly sways juries. But with a judge set to decide that issue this week, prosecutors aren’t exactly shying away from the controversial practice.
In a motion filed Friday (Nov. 3), the Fulton County District Attorney’s office argued that the lyrics are clearly fair game because they allegedly show Thug (real name Jeffery Williams) and others admitting to being members of a criminal enterprise called YSL — the very crime they’re accused of committing.
“Gang lyric evidence pertaining to the predicate offenses, YSL, its rivals, expectations, and behaviors are all highly pertinent to the defendants’ states of mind and intent in this case,” the DA’s office wrote. “The defendants associated with YSL for criminal purposes.”
In making those arguments, prosecutors also attacked the broader claim that rap music is often unfairly targeted in criminal cases. They accused Thug’s lawyers of seeking an unreasonable “genre-based blanket exclusion” against any evidence that was set “to a beat” — an outcome they said would lead to “an absurd result.” To illustrate how “ridiculous” that position is, prosecutors made a striking comparison.
“Taken to its logical outcome, the defense would seem to opine that if the Unabomber’s manifesto had been set to music, it could not be used against him in any court,” the DA’s office wrote. “According to the defense’s argument, had the Turner Diaries been read with background music, it could not have been introduced against Timothy McVeigh.”
The “Unabomber” refers to terrorist Ted Kaczynski, who killed three and injured dozens by mailing bombs to victims between 1978 and 1995. McVeigh was the white supremacist behind the Oklahoma City bombing in 1994, which left 168 people dead, including 19 children.
In court documents, prosecutors also laid out exactly which Thug lyrics they plan to quote in court during the trial, including: “F– the snitches, need to be in ditches”; “Gave the lawyer close to 2 mil’ he handle all the killings;” and “I was a capo in my hood way before a plaque or a mention.” Prosecutors also listed many other lyrics, including by other YSL members, that they might reference to jurors.
Civil liberties activists and defense attorneys have long criticized the use of rap lyrics to win criminal convictions. They argue that it unfairly targets constitutionally protected speech, treating hyperbolic verse as literal confessions; they also say it can unfairly sway juries by tapping into racial biases.
Lawmakers in California passed legislation last year restricting the use of rap lyrics and other creative expression as evidence in criminal cases, and a federal bill in Congress that would impose similar restrictions has been widely supported by the music industry. But absent such statutes, courts around the country have mostly upheld the right of prosecutors to cite rap lyrics, particularly in gang-related cases.
Thug and dozens of others were indicted in May 2022 over allegations that his “YSL” group was not really a record label called “Young Stoner Life” but a violent Atlanta gang called “Young Slime Life.” Prosecutors claim the group committed murders, carjackings, armed robberies, drug dealing and other crimes over the course of a decade.
After months of delays, a jury was finally seated last week, clearing the way for the trial to kick off on Nov. 27 against Thug and five other remaining defendants. But before then, Judge Ural Glanville must decide on whether the jury can hear his lyrics as part of the prosecution’s case.
In a motion last year, Thug’s attorney, Brian Steel, argued that using the lyrics as evidence was “racist and discriminatory” and would leave the jury “poisoned” against his client. The use of that term was perhaps an allusion to a 2014 ruling by the New Jersey Supreme Court, which overturned a shooting conviction on the grounds that “inflammatory rap verses” had risked “poisoning the jury against the defendant.”
“The admission and use of these lyrics/poetry/artistry against Mr. Williams in his upcoming trial would be a Constitutional violation and an abuse of discretion,” Steele wrote last year in his motion to exclude them from the case. “Mr. Williams has the absolute right, like all persons in America, to exercise lawful speech/expression.”
A hearing over the admissibility of lyrics is set for Wednesday morning (Nov. 8).
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: Mariah Carey is hit with a copyright lawsuit over “All I Want for Christmas Is You”; a federal appeals court issues a first-of-its-kind ruling on copyright protections for dance routines; Taylor Swift gets named-dropped at the Supreme Court; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: Mariah Sued Over Iconic Christmas Track (Again)
Just in time for the holidays, Mariah Carey is facing rebooted allegations that she ripped off her perennially-chart-topping “All I Want for Christmas Is You” from an earlier song of the same name.
Vince Vance (real name Andy Stone) first sued Carey last summer, claiming her 1994 holiday blockbuster infringed the copyrights to a 1989 song of the exact same name recorded by his Vince Vance and the Valiants. But the bare-bones complaint included few details about the alleged infringement, and the case was quickly dropped a few months later.
Now, Stone is back — both with new lawyers and with a more fleshed-out lawsuit.
Those new attorneys hail from Gerard Fox Law, the same firm that represented two songwriters in their lawsuit accusing Taylor Swift of stealing the lyrics to “Shake It Off” from 3LW’s “Playas Gon’ Play,” which also featured lyrics about “playas” and “haters.” After five years of litigation against the biggest pop star in the world, including a successful trip to the Ninth Circuit, Stone has certainly found himself battle-tested plaintiff lawyers to go after Carey.
And where the original complaint was short on specifics, the new one is chock full of them, including that she made up the story of how she wrote the song and that her own co-writer, Walter Afanasieff, has disputed that story.
“Carey has without licensing, palmed off these works with her incredulous origin story, as if those works were her own,” Vance’s new lawyers wrote in the re-filed complaint. “Her hubris knowing no bounds, even her co-credited songwriter doesn’t believe the story she has spun. This is simply a case of actionable infringement.”
Go read our entire story here, including the full complaint filed against Carey.
Other top stories this week…
CHOREOGRAPHY COPYRIGHTS – The Ninth Circuit issued a first-of-its-kind ruling on copyright protections for dance routines, reviving a case that accuses Fortnite creator Epic Games of stealing copyrighted moves from choreographer Kyle Hanagami, who’s worked with BTS, Jennifer Lopez, Justin Bieber and Britney Spears. The decision came after years of efforts by other dancers to secure better ownership of their routines, including Beyoncé and Megan Thee Stallion choreographer JaQuel Knight, as detailed by Rebecca Milzoff in her excellent 2020 Billboard cover story.
SCOTUS SWIFTIES? – Capping a year in which Taylor Swift’s name has dropped on Capitol Hill, at the Department of Justice and on NFL broadcasts, it came up last week during Supreme Court arguments in a major case over social media and the First Amendment, as part of legal hypothetical raised by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
YSL CASE SET FOR TRIAL – After months of delays, a jury was finally seated in the massive criminal case against Young Thug and other alleged members of an Atlanta street gang, clearing the way for a trial to begin later this month. But will it feature rap lyrics as evidence? Stay tuned this week…
STEVEN TYLER ACCUSED AGAIN – The Aerosmith frontman was hit with a second lawsuit accusing him of sexually assaulting a minor decades ago, this time by a woman who says he forcibly kissed and groped her in New York City in 1975 when she was just 17.
AI FAIR USE ARGUMENT – Artificial intelligence firm Anthropic PBC told the U.S. Copyright Office this week that the massive scraping of copyrighted materials to train AI models ought to be considered “quintessentially lawful” – perhaps offering a preview of arguments the company will make in its upcoming legal battle with Universal Music Group (UMG) over those very same issues.
TICKET BOT CRACKDOWN – As reported by Billboard’s Dave Brooks, Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) announced that she would roll out new legislation to beef up the BOTS ACT — a rarely-enforced 2016 law that outlawed the use of bots to attack ticket sales and jump the line to buy tickets ahead of consumers. If passed, the amendment will create a new forum for online ticket sellers to report successful bot attacks to the Federal Trade Commission, which is tasked with enforcing the statute.
CONTRACT RESTRICTIONS (TAYLOR’S VERSION) – Will trying to prevent the next ‘Taylor’s Version’ backfire on record labels? Following up on Steve Knopper’s reporting on new contractual restrictions pushed by labels in the wake of Taylor Swift‘s massively-successful re-recording campaign, music attorney Chris Castle argues that record companies might want to think twice.
It’s Sunday night, backstage ahead of the second Los Angeles show of Lauryn Hill and the Fugees’ anniversary tour. It will be a few hours yet before Hill opens the concert with a solo set of The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill, 25 years after its release. The seats in the arena are slowly starting to fill.
Prakazrel “Pras” Michel, a founding member of the Fugees, is sitting in his dressing room at the Kia Forum, watching the Buffalo Bills play the Cincinnati Bengals. Tonight is a celebration — of his landmark group, of all of the generations who have loved their music — and of his freedom, however much remains.
In April, the rapper accused in multimillion-dollar political conspiracies spanning two presidencies was convicted of 10 counts, including conspiracy and acting as an unregistered agent of a foreign government, after a trial in Washington, D.C., federal court that saw testimony from the likes of Leonardo DiCaprio.
“Some of the lyrics, this art, is imitating my life right now,” he reflects on Fugees’ legacy and this tour, taking place 27 years after the release of the Grammy-award winning The Score, his rap trio’s second, final, and culture-shaping album. “Especially when I talk about feds and this and that.”
The “Ms. Lauryn Hill & Fugees: Miseducation of Lauryn Hill 25th Anniversary Tour” has dates scheduled through mid-December. Michel, who faces up to 20 years in prison on the top counts, doesn’t have a sentencing date yet. But, he says, he was never concerned about being able to do the tour.
“I trust the process,” Michel explains. He has a new attorney, Peter Zeidenberg, and is optimistic.
Last month, Michel argued in a motion for a new trial that, among other errors, his previous defense attorney used an “experimental” generative AI program to help write closing statements. In the closings, the attorney appeared to confuse key elements of the case and misattributed lyrics — “Every single day, every time I pray, I will be missing you” — to the Fugees instead of Diddy, according to the motion for a new trial.
“Obviously there’s been a little bit of progress, so we’ll see what happens,” Michel says.
Despite that run-in with artificial intelligence, though, he hasn’t soured on the concept: The world needs to recognize the technology is in “its infancy stage,” Michel says, and there’s a long way to go. “It’s the future.”
Outside his dressing room, the narrow hallways of the famed Inglewood venue are full of excited spectators made up of friends, family, fans — including an ecstatic Tiffany Haddish. Wyclef Jean’s room quickly becomes the center of the party, with Drake’s “Started from the Bottom” playing over a loudspeaker as he shows off his performing fit.
Far too often, reunions feel like cheap plays at nostalgia — not so much a celebration of the great work that came a couple decades prior, but an attempt at capitalizing on collective memory. There is no such sentiment here. When Jean, the third member of the Fugees, thinks about the way these performances affect him, it’s a homecoming — and the result of many years of hard work.
“If you ever created a band like in high school the first year of college, that’s what it feels like. So, like the Beatles, for example. It’s almost like you rehearse all your life through high school so you never have to rehearse again,” he says. “And tonight is monumental, because the arena we’re playing here, this is (where) the early Lakers (played). And so that’s how I always explain the Fugees. You know, I said, it’s like Showtime Lakers.”
The Fugees’ message is prescient, too — Michel points out a song like “Mask,” and its resonance with members of a younger generation who have gone through the coronavirus pandemic.
“It’s almost like we prophesized a lot of things,” he says.
So how does a group know when they’ve got some magic? That a reunion tour is truly special? Jean compares it to a mountain — people don’t see the “combustions” that formed it over years — only “the end result, which is beautiful,” he says.
“And that’s sort of like how music is made,” Jean says. “So, when you make music that’s vulnerable, whether it is Stevie Wonder, Earth, Wind & Fire, the Fugees, Nas’ Illmatic, 50 Cent’s Get Rich or Die Tryin’, it’s going to always last forever.”
Close to 10 p.m., Hill emerges. She is awarded a plaque for The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill receiving diamond RIAA status; quotes from bell hooks appear on the screen behind her. In the first of many surprises, Nas appears on stage to perform “If I Ruled the World (Imagine That).”
Hill is joined by Jean and Michel, and it is as if no time had passed. Then Cypress Hill’s B-Real comes out, as does Lil Wayne for “Ready or Not” and “A Milli.”
Afterward, fans pour out into the night. Nearby, rapper Travis Scott’s show is wrapping up at SoFi Stadium. The two audiences weave into one in the street; here are the past, present, and future of hip-hop, intertwined.
Offering a preview of arguments the company might make in its upcoming legal battle with Universal Music Group (UMG), artificial intelligence (AI) company Anthropic PBC told the U.S. Copyright Office this week that the massive scraping of copyrighted materials to train AI models is a “quintessentially lawful.”
Music companies, songwriters and artists have argued that such training represents an infringement of their works at a vast scale, but Anthropic told the federal agency Monday (Oct. 30) that it was clearly allowed under copyright’s fair use doctrine.
“The copying is merely an intermediate step, extracting unprotectable elements about the entire corpus of works, in order to create new outputs,” the company wrote. “This sort of transformative use has been recognized as lawful in the past and should continue to be considered lawful in this case.”
The filing came as part of an agency study aimed at answering thorny questions about how existing intellectual property laws should be applied to the disruptive new tech. Other AI giants, including OpenAI, Meta, Microsoft, Google and Stability AI all lodged similar filings, explaining their views.
But Anthropic’s comments will be of particular interest in the music industry because that company was sued last month by UMG over the very issues in question in the Copyright Office filing. The case, the first filed over music, claims that Anthropic unlawfully copied “vast amounts” of copyrighted songs when it trained its Claude AI tool to spit out new lyrics.
In the filing at the Copyright Office, Anthropic argued that such training was a fair use because it copied material only for the purpose of “performing a statistical analysis of the data” and was not “re-using the copyrighted expression to communicate it to users.”
“To the extent copyrighted works are used in training data, it is for analysis (of statistical relationships between words and concepts) that is unrelated to any expressive purpose of the work,” the company argued.
UMG is sure to argue otherwise, but Anthropic said legal precedent was clearly on its side. Notably, the company cited a 2015 ruling by a federal appeals court that Google was allowed to scan and upload millions of copyrighted books to create its searchable Google Books database. That ruling and others established the principle that “large-scale copying” was a fair use when done to “create tools for searching across those works and to perform statistical analysis.”
“The training process for Claude fits neatly within these same paradigms and is fair use,” Anthropic’s lawyers wrote. “Claude is intended to help users produce new, distinct works and thus serves a different purpose from the pre-existing work.”
Anthropic acknowledged that the training of AI models could lead to “short-term economic disruption.” But the company said such problems were “unlikely to be a copyright issue.”
“It is still a matter that policymakers should take seriously (outside of the context of copyright) and balance appropriately against the long-term benefits of LLMs on the well-being of workers and the economy as a whole by providing an entirely new category of tools to enhance human creativity and productivity,” the company wrote.
Lawyers often say that bad facts make bad law – meaning that unusual or unlikely details of a case can shape precedent in unpredictable ways. But bad facts can also make for bad contracts, to judge by the contractual restrictions on re-recording that major labels may be adopting in the wake of the success of Taylor Swift‘s “Taylor’s Version” of her albums.
Re-recording restrictions, a common contractual provision that has been part of record deals for decades, are intended as a kind of post-term noncompete. Their understandable economic purpose is to stop an artist from re-recording songs released under a contract that has run its course in order to benefit a subsequent label – and let the subsequent recording compete with the original without a comparable investment. Under that logic, the reasonable duration of a re-recording restriction would be a few years, as was the practice before the “Taylor’s Version” releases came out. It’s harder to justify locking up artists for a protracted period that might be longer than the duration of the original recording agreement.
That duration could be limited, too, by a potential legal challenge. Both the federal government and many states restrict the enforceability of noncompete clauses in employment agreements, particularly when they limit economic freedom. (Examples include California Business and Professions Code Section 16600, and the recently passed New York Senate Bill S3100A, which New York governor Kathy Hochul is expected to sign.) Next year, the Federal Trade Commission will vote on banning noncompete clauses in employment agreements altogether. Labels often say that recording artists aren’t employees, but that wouldn’t necessarily put these kinds of restrictions above the fray – especially if they last longer than seems reasonable.
Few artists re-record anything, and those who do usually only revisit one or a few hits, maybe their biggest album at most, and that’s more likely if there’s a contractual dispute. It’s unprecedented for a significant artist to re-record his or her entire catalog, repackage each album and promote their rerelease – particularly when the original hit releases are still readily available. That requires motivation. Or, in Swift’s case, perhaps, frustration. But in a “Taylor’s Version” world, who wants to be the one who let it happen again?
Chris Castle
Laura Lee Nall Photography
Without getting into the he-said-she-said of the sale of Big Machine, including Swift’s recording catalog, it’s important to note that it was an unusual case. So, it’s worth asking if there’s a lower-risk alternative.
If a label is going to sell a living artist’s entire catalog – or sell a company whose value is dominated by that catalog – the safe thing to do might be to offer the artist a chance to bid on it. Or, failing that, at least consult with the artist to create a comfortable situation, even if that requires additional assurances or an additional payment. If you think it’s only necessary to do the minimum, look at what can happen with an overly legalistic approach. To artists like Swift, these recordings are their life.
Changing the recording agreement template to try to guarantee an outcome may backfire. “Taylor’s Version” simply isn’t a normal situation – it’s one that involved the world’s most popular artist, who is as attached to her catalog as any performer, plus just as business-savvy as most executives. It’s a situation that was almost impossible to anticipate – so making contracts even more one-sided may not help. Instead, a change like this could draw the attention of President Biden’s FTC, which seems to have an abiding interest in noncompete clauses. Especially if a number of competitors just happen to push the same contractual change at the same time.
If labels must have extended re-recording restrictions, couldn’t they add a sweetener, such as offering living artists a right to match the highest bid if their recording catalogs are ever sold individually, or a blocking right over the buyer or something similar? Alternatively, they could also just leave things be.
An overreaching re-recording restriction could also provoke retaliation from artists’ lawyers. They could make leverage points like post-term marketing restrictions and audits more important deal points in order to fight restrictions. That means disfavored buyers might have to wonder how hard it could be to get the approvals they need, or how much they would like continual audits. And in cases where artists are also principal songwriters, buyers could also have trouble clearing song rights, especially for new purposes like AI.
Some labels may be less concerned with expanding this restriction than they are with winning a competitive negotiation to sign a new artist. And if a competing label agrees to a shorter restriction, it could be an easy compromise that would cost little or nothing.
There’s always a temptation to add restrictions to contracts, but in this case, the exercise could backfire. Labels might be advised to be careful what they wish for.
Chris Castle is an Austin-based lawyer. He represents artists, publishers, songwriters and startups on commercial and public policy matters.