Legal
Page: 85
The Rolling Stones’ famed “tongue and lips” logo is at the center of a new federal lawsuit, launched by a small clothing chain that says it was unfairly threatened by Universal Music Group’s Bravado merch company with “unfounded” infringement litigation over a similar logo.
In a lawsuit filed Wednesday (March 29), apparel retailer Simply Southern claimed it had received a cease-and-desist letter from Bravado, a unit of UMG that sells licensed merchandise for the Stones and dozens of other major artists. The letter allegedly took aim at T-shirts that featured a “disembodied mouth,” claiming they were confusingly similar to the iconic logo.
But lawyers for Simply Southern say its apparel designs were “clearly and demonstrably different,” and they want a federal judge to rule that the company “has not infringed Bravado’s asserted intellectual property rights.”
“Simply Southern’s mouth images show many elements that are very different from Bravado’s asserted tongue/lips image,” the company wrote in its complaint. “For example, Simply Southern’s images have a more plump lower lip, more square teeth, and a wider and more open mouth when compared to Bravado’s asserted image.”
A representative for Bravado declined to comment. The Rolling Stones themselves are not named in the lawsuit and are not accused of any wrongdoing; a rep for the band did not respond to a request for comment on the situation.
Called “the most famous logo in rock ’n’ roll” by the New York Times, the “tongue and lips” image was created in 1970 by John Pasche, a London art student who had been commissioned by the band to create a poster for its upcoming European tour. The design was then tweaked slightly by designer Craig Braun before it appeared in its final version on the back cover of the band’s 1971 album Sticky Fingers.
Since then, the Stones logo has appeared countless times — on music releases, T-shirts, stickers, posters and even as the stage for the band’s halftime performance during Super Bowl XL.
According to Wednesday’s lawsuit, Bravado sent Simply Southern a letter on March 1, claiming to be the exclusive licensee to sell Rolling Stones merchandise. The lawyers for Bravado warned Simply Southern that its products were “confusingly similar” to the tongue and lips design, and that such offending merchandise infringed the band’s trademarks.
The complaint filed in federal court (available in its entirety here) includes images Simply Southern’s two offending logos. Both appear visually similar to the Stones logo, but with differences. One is highly similar in shape, but features a different pink-and-leopard print color scheme; the other features the same red color scheme as the Stones logo, but includes a different orientation with different tongue placement.
From Simply Southern’s perspective, that’s enough difference to avoid liability for trademark infringement.
“Because the mouth is an inherently expressive body part, subtle changes in shape and positioning result in markedly different interpretations of emotional expression,” the company wrote. “Bravado’s asserted image is mostly devoid of emotion but has slight hints of either playfulness or defiance. By contrast, Simply Southern’s images are deeply expressive.”
Read Simply Southern’s full complaint here:
This is The Legal Beat, a weekly newsletter about music law from Billboard Pro, offering you a one-stop cheat sheet of big new cases, important rulings and all the fun stuff in between.
This week: A court ruling on R. Kelly’s music royalties offers some answers but raises new questions; 50 Cent reaches a deal to end his lawsuit over alleged insinuations that he had penis surgery; Donald Glover defeats a copyright lawsuit over the Childish Gambino hit “This Is America”; Ohio cops sue Afroman for using their images after they raided his home with guns drawn; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: Who Gets R. Kelly’s Record Royalties?
Twice convicted on allegations of sexual abuse and facing decades in federal prison, R. Kelly owes a lot of money to a lot of people. Luckily, a pile of recording royalties are sitting in his account at Sony Music. But who gets first access to them?
In a ruling last week, the Illinois Supreme Court said first dibs belong to Heather Williams, an abuse victim who won a $4 million civil judgment against Kelly in 2020. For procedural reasons, the appeals court said Williams should take priority over Midwest Commercial Funding, a Chicago landlord that’s owed $3.5 million from Kelly over unpaid rent at a local studio space. The court upheld an earlier ruling that had ordered Sony to hand over “any funds currently in Kelly’s royalty account” to Williams, and keep giving her his incoming royalties until the judgment was paid off.
While state high court’s decision offered some important clarity – the Sony account had been frozen for years while the case played out across the appeals courts – it left plenty of big questions unanswered.
-According to the decision, Kelly’s account held $1.5 million in 2020 when Williams initially demanded that Sony hand it over. But how much more money has been accrued since then? And how much is coming in each year? Sony declined to comment on the situation when asked.
-What about Kelly’s criminal victims? Federal judges in New York and Illinois have ordered him to pay more than $500,000 in restitution and fines after he was convicted on sex trafficking, racketeering and child porn charges. Should those victims also get access to the record royalties? Federal prosecutors in Brooklyn and Chicago both declined to comment on the situation.
-Kelly’s lawyers are currently trying to overturn the underlying $4 million judgment for Williams, arguing it was handed down when the singer was stuck in prison and that he was not afforded a proper chance to fight back. Those efforts face an uphill climb, but at the very least could delay any final payments.
-Finally, it’s important to note that last week’s ruling was limited to his record royalties. The extent to which Kelly is still earning money from his compositional rights, and whether he would be able sell those rights for anything other than “fire sale” prices, is an even murkier situation.
For a deeper breakdown of the situation, including access to the Illinois Supreme Court’s entire written decision, go read our full story here.
Other top stories this week…
“ENTIRELY DIFFERENT” – A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit accusing Donald Glover of ripping off his chart-topping Childish Gambino hit “This Is America” from an earlier song by a rapper named Kidd Wes called “Made In America.” The judge said the lyrics were “entirely different” and that the accuser failed to satisfy even basic procedural requirements.
CASE CLOSED FOR 50 CENT – The rapper reached a settlement to end a lawsuit in which he accused a Miami medical spa of exploiting an innocent photo of him to imply that he was a client — and, more startlingly, to falsely suggest that 50 had received penile enhancement surgery as part of his work. No word on the terms of the agreement.
COPS SUE AFROMAN AFTER RAID – The rapper Afroman was hit with a bizarre civil lawsuit from several Ohio police officers, who claim he’s caused them “emotional distress” by using their images after they staged a guns-drawn raid on his home last year that resulted in no criminal charges. The rapper says the case is baseless and he’s planning to counter-sue over damage done to his home.
NFT SETTLEMENT FOR 3LAU – Citing an imminent settlement, a Manhattan federal judge dismissed a lawsuit claiming that the DJ and producer 3LAU refused to properly share the earnings from an $11.7 million NFT auction with a musical collaborator named Luna Aura.
SONY SUES TIKTOK CREATOR – Sony Music Entertainment relaunched a lawsuit against Trefuego (real name Dantreal Daevon Clark-Rainbolt), the creator of a popular TikTok song called “90mh,” over allegations that he prominently sampled a 1986 track by Japanese composer Toshifumi Hinata without “paying a cent.”
NO CHARGES FOR NICK LACHEY – The 98 Degrees singer avoided criminal charges in Los Angeles in connection with a paparazzi run-in last March, in which he allegedly reached into a photog’s car and attempted to grab her phone. Under a deal with prosecutors, Lachey agreed to attend anger management classes and Alcoholics Anonymous meetings.
50 Cent has reached a settlement to end a lawsuit in which he accused a Miami medical spa of falsely suggesting that he’d had penis surgery, according to court documents filed Friday (March 24).
The rapper claims that Angela Kogan and her Perfection Plastic Surgery & MedSpa exploited an innocent photo he’d “graciously agreed” to take with her to imply that he was a client — and, more startlingly, that he had received penile enhancement surgery as part of his work.
But in a joint filing made Friday in Miami federal court, attorneys for both 50 Cent (real name Curtis Jackson) and Kogan said they had “reached an agreement in principle to settle Mr. Jackson’s claims” and were “in the process of preparing an agreement to finalize and memorialize” the deal.
An attorney for 50 Cent did not immediately return a request for comment. A lawyer for Kogan declined to comment.
50 Cent sued Kogan in September, arguing that he took a photo with “someone he thought was a fan” and had “never consented” to the use of the image for commercial purposes in any form. He says Kogan not only posted the image to Instagram herself but also engineered an article on the website The Shade Room that used the post to make the “false insinuation” that she’d provided him with penile enhancement.
The article in question (“Penis Enhancements Are More Popular Than Ever & BBLs Are Dying Out: Cosmetic Surgery CEO Angela Kogan Speaks On It”) did not directly claim that Jackson had the surgery. But it allegedly said he was a “client” of the practice while repeatedly using the image of him with Kogan, leading Jackson’s lawyers to say the “implication was clear.”
“Defendants’ actions have exposed Jackson to ridicule, caused substantial damage to his professional and personal reputation, and violated his right to control his name and image,” the star’s lawyers wrote at the time. They included social media comments in which users mocked the rapper, including one that “crudely” said the rapper should be called “50 inch.”
Kogan strongly denied the allegations and immediately moved to dismiss the case, saying 50 Cent actually was a client and had consented to the use of the image as payment for the work he received. She argued it was just an “innocuous” use of the photo, not a direct suggestion that he’d endorsed the office.
But in December, Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. denied Kogan’s request to toss out the case, saying that 50 Cent might eventually be able to prove his allegations at trial.
“As the proverbial saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words,” Scola wrote. “This one in particular depicts a worldwide celebrity next to Kogan with MedSpa’s name repeated all throughout the background. The promotional value is evident.”
A Manhattan federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit accusing Donald Glover of ripping off his chart-topping Childish Gambino hit “This Is America” from an earlier song, ruling that the two tracks are “entirely different.”
A rapper named Kidd Wes (real name Emelike Nwosuocha) sued in 2021, claiming Glover’s 2018 song was “practically identical” to his own 2016 called “Made In America.” But in a decision issued Friday (March 24), U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero said they were anything but.
“A cursory comparison with the challenged composition reveals that the content of the choruses is entirely different and not substantially similar,” the judge wrote.
In reaching that conclusion, Judge Marrero briefly explained how Nwosuocha’s lyrics were a “short, simple, self-aggrandizing proclamation,” while Glover’s song was about “what America means and how it is perceived.”
“More could be said on the ways these songs differ, but no more airtime is needed to resolve this case,” the judge wrote.
Released in 2018, “This Is America” spent two weeks atop the Hot 100 and eventually won record of the year and song of the year at the 61st Annual Grammy Awards. It was accompanied by a critically acclaimed music video, directed by Hiro Murai, that touched on issues of race, mass shootings and police violence.
Nwosuocha sued in May 2021, claiming there were “unmissable” similarities between the song and his own “Made In America,” including the “flow” — the cadence, rhyming schemes, rhythm and other characteristics of hip hop lyrics.
“The distinctive flow employed in defendant Glover’s recorded performance of the infringing work’s chorus … is unmistakably substantially similar, if not practically identical, to the distinct and unique flow that was employed by Nwosuocha,” his lawyers wrote at the time.
But in Friday’s decision, Judge Marrero said the “flow” and other similar characteristics “lack sufficient originality” to be protected by copyrights. And “no reasonable jury” could find that the lyrics themselves were similar enough to constitute copyright infringement, the judge said.
The judge also ruled that the case failed for an even simpler reason: That Nwosuocha had failed to secure a federal copyright registration for the underlying composition to his song. “Accordingly, dismissal of Nwosuocha’s complaint is warranted.”
In a statement to Billboard, Nwosuocha’s attorneys Imran H. Ansari and La’Shawn N. Thomas said their client was “understandably disappointed” and considering appealing the ruling. “He stands by his music, creativity, and the independence of grassroots artists to create their own music, and receive credit where credit is due, without the fear of it being apportioned by another.”
An attorney for Glover did not immediately return a request for comment on the decision.
An R. Kelly victim who won a $4 million judgment against the singer will get first crack at pulling money from the singer’s royalty account with Sony Music — after the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that her claims should take priority over a Chicago landlord that’s also owed millions.
In a decision on Thursday (March 23), the state high court said Heather Williams was entitled to tap into Kelly’s account with Sony — valued at $1.5 million in 2020 — before Midwest Commercial Funding, a property manager that won its own separate $3.5 million ruling against Kelly over unpaid rent at a Chicago studio, can access it.
Williams filed a civil lawsuit against Kelly in 2019, alleging that when she was 16 years old, the singer lured her into his studio with promises that she could be in a music video and then repeatedly had sex with her as a minor. In 2020, she won a judgment of $4 million against Kelly on those accusations.
Thursday’s decision upheld a lower court’s earlier ruling that Williams — and not Midwest Commercial — should be given priority access to the royalties because she was the first to properly demand the money from Sony. That earlier ruling had ordered Sony to hand over to Williams “any funds currently in Kelly’s royalty account,” and to keep giving her his royalties until the judgment was paid off.
Disbursement of Kelly’s funds held by Sony has been paused while litigation has played out; it’s unclear how much money is now in the account. The company is not named in any lawsuits and is not accused of any wrongdoing. A rep for Sony declined to comment on the ruling or on the status of Kelly’s royalties.
Following Thursday’s ruling, Kelly’s attorney, Jennifer Bonjean, tells Billboard that she’s currently seeking to overturn the underlying $4 million judgment. She says the award to Williams — a so-called default judgment, meaning it was issued after Kelly failed to respond — “never should have been entered.”
“I’ve never in my career seen such a flouting of the rules to deny him even the opportunity to defend these civil cases, even when the courts were fully aware that Kelly was incarcerated, unrepresented at points, and facing multiple criminal indictments,” Bonjean says. “Indeed, much of these civil proceedings occurred without Kelly’s knowledge.”
But the $4 million judgment was already upheld once by an appeals court, and Bonjean said she faces an “uphill battle” to overturn the judgment because of the actions of Kelly’s prior lawyers.
An attorney for Williams declined to comment on the litigation. An attorney for Midwest Commercial Funding did not return a request for comment.
Though Thursday’s decision gave priority to Williams over Midwest Commercial Funding, it’s unclear whether she’ll enjoy similar priority over a slew of additional monetary penalties that Kelly owes to victims as a result of his federal criminal convictions.
After he was sentenced last summer to 30 years in prison for sex trafficking and racketeering in New York, Kelly was ordered to pay more than $480,000 in fines and restitution; after he was sentenced in February on child pornography charges in Illinois, another $42,000 was tacked on. Last fall, prosecutors confiscated nearly $30,000 in Kelly’s prison account in an effort to start paying those penalties.
A representative for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in New York declined to comment on the impact of Thursday’s ruling or the status of federal restitution efforts against Kelly. A rep for the Us Attorney’s Office in Illinois did not immediately return a request for comment.
The rapper Afroman is facing a civil lawsuit from several Ohio police officers who say he caused them “emotional distress” by using their images on social media and merchandise after they raided his home last year.
In a complaint filed March 13, seven members of the sheriff’s department in Adams County accused the rapper (real name Joseph Forman) of violating their rights by posting the images, which were snapped by surveillance cameras while they executed a search warrant with guns drawn on his home last August.
The deputies (Shawn D. Cooley, Justin Cooley, Michael D. Estep, Shawn S. Grooms, Brian Newland, Lisa Phillips and Randolph L. Walters, Jr.) claim they have been “subjected to threats, including death threats” because of Afroman’s posts.
“As a result of defendants’ actions, plaintiffs have been subjected to ridicule, even in the further performance of their official duties, by members of the public,” a lawyer for the officers wrote. “It has made it more difficult and even more dangerous for plaintiffs to carry out their official duties.”
In a response statement posted to Instagram on Thursday (March 23), the rapper said the officers were “criminals caught in the act of vandalizing and stealing money” who had “lost their right of privacy.”
“My video footage is my property,” he said. “I used it to identify criminals, who broke into my house, stole my money and disconnected my home security system. I use my footage of my property to raise money to pay for the damages they done and to identify the criminals operating inside of the sheriff department.”
Later in the same statement, an attorney for the rapper said she was “planning to counter sue for the unlawful raid, money being stolen, and for the undeniable damage this had on my clients family, career and property.”
According to a report by the Cincinnati Enquirer, deputies raided Afroman’s Winchester, Ohio home on Aug. 21, seizing $5,031 in cash and other evidence while executing a search warrant linked to suspicions of drug trafficking. No charges were ever filed and the money was later returned. At the time, the rapper publicly claimed that $400 was missing from the amount returned, but a state investigation eventually found that the discrepancy was due to a miscount, not missing cash.
After the search, Afroman repeatedly posted video and images of the raid on social media, using them to express outrage at alleged damage done to his property and at what he viewed as excessive use of force. One video showed officers searching his home under the title “watch cops steal money.” He later used some of those images on t-shirts and other merchandise, including one that compared one of the officers to an obese character from the animated sitcom Family Guy.
In the complaint filed last week, the officers claimed those posts and merchandise amounted to an unauthorized commercial exploitation of their likeness, as well as an invasion of their privacy.
“Some of defendants’ postings … gave publicity to matters concerning the private lives of Plaintiffs which were not of legitimate concern to the public,” the officers wrote. “As a result of defendants’ unreasonable publicity of the private lives of plaintiffs, they have suffered embarrassment, ridicule, emotional distress, humiliation, and loss of reputation.”
Read the entire complaint here:
Lizzo may be “100% that b—h,” but she still has to do jury duty. The 34-year-old musician recently revealed in a pair of hilarious TikToks that she was summoned to perform her civic responsibilities in court, but was ultimately dismissed from serving as a juror before the case commenced.
In the first of her recent TikToks, the “Truth Hurts” singer documented her getting-ready process for jury duty, which she confessed she definitely wasn’t looking forward to. “I’m actually really stressed about it,” Lizzo said while doing her skincare routine. “I’ve just heard of people getting really gruesome cases. I have a really sensitive mind, I don’t like hearing or seeing that. I will cry.”
After picking out a dress for the day, she described her look as “giving law-abiding citizen.” She ended up changing her outfit, though, instead choosing to rep some of her own Yitty clothing in the courtroom.
“Just fulfilling my civil duty,” she captioned the video, which quickly filled up with amused comments.
“I would drop dead if I walked into jury duty and Lizzo was there,” wrote on fan, while another joked, “Your Honor she’s slaying.”
The process, however, ended up being for naught. The Grammy winner was quickly dismissed from the selection process. “I GOT RELEASED FROM JURY DUTY YALL I WONDER WHY THO,” she captioned a second video, which featured a photo of Lizzo posing in front of the jury assembly room.
As one commenter pointed out, the star probably got let off the hook simply because celebrities sometimes “get dismissed because they’ll be a ‘distraction’ to the trial.” For instance, Madonna was sent home from jury duty after just two hours for that reason, a court spokesperson said at the time.
See Lizzo’s TikToks about her brief stint as a potential juror below:
3LAU is close to a settlement to end a lawsuit claiming the DJ refused to properly share the earnings from an $11.7 million NFT auction with a musical collaborator.
Citing the fact that the two sides were “near a settlement in principle,” a New York federal judge on Monday tentatively dismissed the lawsuit filed by musician Luna Aura over the huge proceeds from the much-publicized NFT auction of his album Ultraviolet.
Aura (real name Angela Anne Flores) launched the lawsuit last fall, claiming 3LAU (real name Justin Blau) offered her just $25,000 from, even though she said she was owed a 50 percent recording royalty from one of the songs on the album called “Walk Away.”
“Despite this financial windfall, defendants only offered Luna Aura a flat one-time payment of twenty-five thousand dollars as compensation in connection with the sale of Ultraviolet and ‘Walk Away’ NFTs,” her lawyers wrote at the time. 3LAU strongly denied the allegations, with his manager saying they would “vigorously defend the lawsuit.”
Specific terms of the tentative settlement were not disclosed in public court records, and neither side provided additional details when contacted by Billboard. If the deal is not finalized within 30 days, the judge said the parties could reopen the case and resume litigating.
Even during 2021’s fever-dream craze for NFTs (non-fungible tokens), 3LAU’s Feb. 2021 auction stood out as notable. By selling 33 collectible tokens linked to his 3-year-old album Ultraviolet — the NFTs gave the buyers access to vinyl copies, unreleased music and other special experiences — the DJ-producer raked in $11.7 million. “It was one of those moments in my life where I was like, ‘Holy s—,’” 3LAU told Billboard at the time. “‘I think we just changed everything.’”
But according to Aura’s November lawsuit, he didn’t share those profits with a key person who helped create the album. She says her contract guaranteed her a 50% recording royalty on “Walk Away,” and that she also owned 30% of the underlying musical composition. The lawsuit did not specify exactly how much moneys he believed she was owed from the auction.
In a statement to Billboard after the case was filed, 3LAU’s manager Andrew Goldstone strongly denied the allegations: “These claims are without merit, and we will vigorously defend the lawsuit that was just filed yesterday without any prior notice. There are no set standards for how to approach an NFT project like this, which involved much more than just the music. Justin’s team tried for months to reach a deal with Flores in good faith, but she stopped responding and instead chose to file a lawsuit.”
Goldstone declined to comment on Monday’s order announcing the near-settlement. Aura’s attorney, Moish E. Peltz, did not return a request for comment.
Lil Yachty, Lindsay Lohan, Ne-Yo, Soulja Boy and Austin Mahone are among a number of celebrities who have been charged by the Securities and Exchange Commission for peddling crypto currencies “without disclosing that they were compensated for doing so and the amount of their compensation,” according to an SEC announcement Wednesday (March 22).
The artists were charged as part of a larger investigation into crypto companies Tron Foundation Limited, Bit Torrent Foundation Limited, Rainberry Inc and their founder Justin Sun for the “unregistered offer and sale of crypto asset securities Tronix (TRX) and BitTorrent (BTT).” The SEC also alleges that Sun “fraudulently manipulat[ed] the secondary market” and “orchestrat[ed] a scheme to pay celebrities to tout TRX and BTT without disclosing their compensation” among other accusations.
The SEC also charged adult film star Kendra Lust and influencer Jake Paul in the case. So far, all of the celebrities tied to Sun and his crypto firms — apart from Mahone and Soulja Boy — have reached settlements with the SEC, paying over $400,000 in “disgorgement, interest and penalties… without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings.”
The SEC’s complaint against Sun and his companies was filed March 22 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
“This case demonstrates again the high risk investors face when crypto asset securities are offered and sold without proper disclosure,” said SEC chair Gary Gensler. “As alleged, Sun and his companies not only targeted U.S. investors in their unregistered offers and sales, generating millions in illegal proceeds at the expense of investors, but they also coordinated wash trading on an unregistered trading platform to create the misleading appearance of active trading in TRX. Sun further induced investors to purchase TRX and BTT by orchestrating a promotional campaign in which he and his celebrity promoters hid the fact that the celebrities were paid for their tweets.”
“While we’re neutral about the technologies at issue, we’re anything but neutral when it comes to investor protection,” said Gurbir S. Grewal, director of the SEC’s division of enforcement. “As alleged in the complaint, Sun and others used an age-old playbook to mislead and harm investors by first offering securities without complying with registration and disclosure requirements and then manipulating the market for those very securities. At the same time, Sun paid celebrities with millions of social media followers to tout the unregistered offerings, while specifically directing that they not disclose their compensation. This is the very conduct that the federal securities laws were designed to protect against regardless of the labels Sun and others used.”
Sony Music Entertainment has quietly been battling for more than two years against the creator of a popular TikTok song over allegations that he prominently sampled a 1986 track by Japanese composer Toshifumi Hinata without “paying a cent.”
In a lawsuit first filed in December and refiled this week, Sony claims that Trefuego (real name Dantreal Daevon Clark-Rainbolt) made “flagrant” use of Hinata’s “Reflections” in his own song “90mh” — a track that’s allegedly been featured in 155,000 videos on TikTok and been streamed 100 million times on Spotify since it was released in 2019.
“In copying the ‘Reflections’ musical composition and sound recording, Trefuego brazenly sought to ride the coattails of Hinata’s creativity and popularity without regard to the United States copyright laws or the rights of Plaintiffs,” the label’s attorneys wrote.
Sony says it first took action back in January 2021, notifying Trefuego of the “infringing nature” of his song. After he allegedly refused to remove the song himself, the company filed takedown requests in August 2022 to get it pulled from TikTok, YouTube and Spotify. The company first sued Trefuego in December in Arizona federal court but refiled the case on Monday (March 20) in Texas federal court.
A manager for Trefuego did not immediately return a request for comment on Wednesday.
An instrumental featuring strings and piano, “Reflections” was released on a 1986 album but has made recent appearances in Netflix’s 2020 film Tigertail and in popular ambient music playlists on Spotify. Amid a “surge” in interest in such music on TikTok and other platforms, Sony says it’s been “highly selective” about allowing the song to be used, granting licenses “only for those projects that Hinata himself might endorse.”
But Trefuego “simply stole” the sample, Sony says.
“Trefuego took a very different approach,” the company claims. “He used and copied plaintiffs’ work without so much as asking, or paying a cent to plaintiffs, and he continued to exploit that music despite plaintiffs’ demand that he stop.”
In terms of the specific music borrowed, Sony claims that Trefuego sampled a 15-note melodic strings sequence accompanied by a looping chord progression played on the piano. That clip is looped throughout the entirety of “90mh,” Sony says.
“Trefuego’s infringement is blatant,” the company wrote. “[His] use of ‘Reflections’ permeates the entirety of the infringing works, and for many listeners, is the only reason they listen to them.”
An attorney for Sony did not immediately return a request for additional comment on the dispute with Trefuego.