Legal
Page: 87
Lizzo is now — legally speaking — 100% that b-tch.
In a decision issued Thursday (Feb. 2), a tribunal at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ruled that the superstar could register “100% That B-tch” as a federal trademark for clothing — meaning Lizzo now has exclusive rights to use the phrase on apparel.
Last year, the agency rejected Lizzo’s application for the trademark on the grounds that it was merely a commonplace “motivational phrase” aimed at “female empowerment,” not the kind of unique brand name that’s eligible for trademark protection.
But the USPTO’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) overturned that ruling Thursday, saying that people who see the phrase on a t-shirt would immediately think of Lizzo.
“Consumers encountering ‘100% That B-tch’ on the specific types of clothing identified in the application ― even when offered by third parties ― associate the term with Lizzo and her music,” the appeals board wrote in its ruling.
Lizzo included the famed lyric — “I just took a DNA test, turns out I’m 100% that b-tch” — in her breakout smash hit “Truth Hurts,” but she didn’t actually didn’t come up with it herself. Instead, the singer pulled it from a popular internet meme, and she has since given its creator — Mina Lioness — songwriting credit on the hit track.
In refusing to give Lizzo the trademark, the USPTO had pointed out that backstory, arguing that even if the singer “popularized” the phrase, she was still not entitled to legally “appropriate” it for her own exclusive use on consumer goods.
But in Thursday’s decision, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board disagreed — ruling that Lizzo had clearly “popularized the lyric” and elevated “a lesser known phrase” into “more memorable status.”
“Lizzo did not originate the expression she encountered as a Twitter meme,” the board wrote. “Nonetheless, lyrics from songs are more likely to be attributed to the artists who sing, rap or otherwise utter them, rather than the songwriters.”
An attorney for Lizzo did not immediately return a request for comment. The USPTO does not comment on rulings by the TTAB.
Read the entire decision here:
A federal appeals court has upheld Raphy Pina’s conviction on a federal gun charge, ruling that prosecutors had “overwhelming” evidence that the star music manager illegally owned firearms despite a previous felony conviction that barred him from doing so.
Lawyers for Pina (full name Rafael Antonio Pina-Nieves) had challenged the 2021 guilty verdict by arguing that the judge who oversaw the trial had allowed inadmissible testimony that had a “devastating impact” on the jury’s ability to fairly decide the case.
But in a decision Monday (Jan. 30), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit said the government had provided “overwhelming” evidence that Pina owned guns. The unfair testimony might have been “highly prejudicial,” the court said, but added it was ultimately harmless because Pina likely would have been convicted without it.
Crucially, the appeals court cited a tapped phone call in which Pina himself was caught talking to an associate about a safe holding “my guns, rifles, bullets.” In that recorded call, the court said Pina “left no doubt” that the safe “contained guns and bullets that were his.”
A representative for Pina, a 44-year-old veteran music executive who manages Daddy Yankee, did not immediately return a request for comment on Wednesday.
Though it upheld one of Pina’s convictions, the appeals court overturned another one — ruling that prosecutors failed to prove that he had illegally owned an automatic weapon. The court said there was clear evidence that Pina owned the gun, but not that he had been aware that it had been illegally modified into a fully automatic weapon — a key requirement under the law.
“While Pina-Nieves does not dispute that the evidence suffices to show that he constructively possessed the weapon … we do not see how a rational juror could make the requisite inference that Pina-Nieves knew that this weapon had the characteristics of a machinegun,” the appeals court wrote, using Pina’s full surname.
A spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Puerto Rico did not return a request for comment on Wednesday.
Pina was indicted in August 2020, accused of possessing two handguns and hundreds of rounds of ammunition despite the fact that he was barred from doing so because of his 2016 conviction on federal fraud and money laundering charges. Prosecutors separately alleged that one of those guns was a Glock pistol that had been “modified to fire fully automatically with a single pull of the trigger” — making it an illegal automatic weapon.
Following a December trial in San Juan, Pina was convicted on both charges. In May, he was sentenced to 41 months (3 years and five months) in prison and ordered to pay a $150,000 sanction.
Despite Monday’s partial reversal, it’s unclear if Pina’s prison sentence will be reduced. When he was sentenced in May, the judge ruled that he was sentenced to the full 41 months “as to each count 1 and 2” but that the two sentences would be “served concurrently with each other.”
Read the entire decision here:
This is The Legal Beat, a weekly newsletter about music law from Billboard Pro, offering you a one-stop cheat sheet of big new cases, important rulings, and all the fun stuff in between. This week: Rick Astley makes waves by suing an artist who impersonated his voice; an explanation of why Miley Cyrus doesn’t owe Bruno Mars a writing credit on her super-smash “Flowers”; UMG wins a big ruling in a proposed class action over termination rights; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: Will Rick Astley Dampen Pop’s Nostalgia Kick?
Popular culture is always cyclical, but we’re living though a particularly nostalgic age of pop music. Just look at the Hot 100 over the past year: Jack Harlow pulled from Fergie, David Guetta riffed on Eiffel 65, Latto made a song that sounded like Mariah Carey, and Beyonce heavily sampled from Robin S. But a new lawsuit could cast something of a pall on the throwback mania.
Rick Astley is suing Yung Gravy over the rapper’s breakout 2022 single “Betty (Get Money),” which borrowed from the singer’s iconic (and frequently-memed) “Never Gonna Give You Up.” The lawsuit claims the new track — an interpolation that sounded a whole lot like an outright sample — broke the law by impersonating Astley’s voice.
Filed by the same attorney (Richard Busch) who brought the blockbuster case over “Blurred Lines,” the new lawsuit has the potential to similarly scare producers about their current studio practices. As Billboard’s Kristin Robinson writes this week, re-recording classic tracks (rather than directly sampling them) has become more common for financial and creative reasons, but Astley’s accusations have some music executives questioning if it could “open the floodgates” to litigation when vocals are involved.
For a full breakdown of the Astley lawsuit, including access to all the actual court documents, go read our story here.
Other top stories this week…
MILEY DOESN’T OWE BRUNO ANYTHING – Miley Cyrus’ chart-topping new single, “Flowers,” includes clear references to Bruno Mars‘ own No. 1 hit from a decade earlier, “When I Was Your Man.” But as a copyright expert explained to me and Billboard‘s Andrew Unterberger this week, Miley doesn’t need to offer Bruno a credit for an “answer song” that merely riffs on a few lyrics but doesn’t borrow any musical elements.
ON TERMINATIONS, CLASS DISMISSED – A Manhattan federal judge ruled that hundreds of artists cannot join forces to sue Universal Music Group to regain control of their masters, saying the case raised big questions about “fairness” but that it was ill-suited for class-action litigation — a major blow to a closely-watched case over termination rights.
MANSON FACES NEW ABUSE CASE – Marilyn Manson reached a settlement with actress Esme Bianco to end one of the several sexual abuse lawsuits that he’s faced in recent years. But just days later, he was hit with a lawsuit from a new accuser who claims he groomed and sexually assaulted her during the early portion of his career when she was underage. Manson strongly denies the new allegations.
YE SAGA CONTINUES FOR GREENBERG – The Kanye West ordeal isn’t quite over for Greenberg Traurig, the prestigious law firm that’s so frustrated with their ex-client that it asked a judge to allow it to print newspaper ads announcing they’ve dropped him.
MISTRIAL IN T.I.’s TOY CASE – A high-profile intellectual property battle pitting T.I. and wife Tameka “Tiny” Harris against toymaker MGA over a line of dolls ended in a sudden mistrial after jurors heard “inflammatory” — and clearly inadmissible — video-taped testimony claiming the toy company “steals from African Americans.”
CARDI ACCUSER WANTS NEW TRIAL – Months after a jury rejected bizarre allegations that Cardi B “humiliated” a man by photoshopping his back tattoo onto the risqué cover of a 2016 mixtape, the guy wants a do-over. Kevin Brophy formally requested a new trial, arguing that the star “engaged in theatrics” on the witness stand and deprived him of a fair trial.
LIVE NATION WINS CASE OVER SHOOTING – A California appeals ruled that Live Nation is not legally responsible for a deadly 2014 shooting backstage at a Young Jeezy concert. The court said such an attack was not the kind of event that the concert giant should have seen coming — an important decision as Live Nation is facing similar claims over the backstage killing of Drakeo The Ruler in 2021.
BAD BUNNY COPYRIGHT SETTLEMENT – Bad Bunny reached a tentative agreement to end a lawsuit that accused the Puerto Rican superstar of lifting material for his 2020 track “Safaera” from three earlier songs by reggaeton pioneer DJ Playero.
R. KELLY STATE CHARGES DROPPED – Prosecutors in Illinois dropped all state-level sexual abuse charges against R. Kelly, citing “limited resources” and the fact that the disgraced singer has already been sentenced to 30 years in prison on federal convictions — and could soon be facing decades more in another federal case.
Priscilla Presley has filed legal documents disputing who oversees the estate of her late daughter Lisa Marie Presley.
The filing in Los Angeles Superior Court last week disputes the validity of a 2016 amendment to Lisa Marie Presley’s living trust that removed Priscilla Presley and a former business manager as trustees and replaced them with Lisa Marie Presley’s two oldest children, Riley Keough and Benjamin Keough, if she died or became incapacitated. Benjamin Keough died in 2020.
A living trust is a form of estate planning that allows a person to control their assets while alive, but have them distributed if they die. It serves the function of a will if a separate will is not filed, as appears to be the case with Lisa Marie Presley.
Lisa Marie Presley, a singer and the only child of Elvis Presley, died at a California hospital at age 54 on Jan. 12 after paramedics answered a 911 call reporting a woman in cardiac arrest. The Los Angeles County coroner is investigating, and has not yet given a cause of death. She was laid to rest at her family home, Graceland, on Jan. 22.
Priscilla Presley’s court filing says there are several issues that bring the living trust amendment’s authenticity into doubt.
The filing says they include a failure to notify Priscilla Presley of the change as required, a misspelling of Priscilla Presley’s name in a document supposedly signed by her daughter, an atypical signature from Lisa Marie Presley, and a lack of a witness or notarization. It asks a judge to declare the amendment invalid.
The filing says that the business manager, Barry Siegel, intended to resign, which according to the prior terms of the trust would leave Priscilla Presley, 77, and Riley Keough, 33, as co-trustees. A message seeking comment from representatives of Riley Keough was not immediately returned.
Lisa Marie Presley left three surviving children. In addition to Riley Keough, her daughter with first husband Danny Keough, she had 14-year-old twin daughters with her fourth husband, Michael Lockwood. Presley was declared divorced from Lockwood in 2021, but the two were still disputing finances in family court when she died.
Priscilla Presley’s filing is among the first of what are likely to be many legal maneuvers surrounding the estate of Lisa Marie Presley, the only heir of Elvis Presley. It is not clear, however, how much that estate is worth. A lawsuit Lisa Marie Presley filed in 2018 alleging Siegel had mismanaged the trust said it had been worth in excess of $100 million, but most of that had been depleted.
All state-level charges filed against R. Kelly in Cook County, Illinois, have been dropped, state attorney Kim Foxx announced at a press conference Monday (Jan. 30). Kelly is scheduled to appear in court on the indictments, which include 10 counts of aggravated criminal sexual abuse, on Tuesday morning.
In making the announcement, Foxx reiterated Kelly’s convictions in federal court in New York and Illinois to explain the prosecutors’ decision. “Due to the extensive sentences that these convictions hold, our office has decided not to continue to expend our limited resources and court time with the indictments that we previously charged Mr. Kelly [with],” she said.
In the New York federal case, Kelly was found guilty in September 2021 on all nine counts, including racketeering and sex trafficking; he was sentenced to 30 years in prison the following June. In September, he was convicted on three counts of child pornography in the Illinois federal case but acquitted of a conspiracy to obstruct justice charge that stemmed from an accusation that he’d fixed his state child pornography trial in 2008. Though he has not yet been sentenced in that case, he faces between 10 and 90 years in prison, according to Foxx.
Foxx — who previously revealed her own history as a victim of sexual abuse — grew visibly emotional during her time at the podium as she admitted that for the four victims in the state case, the outcome “may be disappointing. But I want to acknowledge that when we brought these charges forward, we brought them because we believed the allegations to be credible. And we believed that they deserved to have the opportunity to have the allegations heard.
“These women, both those who are named in our indictments and the women in New York and in the Northern District of Illinois, are to be commended for their bravery and their relentless pursuit of justice, no matter how long it took,” she continued.
Despite Foxx’s weighty and considered comments Monday, the announcement isn’t particularly surprising in light of Kelly’s dual convictions in federal court. After the disgraced singer was found guilty in the New York case, criminal defense attorney Isabelle A. Kirshner told Billboard that local jurisdictions in Illinois as well as Minnesota — where he still faces state charges — may choose to drop some of all of the charges in order to preserve resources.
Based on the New York sentence alone, Kelly won’t be eligible for release until he is around 80 years old.
[Trigger warning: this article contains descriptions of domestic violence, as well as sexual and physical abuse.]
Marilyn Manson is the subject of a new lawsuit alleging sexual misconduct. The suit by the woman — identified anonymously as “Jane Doe” in the filing — alleges that the singer, now 54, groomed and sexually assaulted the then-underage girl during the early portion of his career.
Manson (born Brian Warner) is named as a defendant in the suit filed in Nassau County Supreme Court in Long Island, New York, alongside former labels Interscope and Nothing Records in a filing that includes accusations of sexual battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress against the singer, and negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress against the labels.
The suit says Doe, then 16, first met Manson in 1995 after a show in Dallas when she waited outside his tour bus and the singer invited her and “one of the other younger girls” onto his tour bus where he allegedly asked for their ages and school grades while jotting down their phone numbers and addresses.
A spokesperson for Manson and the singer’s lawyer had not returned a request for comment on the Doe lawsuit at press time, and a spokesperson for Interscope/Universal Music Group had not yet responded to a request for comment.
“While on the tour bus, Defendant Warner performed various acts of criminal sexual conduct upon Plaintiff, who was a virgin at the time, including but not limited to forced copulation and vaginal penetration,” the lawsuit claims. At the time, the age of consent in Texas was (and still is) 17 and the suit notes that one of Manson’s band members watched “Defendant Warner sexually assault Plaintiff… Plaintiff was in pain, scared, upset, humiliated and confused. After he was done, Defendant Warner laughed at her. … Then Defendant Warner demanded Plaintiff to ‘get the f–k off of my bus’ and threatened Plaintiff that, if she told anyone, he would kill her and her family.”
More than a dozen women have accused Manson of sexual, emotional and physical assault, including actress Evan Rachel Wood, who was the subject of the two-part HBO documentary Phoenix Rising last year that delved into her claims of the abuse she claims she allegedly suffered at the rocker’s hand during an on-and-off relationship that began when she was 18.
Manson and one of his accusers, actress Esme Bianco, recently reached a settlement to end her sexual assault lawsuit, and earlier in the month a judge dismissed another sexual abuse suit from model Ashley Morgan Smithline over her failure to find a new lawyer. Last May, an L.A. Superior Court judge dismissed a suit against Manson filed by a former personal assistant alleging sexual assault, sexual battery, sexual harassment and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Manson has denied the allegations.
The new Jane Doe lawsuit alleges that a member of Manson’s crew gave her a 1-800 number and a password so she could meet up with the singer again, noting that the teen began using drugs and alcohol soon after the alleged sexual assault, and continued to do so for years after. The suit also alleges that Manson would call and chat online with the teen while asking her for explicit photos of her and her friends.
In the same year they met, Doe claims that Manson convinced the teen to meet him in New Orleans, where he “groomed” her by complimenting her artwork before he became more “aggressive and again sexually assaulted Plaintiff, including kissing, biting her breast, oral copulation, and penetration,” the complaint alleges. “After the second assault, Defendant Warner acted in a kinder manner nicer to Plaintiff and told her that he wanted to see her again.” As with Texas, the age of consent in Louisiana at the time was, and is, 17.
Doe said she continued to be in touch with Manson and his band, and when she was 18 moved to Los Angeles and began dating then-Nine Inch Nails drummer Chris Vrenna. (Billboard has reached out to Vrenna for comment.) In 1999, she allegedly attended a Manson show in New Orleans, describing a typical backstage scene that included “the availability of large amounts of drugs for her and others to use.” The suit claims that the woman then spent the next month on the road with Manson, taking drugs and spending time with the disgraced singer during which he would “groom, harass and sexually abuse” her.
The suit goes on to describe Manson’s increasing psychological control over Doe, in which he allegedly “purposefully and intentionally laid the groundwork necessary to intimidate and control her … As he did on countless occasions, Defendant Warner exploited this vulnerability to keep Plaintiff under his control. Defendant Warner often made Plaintiff feel alone and isolated by telling her that no one understands her other than him, which included her family. At the time, Plaintiff believed Defendant Warner and was compelled to keep following him.”
The suit claims the alleged controlling and grooming behavior continued — including “coerce[ing] Plaintiff to have sex with him and other band members or his assistant at the same time,” while “providing Plaintiff with drugs.”
In details that bear a resemblance to allegations from a number of the other women who’ve accused Manson of abuse, Doe’s lawsuit claims that the singer employed “hostile and verbally abusive behavior,” as well as racially charged language mixed with the sharing of intimate personal details. The suit also claims that Interscope and Nothing Records “were well-aware of Defendant Warner’s obsession with sexual violence and childhood sexual assault,” and that the labels did not have a “reasonable system or procedure in place to investigate, supervise, or monitor its staff and/or agents, including Defendant Warner, to prevent pre-sexual grooming and sexual harassment, molestation, and assault of fans, including minors and women.”
The suit continues, “As a result of Brian Warner’s sexual abuse and assault, enabled and encouraged by Defendants Interscope and Nothing Records, Plaintiff has suffered severe emotional, physical, and psychological distress, including shame, and guilt, economic loss, economic capacity and emotional loss.”
Doe is seeking damages to be determined at trial and an order “enjoining Defendants from future unlawful business practices including, but not limited to, exposing minors and vulnerable adults to sexual abuse and exploitation.”
Stories about sexual assault allegations can be traumatizing for survivors of sexual assault. If you or anyone you know needs support, you can reach out to the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN). The organization provides free, confidential support to sexual assault victims. Call RAINN’s National Sexual Assault Hotline (800.656.HOPE) or visit the anti-sexual violence organization’s website for more information.
Valentina Trespalacios, a trailblazing DJ whose career was about to take off, was found dead on Sunday (Jan. 22). Her boyfriend, John Poulos, was arrested and charged with the alleged murder at Panama’s Tocumen International Airport, the Panamanian National Police said, according to CNN.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
Her body was found in a blue suitcase in a garbage container on the outskirts of Bogota, the news network reported.
Poulos denied the charges during a hearing in Bogota, according to CNN, and his defense is arguing that due process was not respected. Another hearing is set for Jan. 31.
A DJ deeply engaged in the world of guaracha, a Colombian dance genre, Trespalacios emerged at 23 as one of the country’s promising DJs.
“We are shocked by the violent death of Valentina. She was a dreamer, a skilled DJ and potential producer who was working on several projects, including an album,” David Sarria, creator of Black & White, one of Colombia’s most memorable electronic festivals, tells Billboard.
Poulos, a 35-year-old U.S. citizen, fled Colombia but was detained Jan. 24 as he was about to board a flight to Turkey. The National Police of Panama shared video on Twitter of him being escorted by law enforcement, noting in a subsequent tweet that he was trying to head to Istanbul.
La Policía Nacional informa que Interpol Panamá detectó la presencia del ciudadano estadounidense Poulos John Nelson, tras la alerta dada por la República de Colombia, por el homicidio de la DJ Valentina Trespalacios. pic.twitter.com/fDkaE65gRj— Policía Nacional (@ProtegeryServir) January 25, 2023
His arrest followed a swift investigation by the Colombian Prosecutor’s Office, which collected evidence against him — including Trespalacios’ cell phone, which was recovered at Bogota’s El Dorado Airport, according to Colombia’s El Tiempo — and obtained his extradition to Colombia. He has been charged with aggravated murder and obstruction, modification and disappearance of evidence, according to the paper.
CNN reports that per Colombia’s Institute of Legal Medicine, Trespalacios died from mechanical suffocation, and that it appeared her body had been subjected to force before she died. El Tiempo also reported that her autopsy report showed signs of strangulation, and that her head, chest and other body parts had experienced blows.
The murder of Trespalacios has shocked the country and the music industry. She debuted in 2019 in the local electronic music scene, winning a prize at the Colombia Dance Awards, which has recognized the best DJs in the country for 12 years.
“She was one of the most explosive rising stars in Colombia’s clubs,” Pablo Silva, the awards’ creator, tells Billboard. “In 2019 she took home the Breakthrough DJ of the Year trophy and never stopped.”
Trespalacios made her way in tech house, and had been doing guaracha, the dance genre from Colombia that combines tribal house, cumbia and Latin. The genre is a phenomenon in the country’s youth parties.
Though she was young, Trespalacios had the opportunity to perform with some of her idols, such as Dimitri Vegas & Like Mike, Steve Aoki, Erik Morillo and Markus Schullz.
Trespalacios was laid to rest on Jan. 26.
A federal judge ruled Friday that hundreds of artists cannot join forces to sue Universal Music Group to regain control of their masters, saying the case raised big questions about “fairness” but that it was ill-suited for class-action litigation.
The ruling came in a closely-watched case brought by “Missing You” singer John Waite and others over copyright law’s “termination right.” The rule is supposed to let authors take back control of their works, but the lawsuit claims UMG has flatly ignored that requirement when it comes to sounds recordings.
Waite wanted to certify the case as a class action — a make-or-break move that would have allowed hundreds of UMG artists to bring their claims as a single lawsuit, represented by a single set of lawyers.
But in a crucial ruling issued Friday, Judge Lewis Kaplan denied that request, citing the complex and unique questions raised by each individual artist’s relationship with UMG.
“Plaintiffs’ claims raise issues of fairness in copyright law that undoubtedly extended beyond their own grievances,” the judge wrote. “However, the individualized evidence and case-by-case evaluations necessary to resolve those claims make this case unsuitable for adjudication on an aggregate basis.”
Waite and other artists sued UMG in February 2019, claiming the label had effectively refused to honor the termination right. The case was filed as a proposed class action, aiming to eventually represent hundreds of others in a similar situation. A nearly-identical case was filed on the same day by the same attorneys against Sony Music Entertainment, claiming it had adopted a similar stance on terminations.
According to the lawsuits, the labels have long claimed that sound recordings – unlike the underlying musical compositions controlled by music publishers – are effectively never subject to the termination rule. The basic argument is that most recordings are so-called works for hire, meaning the label essentially creates them itself and simply hires artists to contribute to them.
In seeking to pull hundreds of other artists into the lawsuit, lawyers for the artists argued that UMG has made those “fictitious” and “erroneous” arguments “in every instance” that an artist invokes the termination right – meaning they represent the kind of “systematic wrongful conduct” that is best addressed by a huge class action.
But in Friday’s decision, Judge Kaplan disagreed. “The … analysis requires understanding for each artist the circumstances in which the recordings were produced, the creative involvement, if any, of the record label, and the types of resources and payments the record label provided the artist.”
To decide if a record really was produced simply as a work for hire, the judge said tricky questions would need to be answered for each separate artist. Judge Kaplan said the evidence indicated that UMG sometimes only provided “big picture approval authority,” which could help an artist prove their right to terminate. But for other artists, he said the label was “more involved in the creative process.”
“Did the record label agree on the lyrics and music with the artist?” the judge asked. “Did the record label select the producers and sound engineers to work on the sound recordings? What level of substantive artistic feedback, if any, did the record label provide?”
The ruling is not necessarily a death-knell for the lawsuit against UMG, which will now proceed on behalf of Waite and a handful of others. Evan Cohen, the attorney who represents the artists, did not immediately return a request for comment.
The case could still make a big impact, class-or-no-class. Countless other artists have similar arrangements with record labels over highly-lucrative masters, but the legal arguments about when sound recordings are subject to the termination right have thus far only been lightly tested in court. A final ruling in favor of Waite could provide key legal ammo for those other artists, even if they need to bring their own cases.
A representative for UMG did not immediately return a request for comment.
But it will doubtless be a severe logistical hurdle for such cases actually being filed, since they’re expensive to litigate and artists typically lack the same kind of legal resources as the major labels who have denied their termination requests. A class action would have allowed the artists to pool their resources and secure a sweeping decision with only a single set of legal costs.
Friday’s decision will not directly apply to the similar proposed class action against Sony, which has been on pause for months as the two sides attempt to strike a settlement. But the new ruling, issued by a judge in the same federal court district as the Sony case, certainly does not bode well for that case being certified as a class action.
Read the entire decision here:
When does a soundalike song sound a little too much alike?
Rick Astley is suing Yung Gravy over the rapper’s breakout 2022 hit that heavily borrowed from the singer’s iconic “Never Gonna Give You Up,” alleging that the new track — an interpolation that sounded a whole lot like an outright sample — broke the law by impersonating Astley’s voice.
In a lawsuit filed Thursday (Jan. 26) in Los Angeles court, Astley claims that Gravy’s “Betty (Get Money),” which reached No. 30 on the Hot 100 last year, violated the singer’s so-called right of publicity because it closely mimicked the distinctive voice Astley used in the chart-topping 1987 hit.
“In an effort to capitalize off of the immense popularity and goodwill of Mr. Astley, defendants … conspired to include a deliberate and nearly indistinguishable imitation of Mr. Astley’s voice throughout the song,” Astley’s lawyers wrote. “The public could not tell the difference. The imitation of Mr. Astley’s voice was so successful the public believed it was actually Mr. Astley singing.”
Pulling heavily from a song that boomed in recent years thanks to “Rickroll” internet memes, “Betty” was a major hit for Yung Gravy. But it often drew attention largely for its connections to Astley; the New York Times called it “a real-life rickroll that functioned as a comedy song, a TikTok trend and a nostalgia trip all at once.”
In their new lawsuit, Astley’s lawyers said the singer was “extremely protective over his name, image, and likeness,” meaning the unauthorized use of the soundalike voice had caused him “immense damage.”
Representatives for Gravy (real name Matthew Hauri) and Universal Music Group’s Republic Records (also named in the lawsuit as the label that released “Betty”) did not immediately return a request for comment.
Thursday’s new lawsuit raises big questions about the methods used in the music industry to legally borrow from older songs, an ever more popular tactic in a nostalgia-heavy age.
When they created “Betty,” Gravy and his team allegedly cleared the underlying musical composition to “Give You Up.” That gave them the legal right to recreate music and lyrics from the original in their new track — a process known as “interpolating.”
But the lawsuit says Gravy and his team weren’t able to secure a license to use the actual sound recording of the famous track — the better-known process of “sampling.” That would mean they didn’t have any right to directly copy the exact sounds, including Astley’s voice.
Instead, Astley says they hired Popnick (real name Nick Seeley) to imitate Astley’s “signature voice” on the track. At one point, the lawsuit quotes from an Instagram video in which Popnick said he wanted the song to “sound identical” to Astley voice.
By doing so without permission, the lawsuit claims that Gravy and Popnick violated Astley’s right of publicity — the legal right to control how your name, image or likeness is commercially exploited by others.
“A license to use the original underlying musical composition does not authorize the stealing of the artist’s voice in the original recording,” Astley’s lawyers wrote. “So, instead, they resorted to theft of Mr. Astley’s voice without a license and without agreement.”
Astley’s allegations rely heavily on a 1988 federal court ruling, in which Bette Midler successfully sued the Ford Motor Co. for violating her right of publicity by running a series of commercials featuring a Midler impersonator. In that case, the court sided with Midler even though Ford had obtained a license to the underlying song.
The new lawsuit was filed by Richard Busch, a prominent music litigator best known for winning the blockbuster copyright case over “Blurred Lines.” In a statement to Billboard, Busch said: “Mr. Astley owns his voice. California law is clear since the Bette Midler case more than 30 years ago that nobody has the right to imitate or use it without his permission.”
In addition to violating Astley’s right of publicity, the lawsuit also accuses Gravy of violating federal trademark law by making false statements that made it appear that the singer had endorsed the new song. In an interview with Billboard, Gravy said he had spoken with Astley and that the singer had approved of the new song — that he “fucks with the song.”
“These statements were all false,” Astley wrote in his lawsuit.
Live Nation is not legally responsible for a deadly 2014 shooting backstage at a Young Jeezy concert, a California appeals court says, because such an attack was not the kind of event that the concert giant should have seen coming.
In a ruling issued Tuesday (Jan. 24), the California Court of Appeal refused to revive a wrongful death lawsuit filed by the family of Eric Johnson, Jr., an event promoter who was shot to death during an August 2014 stop at a San Francisco-area venue during Jeezy’s Under the Influence of Music tour.
Johnson’s family claimed that Live Nation had been legally negligent because it didn’t have enough security measures in place to prevent the shooting, but the appeals court ruled that the attack was not “foreseeable” — a key requirement in proving such allegations.
“A violent attack by and between artists and their guests in the backstage area of a performance is not a foreseeable occurrence against which Live Nation should have provided preventative measures of the nature plaintiffs suggest,” Justice Stuart R. Pollak wrote in Tuesday’s opinion.
In its ruling, the appeals court suggested that Live Nation likely had good reason to be worried about incidents involving the crowd, citing reports that fights had broken out at previous events. But the court said those same red flags did not exist for potential violence backstage.
“The reports did not … indicate that any of the artists or their entourages engaged in or posed any danger of violence during the tour,” the judges wrote in the ruling. “The head of security also indicated that in her more than 10 years at the amphitheater, there had not been any violent incidents backstage.”
Attorneys for Johnson’s family did not immediately return requests for comment on Thursday. A representative for Live Nation also did not return a request for comment on the ruling.
The ruling in favor of Live Nation came as the company is facing a similar case over the high-profile stabbing death of Drakeo The Ruler at the Once Upon A Time in L.A. music festival in December 2021. Filed by the late rapper’s family, that case also centers on security measures Live Nation took — or didn’t take — that might have prevented a fatal assault backstage.
Johnson, 38, was shot and killed backstage on Aug. 22, 2014, at the Shoreline Amphitheater in Mountain View, Calif., a venue leased and operated by Live Nation. According to his family’s lawsuit, Johnson had been at the event to “discuss his business arrangements for Young Jeezy to appear at a concert after-party” in nearby San Jose.
According to press reports at the time, Jeezy (real name Jay Jenkins) was taken into police custody in the wake of the shooting and charged with illegal possession of a weapon. But that charge was later dropped and no additional charges were ever filed against the rapper over the incident.
“Mr. Jenkins should not have been arrested and this case should not have been prosecuted,” Jeezy’s attorney told Billboard at the time. “We are pleased it has been dismissed, although frustrated that it took the police and prosecutors months to do the right thing.”
Court records indicate that no murder charges have ever been filed against anyone over Johnson’s killing.
Earlier versions of the civil lawsuit filed by Johnson’s family directly accused Jeezy of committing the shooting, but those claims were later dropped. They were replaced by allegations similar to those made against Live Nation, claiming the rapper’s allegedly negligent conduct was partly to blame for the attack taking place.
On Tuesday, in addition to rejecting the allegations against Live Nation, the California appeals court also dismissed the claims against Jeezy. The court ruled that the family had waited too long to bring the claims, and were thus barred by the statute of limitations.
Jeezy’s attorney declined to comment on the decision.
Read the full ruling here: