Legal
Page: 81
Lizzo’s attorneys are firing back at a bombshell sexual harassment lawsuit filed by three of her former dancers, calling the allegations a “fabricated sob story” launched by “opportunists” seeking “a quick payday.”
In a motion to dismiss the case filed Friday (Oct. 27) in Los Angeles court, Lizzo’s team argued that the lawsuit — claiming sexual harassment discrimination, and fat-shaming — came from three women with “an axe to grind” who had shown “a pattern of gross misconduct and failure to perform their job up to par.”
“Plaintiffs embarked on a press tour, vilifying defendants and pushing their fabricated sob story in the courts and in the media. That ends today,” wrote Martin D. Singer, a well-known Hollywood attorney. “Instead of taking any accountability for their own actions, plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against defendants out of spite and in pursuit of media attention, public sympathy and a quick payday with minimal effort.”
In support of their motion, Lizzo’s attorneys also filed sworn statements from 18 members of her touring company who dispute many of the lawsuit’s specific factual accusations. That included several who challenged the headline-grabbing claim that Lizzo fat-shamed some of her dancers — a particularly loaded allegation against a singer who has made body positivity a key part of her brand.
“I never saw anyone, including plaintiffs, being weight shamed or body shamed,” one dancer wrote in Friday’s legal filings. “Far from it. Lizzo inspired all of us to celebrate and love ourselves and our bodies as we are.”
In their motion, Lizzo’s lawyers argued that the case should be dismissed immediately under California’s so-called anti-SLAPP statute — a special type of law enacted in states around the country that makes it easier to quickly end meritless lawsuits that threaten free speech.
It’s unusual to see an anti-SLAPP motion aimed at dismissing a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by former employees against their employer. Such motions are more common in defamation cases, where a defendant argues that a powerful plaintiff is abusing the court system to silence them from speaking out.
But in Friday’s motion, Lizzo’s lawyers argued that the anti-SLAPP law could also apply to the current case because of the creative nature of the work in question.
“The complaint — and plaintiffs’ carefully choreographed media blitz surrounding its filing — is a brazen attempt to silence defendants’ creative voices and weaponize their creative expression against them,” Singer and Lizzo’s other lawyers wrote.
The case against Lizzo, filed in August by dancers Arianna Davis, Crystal Williams and Noelle Rodriguez, accuses the singer (real name Melissa Jefferson) and her Big Grrrl Big Touring Inc. of creating a hostile work environment through a wide range of legal wrongdoing, including not just sexual harassment but also religious and racial discrimination. The alleged weight-shaming, the lawsuit claims, amounted to a form of disability discrimination.
In one particularly vivid allegation, Lizzo’s accusers claimed she pushed them to attend a live sex show at a venue in Amsterdam’s famed Red Light District called Bananenbar, and then pressured them to engage with the performers, including “eating bananas protruding from the performers’ vaginas.” After Lizzo herself led a chant “goading” Davis to touch one performer’s breasts, the lawsuit says, Davis eventually did so.
But in Friday’s filings, Lizzo tour manager Molly Gordon sharply called into question that version of the evening.
“When I was at Bananenbar, I spoke with Davis. She did not say that she felt uncomfortable, that she felt forced to be there, or that she wanted to leave but felt that she could not do so,” Gordon said in the filing. “There would have been no question about whether she could leave if she was uncomfortable. I did not witness her engaging with any of the Bananenbar performers.”
Another key allegation in the August complaint was that Shirlene Quigley, the captain of Lizzo’s dance team, forced her religious beliefs on the plaintiffs and took repeated actions that made them uncomfortable, including commenting about their sexual virginity and simulating oral sex on a banana in front of them.
In sworn statements filed Friday, several members of the touring company disputed those allegations. Chawnta Van, a dancer, said the lawsuit’s description of Quigley was “not an accurate portrayal of her at all.”
“Quigley never treated anyone differently because of their religious or spiritual beliefs or actions,” Van said. “I never witnessed her bullying anyone about Jesus or about not having the same religious beliefs as she does, and that is completely contrary to who she is.”
The August complaint also detailed alleged outbursts by Lizzo, including an “excruciating re-audition” during which one dancer claims she wet herself because she feared she would be fired if she left the stage. The case also claims Lizzo repeatedly told dancers “none of their jobs were safe” and, most notably, raised “thinly veiled concerns” about Davis’ weight gain.
But according to Asia Banks, a dancer who described herself in Friday’s filings as “the biggest dancer on the tour,” she never experienced anything like that. “Lizzo always went out of her way to make me feel secure and confident in my body, including by making sure I was comfortable in every single costume for the show.”
Other statements from tour members alleged behavior and performance issues with Lizzo’s accusers. Zuri Appleby, a bass player, claimed Davis had been “lax about her performances, her hygiene and her health.” Gordon, the tour manager, said Williams had been terminated because she was “frequently late for rehearsals” and had missed a flight.
A representative for the plaintiffs did not immediately return a request for comment on Friday.
Utopia Music is facing another lawsuit over an aborted deal to buy a U.S. music technology company called SourceAudio, this time over allegations that the Swiss company violated a $400,000 settlement that aimed end the dispute.
The two companies have been battling since February, when SourceAudio filed a lawsuit claiming that Utopia – a buzzy music fintech firm – had bailed on 2022 deal to buy the smaller company for $26.5 million. The case claimed that after a year of delays, Utopia owed more than $37 million on the deal.
That case, filed in Delaware, quickly settled on confidential terms. But in a new lawsuit filed Wednesday in Los Angeles, SourceAudio says Utopia has now flaked on that agreement, too.
“Desperate to get the Delaware litigation out of the public eye, Utopia negotiated an agreement to pay SourceAudio $400,000 in exchange for a full release and dismissal of the lawsuit,” the company’s lawyers write. “But as with the underlying contract, Utopia has refused to pay what it owes.”
According to the new lawsuit, just days after signing the legal settlement, Utopia “failed to make the required settlement payment—with no explanation at all.”
“It now appears that the settlement was simply a ruse by Utopia to buy time and avoid paying its debts,” the smaller company’s lawyers write. “SourceAudio brings this action to collect what it is owed [or] to rescind the fraudulently procured settlement agreement. Utopia’s gameplaying must come to an end.”
A spokesman for Utopia did not immediately return a request for comment on Thursday.
Utopia, a Swiss-based tech company that delivers financial services for labels, publishers and distributors, had been on a buying spree over 2021 and 2022. The company has acquired at least 15 companies, including music tech company Musimap, U.K. physical distributor Cinram Novum and Lyric Financial, a provider of royalty-backed cash advances.
But last fall, news broke that Utopia would restructure operations and lay off 20% of its workforce, representing about 230 jobs. In April, the company undertook a fresh round of job cuts, eliminating another 15% of its global workforce. Then in July, Utopia announced it was closing its research and development offices in the United Kingdom and Finland, resulting in the loss of another 5% of its global workforce.
SourceAudio — a tech platform for digital asset management and monetization — sued in February, claiming it had struck a deal in March 2022 to sell itself to Utopia for $26.5 million. Since almost immediately after the deal was reached, SourceAudio claimed, the bigger company had continually balked at actually completing the purchase.
“Despite repeated assurances that Utopia would be able to close…, Utopia engaged in a pattern of discontinuing discussions for an extended period of time, only to resurface immediately before the next intended closing date to indicate that it was unable to close by such date,” the complaint read.
In Wednesday’s new lawsuit, SourceAudio claims that Utopia quickly agreed to pay $400,000 to end the earlier case. Though Utopia made an initial $50,000 payment under the deal, the lawsuit claims, the remaining $350,000 – due this month – has not been paid.
“Defendants fraudulently represented through their attorney that they would perform the settlement agreement, while never intending to make any payment beyond the first installment of $50,000,” The company wrote. “Defendants’ objective with its false promise was to secure a release and dismissal of the Delaware action in exchange for a $50,000 payment and nothing further.”
Cesar Pina, a celebrity house-flipper accused of running a “Ponzi-like investment fraud scheme,” said Tuesday (Oct. 24) that New York City radio host DJ Envy had “nothing to do” with the real estate deals in question.
Critics have claimed that Envy, who hosts the popular hip-hop radio show The Breakfast Club, played a key role in Pina’s alleged fraud by promoting him on the air. But in an Instagram livestream Tuesday, Pina said Envy was not directly involved in any of the investments that led to a wave of civil litigation and last week’s federal charges.
“DJ Envy was never in the room with me,” Pina said on the livestream. “DJ Envy has nothing to do with any of these 20 lawsuits of these people who are suing me. It f—ing sucks, bro. It pisses me off that all these people are bashing DJ Envy.”
But later in the same stream, Pina also rejected arguments, advanced by both Envy and his lawyer, that the radio host was actually a potential victim of the alleged scam. “That’s the dumbest s— I ever heard in my life,” Pina said. “He’s not a victim. He was my partner, he was an investor.”
For months, Pina has faced allegations that he promised dozens of investors big profits on real estate deals in Northern New Jersey, only to return little or nothing. Those accusations started on social media but quickly turned into at least 20 civil lawsuits; one victim attorney estimated that more than 30 investors have come forward, seeking over $40 million from Pina and his wife, Jennifer.
Many of those lawsuits, including one filed by music industry veteran Anthony Martini, name DJ Envy as a co-defendant, citing his close ties with Pina — including Pina’s frequent appearances on The Breakfast Club and a series of real estate seminars that the two men co-hosted. Envy has strongly denied the accusations, saying he knew nothing about any foul play and actually lost $500,000 that he invested with Pina.
The situation escalated last week when federal prosecutors charged Pina with running a “a multimillion-dollar Ponzi-like investment fraud scheme.” Though Envy was not charged, the feds specifically noted that Pina had “partnered with a celebrity disc jockey and radio personality” — listed in the charges as “Individual-1” — to boost his reputation as a real estate guru.
In addition to discussing Envy during Tuesday’s livestream, Pina spent more than 20 minutes offering at-times rambling opinions on the entire situation. At one point, he seemed to argue that jilted investors may be less likely to recoup their investments now that the legal process has begun.
“And guess what, you f—ing geniuses? Now the government is involved. Now the government is gonna come in and say, ‘We’re staying all these lawsuits until your criminal proceedings are done,” Pina said. “So guess what? From a year to two years to getting paid — now it could be three to five years! And you guys will be lucky if you see anything. This is the most r——d s— in the world.”
A female songwriter is suing Kobalt Music Group and former company executive Sam Taylor over allegations that he leveraged his position of power to demand sex from her – and that the company “ignored” and “gaslit” women who complained about him.
In a complaint filed Monday in Los Angeles court, lawyers for Nataliya Nikitenko say that Taylor exploited his control over her career to repeatedly pressure her to have sex with him — an allegation legally termed “quid pro quo sexual harassment.” After initially rebuffing him, she claims she eventually gave in and was “forced to engage in unwanted sexual intercourse.”
“Taylor’s actions were sexually predatorial, as defendant Taylor held a position of power over plaintiff,” Nikitenko’s lawyers write. “In fear of her physical safety and with the knowledge that defendant Taylor would withhold work opportunities, defame plaintiff, and ruin plaintiff’s reputation if plaintiff displeased defendant Taylor … plaintiff reluctantly submitted to defendant Taylor’s sexual advances.”
The lawsuit was filed by an unnamed woman identified only as Jane Doe, a common procedural step in cases where plaintiffs fear retaliation. But the allegations closely mirror public accusations from Nikitenko reported by Billboard last year, and the language of the lawsuit directly confirms Jane Doe is Nikitenko.
In addition to the accusations against Taylor, Nikitenko is also suing Kobalt and company executives Sas Metcalfe, Sue Drew and Lauren Hubert. The songwriter’s lawyers claim that Kobalt and the executives were aware of allegations of impropriety against Taylor, but “silenced” women who made them.
“Kobalt [and its executives] consistently ignored the complaints against [Taylor] throughout his entire employment further empowering him and encouraging to continue his scheme of threatening individuals, sexually assaulting them, sexually battering them, and leveraging his power and ability to advance their careers,” Nikitenko’s lawyers write. They say the company “valued profits over the safety of not only their employees but the artists, musicians, and singers they contracted with.”
Taylor did not return an emailed request for comment on the lawsuit’s allegations; a lawyer who represented him in relation to Nikitenko’s claims to Billboard last year also did not reply. But in the story last year, Taylor’s lawyer said the relationship had been “completely consensual at all times.”
“It is a shame that his efforts to genuinely help her career, unrelated to any relationship, are being turned on him in this manner,” Taylor’s lawyer told Billboard at the time. “We assume that she’s doing this with full knowledge of the complete lack of linkage between his efforts on her behalf and any relationship. That relationship has long since ceased.”
Kobalt, in a statement to Billboard on Wednesday, called the lawsuit’s allegations against the company and its employees “baseless.”
“The complaint contains materially false allegations, and we believe that the plaintiff knows them to be false,” the company spokesman said. “Kobalt has always had a zero-tolerance policy for harassment of any sort, and neither Kobalt nor its executives condoned or aided any alleged wrongdoing by any Kobalt employee, including Sam Taylor. Kobalt will vigorously defend this case and pursue all of its available remedies.”
In her lawsuit, Nikitenko says she signed a publishing administration deal with Kobalt in May 2015, when she was 20 years old. She says she first met Taylor, then 39, at a “writers hang” in February 2016, when he “pulled plaintiff aside and asked for her cell phone number.”
Over the next year, she claims that Taylor (her “point person” within Kobalt) began to sexually harass her via text and in person, including repeatedly “flirting” with her and making inappropriate comments in front of others at Kobalt.
In one alleged incident, Nikitenko claims that she was in a “a very small recording booth” at the Kobalt offices when Taylor entered, shut the door and told her “show me your boobs.” She claims he then “touched, groped, and grabbed” her breasts, leaving her “shocked” and “embarrassed.”
“The fact that defendant Taylor did this in the middle of the office only further illustrated that defendant Taylor was given the latitude and power to do whatever he wanted without and care or concern,” her lawyers write in the lawsuit.
Nikitenko says that as the harassment from Taylor continued to escalate, she eventually succumbed and agreed to go on a date with him because she feared retaliation. When she asked where they should meet, Taylor allegedly responded “your house.” She says she then rebuffed him and they instead met at a Santa Monica restaurant, but that he “insisted and pressured” her to let him take her home.
“Due to plaintiff’s well-founded fear for her career and the power dynamic that defendant Taylor had over her career, plaintiff was forced to engage in unwanted sexual intercourse with defendant Taylor,” Nikitenko’s lawyer wrote. “As soon as defendant Taylor orgasmed, defendant Taylor quickly got dressed and left.”
Over the following two years, Nikitenko claims that Taylor repeatedly leveraged his position to coerce her into more sex, often alternating between sexually-charged texts — including “unwanted nude pictures” — with discussions of career advancement. In several texts quoted in the complaint, Taylor allegedly told her “you owe me.”
“Throughout plaintiff’s contract and business relationship, defendant Taylor required plaintiff to pay defendant Taylor with sexual favors for career opportunities defendant Taylor promised,” her lawyers write. “Defendant Taylor would often say that defendant Taylor needed a ‘fee’ after helping plaintiff. This ‘fee’ referred to sexual favors.”
After he allegedly became “frustrated” with her, the lawsuit claims that Taylor spread a false rumor that Nikitenko, who is white, had “made a racist comment” during a recording session with music producer J. White, who is Black. She claims the false rumor was a form of retaliation, and that it has “prevented plaintiff from working with many other producers and labels.”
According to the lawsuit, Taylor was “terminated” from Kobalt in October 2019; a Kobalt spokesman declined to comment when asked for the exact cause for his exit from the company.
Notably, Nikitenko’s lawsuit says she did not report Taylor’s behavior to anyone at Kobalt until July 2020, well after he had already been terminated. But she says the company and its executives were previously aware of his “history of inappropriate sexual behavior,” and that several other Kobalt employees had complained to HR about him.
“No corrective action was taken by defendant Kobalt which allowed for and encouraged defendant Taylor to continue to sexually harass, threaten, and retaliate against others, including but not limited to, plaintiff,” her lawyers write.
In March 2022, Nikitenko says she attempted to terminate her agreement with Kobalt, citing her alleged mistreatment by Taylor. She claims that the company offered to let her walk away, but only if she repaid her unrecouped balance and signed some form of non-disclosure agreement — an offer she says she refused.
In the time since she went public with her allegations last year, Nikitenko says that Kobalt has “retaliated” against her by “not placing plaintiff in sessions or introducing Plaintiff to other artists to work” and ignoring her direct requests for work.
Taylor joined Republic Records in October 2020, and was promoted to the head of the label’s hip-hop and R&B A&R department in December 2021. It’s unclear if he is currently still employed by Republic, and a label spokesman did not immediately return a request for comment on Taylor’s status. Republic, a unit of Universal Music Group, is not named as a defendant in the lawsuit or accused of any wrongdoing.
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: Universal Music Group (UMG) and other music companies file a hotly-anticipated copyright lawsuit over how artificial intelligence (AI) models are trained; DJ Envy’s business partner Cesar Pina is hit with criminal charges claiming he ran a “Ponzi-like” fraud scheme; Megan Thee Stallion reaches a settlement with her former label to end a contentious legal battle; Fyre Fest fraudster Billy McFarland is hit with a civil lawsuit by a jilted investor in his new project; and more.
Want to get The Legal Beat newsletter in your email inbox every Tuesday? Subscribe here for free.
THE BIG STORY: AI Music Heads To Court
When UMG and several other music companies filed a lawsuit last week, accusing an artificial intelligence company called Anthropic PBC of violating its copyrights en masse to “train” its AI models, my initial reaction was: “What took so long?”
The creators of other forms of content had already been in court for months. A group of photographers and Getty Images sued Stability AI over its training practices in January, and a slew of book authors, including Game of Thrones writer George R.R. Martin and legal novelist John Grisham, sued ChatGPT-maker OpenAI over the same thing in June and again in September. And music industry voices, like the RIAA and UMG itself, had repeatedly signaled that they viewed such training as illegal.
For months, we asked around, scanned dockets and waited for the music equivalent. Was the delay a deliberate litigation strategy, allowing the fast-changing market and the existing lawsuits to play out more before diving in? Was the music business focusing on legislative, regulatory or business solutions instead of the judicial warpath they chose during the file-sharing debacle of the early 2000s?
Maybe they were just waiting for the right defendant. In a complaint filed in Nashville federal court on Oct. 18, UMG claimed that Anthropic — a company that got a $4 billion investment from Amazon last month — “unlawfully copies and disseminates vast amounts of copyrighted works” in the process of teaching its models to spit out new lyrics. The lengthy complaint, co-signed by Concord Music Group, ABKCO and other music publishers, echoed arguments made by many rightsholders in the wake of the AI boom: “Copyrighted material is not free for the taking simply because it can be found on the internet.”
Like the previous cases filed by photographers and authors, the new lawsuit poses something of an existential question for AI companies. AI models are only as good as the “inputs” they ingest; if federal courts make all copyrighted material off-limits for such purposes, it would not only make current models illegal but would undoubtedly hamstring further development.
The battle ahead will center on fair use — the hugely important legal doctrine that allows for the free use of copyrighted material in certain situations. Fair use might make you think of parody or criticism, but more recently, it’s empowered new technologies: In 1984, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the VCR was protected by fair use; in 2007, a federal appeals court ruled that Google Image search was fair use.
Are AI models, which imbibe millions of copyrighted works to create something new, the next landmark fair use? Or are they just a new form of copyright piracy on a vast new scale? We’re about to find out.
More key details about the AI case:
– The timing of the lawsuit would suggest that UMG is aiming for a carrot-and-stick approach when it comes to AI. On the same day the new case was filed, UMG announced that it was partnering with a company called BandLab Technologies to forge an “an ethical approach to AI.” Hours later, news also broke that UMG and other labels were actively negotiating with YouTube on a new AI tool that would allow creators to make videos using the voices of popular (consenting) recording artists.
-The huge issue in the case is whether the use of training inputs amounts to infringement, but UMG’s lawyers also allege that Anthropic violates its copyrights with the outputs that its models spit out — that it sometimes simply presents verbatim lyrics to songs. That adds a different dimension to the case that’s not present in earlier AI cases filed by authors and photographers and could perhaps make it a bit easier for UMG to win.
-While it’s the first such case about music, it should be noted that the Anthropic lawsuit deals only with song lyrics — meaning not with sound recordings, written musical notation, or voice likeness rights. While a ruling in any of the AI training cases would likely set precedent across different areas of copyright, those specific issues will have to wait for a future lawsuit, or perhaps an act of Congress.
Go read the full story on UMG’s lawsuit, with access to the actual complaint filed in court.
Other top stories this week…
MEGAN THEE SETTLEMENT – Megan Thee Stallion reached an agreement with her record label 1501 Certified Entertainment to end more than three years of ugly litigation over a record deal that Megan calls “unconscionable.” After battling for more than a year over whether she owed another album under the contract, the two sides now say they will “amicably part ways.”
DJ ENVY SCANDAL DEEPENS – Cesar Pina, a celebrity house-flipper with close ties to New York City radio host DJ Envy, was arrested on federal charges that he perpetrated “a multimillion-dollar Ponzi-like investment fraud scheme.” Though Envy was not charged, federal prosecutors specifically noted that Pina had “partnered with a celebrity disc jockey and radio personality” — listed in the charges as “Individual-1” — to boost his reputation as a real estate guru. The charges came after months of criticism against Envy, who is named in a slew of civil lawsuits filed by alleged victims who say he helped promote the fraud.
FOOL ME ONCE… – Billy McFarland, the creator of the infamous Fyre Festival who served nearly four years in prison for fraud and lying to the FBI, is facing a new civil lawsuit claiming he ripped off an investor who gave him $740,000 for his new PYRT venture. The case was filed by Jonathan Taylor, a fellow felon who met McFarland in prison after pleading guilty to a single count of child sex trafficking.
AI-GENERATED CLOSING ARGS? – Months after ex-Fugees rapper Prakazrel “Pras” Michel was convicted on foreign lobbying charges, he demanded a new trial by making extraordinary accusations against his ex-lawyer David Kenner. Michel claims Kenner, a well-known L.A. criminal defense attorney, used an unproven artificial intelligence (AI) tool called EyeLevel.AI to craft closing arguments — and that he did so because he owned a stake in the tech platform. Kenner declined to comment, but EyeLevel has denied that Kenner has any equity in the company.
ROLLING STONES GET SATISFACTION – A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit accusing The Rolling Stones members Mick Jagger and Keith Richards of copying their 2020 single “Living in a Ghost Town” from a pair of little-known songs, ruling that the dispute — a Spanish artist suing two Brits — clearly didn’t belong in his Louisiana federal courthouse.
JUICE WRLD COPYRIGHT CASE – Dr. Luke and the estate of the late Juice WRLD were hit with a copyright lawsuit that claims they unfairly cut out one of the co-writers (an artist named PD Beats) from the profits of the rapper’s 2021 track “Not Enough.”
A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit accusing The Rolling Stones members Mick Jagger and Keith Richards of copying their 2020 single “Living in a Ghost Town” from a pair of little-known songs, ruling that the case was clearly filed in the wrong court.
Filed in March by songwriter Sergio Garcia Fernandez (stage name Angelslang), the copyright infringement lawsuit claimed that Jagger and Richards “misappropriated many of the recognizable and key protected elements” from his 2006 song “So Sorry” as well as his 2007 tune “Seed of God.”
But in a decision Wednesday (Oct. 18), Judge Eldon E. Fallon ruled that his Louisiana federal court lacked jurisdiction over Fernandez’s case. In doing so, he pointed out that Jagger and Richards are Brits, Fernandez lives in Spain, and The Rolling Stones have “only performed in New Orleans four times.”
“The mere fact that people in this district listen to the Rolling Stones or the alleged work does not permit this court to wield specific jurisdiction over the defendants,” Judge Fallon wrote in dismissing the case.
The judge only tossed the case “without prejudice” — meaning Fernandez is free to re-file the lawsuit in a more appropriate location. In the lead-up to Wednesday’s ruling, lawyers for The Rolling Stones argued that the case should have been filed somewhere in Europe.
In a statement to Billboard, Fernandez’s lawyer said he’s “disappointed and stunned by the court’s ruling.” But he vowed to “refile the lawsuit in a different venue in addition to reviewing other legal options.”
Released at the peak of the COVID-19 shutdowns in April 2020, “Living in a Ghost Town” was the first original material released by the Stones since 2012. The song, a blues-rock tune with reggae influences accompanied by a COVID-themed video, reached No. 3 on the Hot Rock & Alternative Songs chart in May 2020.
In his lawsuit, Fernandez alleged that the new track was created by borrowing key features from his two earlier songs, including vocal melodies, chord progressions and other elements. “Defendants never paid plaintiff, nor secured the authorization for the use of ‘So Sorry’ and ‘Seed of God,’” his lawyers wrote at the time.
How would members of the iconic band have heard those songs, which have less than 1,000 spins on Spotify? Fernandez claims he gave a demo CD to “an immediate family member” of Jagger.
“The immediate family member … confirmed receipt … to the plaintiff via e-mail, and expressed that the musical works of the plaintiff and its style was a sound The Rolling Stones would be interested in using,” Fernandez’s lawyers wrote.
When the case was first filed, experts told Billboard that it was unlikely to succeed. Joe Bennett, a forensic musicologist and a professor at Berklee College of Music, said the songs shared only an overall vibe — based on mid-tempo rock grooves in the key of A minor — that’s been ubiquitous in rock and blues since the beginning.
“The Stones didn’t copy from Fernandez, because they didn’t need to,” Bennett said. “They’ve been playing grooves like this for a very long time, as have many others.”
Cesar Pina, a celebrity house-flipper with close ties to New York City radio host DJ Envy, was arrested Wednesday (Oct. 18) on federal charges that he perpetrated “a multimillion-dollar Ponzi-like investment fraud scheme.”
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
The charges come after months of social media accusations and civil litigation against Pina, who victims say stole their money with promises of big profits. DJ Envy (real name RaaShaun Casey) has been caught up in the scheme because critics say he helped promote Pina, including through appearances on his nationally syndicated hip-hop radio show The Breakfast Club — accusations he denies.
In announcing the charges, federal authorities said Pina had “exploited celebrity status and social media to develop a devoted following of potential victims.”
“Promising returns that were too good to be true, Pina allegedly defrauded dozens of people of millions of dollars,” New Jersey U.S. Attorney Philip R. Sellinger said in a statement. “Our office is committed to protecting the public from these schemes and prosecuting those who lie to investors for their own personal gain.”
DJ Envy is not named in the charges and is not accused of any criminal wrongdoing. But federal prosecutors specifically noted that Pina “partnered with a celebrity disc jockey and radio personality” — listed in the charges as “Individual-1” — to boost his reputation as a real estate guru.
“Together, they used Individual-l’s celebrity to promote various real estate enterprises that Pina controlled,” prosecutors wrote in the criminal complaint. “Pina represented that he was a highly successful real estate investor, owned thousands of properties in multiple states, and had business relationships with numerous celebrities.”
Attorneys for both Pina and Envy did not return requests for comment.
The accusations against Pina first cropped up in May, when an Instagram account accused him of defrauding numerous investors — and accused Envy of playing a key role. That led to a flood of civil lawsuits from dozens of victims who say Pina owed them thousands or millions of dollars. One victim’s attorney estimated that more than 30 investors have already come forward, seeking over $40 million from Pina and his wife, Jennifer.
Many of those lawsuits, including one filed by music industry veteran Anthony Martini, name DJ Envy as a co-defendant, citing their close ties — including Pina’s frequent appearances on The Breakfast Club and a series of real estate seminars that the two men co-hosted. One case says Envy “aided and abetted” the fraudsters by “using his public likeness as a well-known radio disc jockey to promote their real estate scheme.”
Envy says those kinds of allegations are not only false — he says he himself is also a victim of Pina’s alleged scheme — but also defamatory. He’s suing the social media influencer who first publicized the allegations, claiming he “spewed” lies to promote his own real estate business, and he’s demanding to be dismissed from the investor lawsuits.
In an interview with Billboard last week, Envy’s lawyer, Massimo F. D’Angelo, said his client had nothing to do with the specific deals involved in Pina’s alleged scheme and was being targeted by lawyers and critics who were “sensationalizing” the case by involving a celebrity: “Envy had no involvement whatsoever. The only reason he’s being dragged into this is because he’s a public figure.”
Read the full complaint against Pina here.
Universal Music Group (UMG) and other music companies are suing an artificial intelligence platform called Anthropic PBC for using copyrighted song lyrics to “train” its software — marking the first major lawsuit in what is expected to be a key legal battle over the future of AI music.
In a complaint filed Wednesday morning (Oct. 18) in Nashville federal court, lawyers for UMG, Concord Music Group, ABKCO and other music publishers accused Anthropic of violating the companies’ copyrights en masse by using vast numbers of songs to help its AI models learn how to spit out new lyrics.
“In the process of building and operating AI models, Anthropic unlawfully copies and disseminates vast amounts of copyrighted works,” lawyers for the music companies wrote. “Publishers embrace innovation and recognize the great promise of AI when used ethically and responsibly. But Anthropic violates these principles on a systematic and widespread basis.”
A spokesperson for Anthropic did not immediately return a request for comment.
The new lawsuit is similar to cases filed by visual artists over the unauthorized use of their works to train AI image generators, as well as cases filed by authors like Game of Thrones writer George R.R. Martin and novelist John Grisham over the use of their books. But it’s the first to squarely target music.
AI models like the popular ChatGPT are “trained” to produce new content by feeding them vast quantities of existing works known as “inputs.” In the case of AI music, that process involves huge numbers of songs. Whether doing so infringes the copyrights to that underlying material is something of an existential question for the booming sector, since depriving AI models of new inputs could limit their abilities.
Major music companies and other industry players have already argued that such training is illegal. Last year, the RIAA said that any use of copyrighted songs to build AI platforms “infringes our members’ rights.” In April, when UMG asked Spotify and other streamers in April to stop allowing AI companies to use their platforms to ingest music, it said it “will not hesitate to take steps to protect our rights.”
On Wednesday, the company took those steps. In the lawsuit, it said Anthropic “profits richly” from the “vast troves of copyrighted material that Anthropic scrapes from the internet.”
“Unlike songwriters, who are creative by nature, Anthropic’s AI models are not creative — they depend entirely on the creativity of others,” lawyers for the publishers wrote. “Yet, Anthropic pays nothing to publishers, their songwriters, or the countless other copyright owners whose copyrighted works Anthropic uses to train its AI models. Anthropic has never even attempted to license the use of Publishers’ lyrics.”
In the case ahead, the key battle line will be over whether the unauthorized use of proprietary music to train an AI platform is nonetheless legal under copyright’s fair use doctrine — an important rule that allows people to reuse protected works without breaking the law.
Historically, fair use enabled critics to quote from the works they were dissecting, or parodists to use existing materials to mock them. But more recently, it’s also empowered new technologies: In 1984, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the VCR was protected by fair use; in 2007, a federal appeals court ruled that Google Image search was fair use.
In Wednesday’s complaint, UMG and the other publishers seemed intent on heading off any kind of fair use defense. They argued that Anthropic’s behavior would harm the market for licensing lyrics to AI services that actually pay for licenses — a key consideration in any fair use analysis.
“Anthropic is depriving Publishers and their songwriters of control over their copyrighted works and the hard-earned benefits of their creative endeavors, it is competing unfairly against those website developers that respect the copyright law and pay for licenses, and it is undermining existing and future licensing markets in untold ways,” the publishers wrote.
In addition to targeting Anthropic’s use of songs as inputs, the publishers claim that the material produced by the company’s AI model also infringes their lyrics: “Anthropic’s AI models generate identical or nearly identical copies of those lyrics, in clear violation of publishers’ copyrights.”
Such litigation might only be the first step in setting national policy on how AI platforms can use copyrighted music, with legislative efforts close behind. At a hearing in May, Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) repeatedly grilled the CEO of the company behind ChatGPT about how he and others planned to “compensate the artist.”
“If I can go in and say ‘write me a song that sounds like Garth Brooks,’ and it takes part of an existing song, there has to be compensation to that artist for that utilization and that use,” Blackburn said. “If it was radio play, it would be there. If it was streaming, it would be there.”
Dr. Luke and the estate of the late Juice WRLD are facing a copyright lawsuit that claims they unfairly cut out one of the co-writers of the rapper’s 2021 track “Not Enough.”
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
The case, filed in California federal court Tuesday, claims that an artist named PD Beats (Pierre Orpheus DeJournette) is a credited co-writer of the song, but that Dr. Luke (Lukasz Sebastian Gottwald) and the estate of Juice WRLD (Jarad Anthony Higgins) have refused to treat him as co-owner of the copyright.
“Defendants have released, marketed, distributed, and monetized the subject song without accrediting or providing PD Beats his proportional share of the revenue,” his lawyers wrote in their complaint. “Defendants have failed to meaningfully respond, necessitating this action.”
DeJournette claims that he contributed “original guitar, performance, and production” to “Not Enough,” in addition to “writing the beats and programming the 808s” – a reference to the Roland TR-808 drum machine. Without the material he added, DeJournette says the song would be “missing key elements that form the basis of the subject song’s audience appeal.”
The lawsuit claims that DeJournette was listed as a co-writer in certain credits – although he doesn’t specify where – and that he and the other writers should “equally own the copyrights.” His lawsuit asks for a judicial declaration that he is indeed a co-owner, and a court-ordered accounting of the song’s revenue.
Reps for Dr. Luke and Juice WRLD’s estate did not immediately return requests for comment on Wednesday.
Juice WRLD, a pioneering voice in emo rap and SoundCloud rap, died of a drug overdose in December 2019 while onboard a private jet flying from Los Angeles to Chicago. Citing law enforcement sources, TMZ reported days later that the rapper swallowed a large number of pills to hide them from federal agents who were waiting for the plane to land.
Released on his posthumous 2021 album Fighting Demons, “Not Enough” spent a week at No. 80 on the Hot 100. The album itself was a bigger hit, spending 72 weeks on the Billboard 200 and peaking at No. 2.
Tuesday’s lawsuit named Juice WRLD’s mother, Carmella Wallace, as a defendant because she serves as the executor of his estate, as well as a company called Juice WRLD Music LLC. Other defendants included co-writers CB Mix (Chris Barnett) and KBeaZy (Keegan Christopher Bach); Universal Music Group, which released the song under its Interscope Records imprint; and Opus Music Group, which acquired a majority stake in Juice WRLD’s catalog in 2022.
Liam Payne is not allowed to drive in England for the next six months, a ban that stems from a February speeding incident, BBC News reports. The former One Direction member was hit with a speeding citation on Feb. 24 after driving 43 mph in a 30 mph zone. The 30-year-old was driving in a […]