Legal
Page: 89
It’s been a little over a year since the Dec. 15, 2021 plane crash that killed Puerto Rican producer Flow La Movie along with his partner Debbie Von Marie Jimenez García and their children, aged 21, 18 and four.
Born José Angel Hernández, Flow La Movie was 38 at the time of the crash and is survived by a daughter, Keigelyan Hernandez.
He also left behind a catalog of hit recordings released under his indie label, AH Entertainment, including the star-studded “Te Boté,” which topped Hot Latin Songs for 14 weeks, and the entire catalog of rapper Nio García, including “AM” and viral hit “La Jeepeta.”
Those songs, along with García’s recording contract, have been ensnarled in a complex legal battle that has prevented García –at the cusp of his career– from releasing any further material.
Until today, with the release of “Yeska”, his first single in more than a year.
The track is out on Glad Empire, the Orlando-based indie entertainment company that used to distribute AH Entertainment, and also works with artists like Anuel. Glad is now in the process of negotiating a new distribution deal Garcia.
“For a while, I thought this moment would never come,” García said in a press release. “I was crazy to release new music for my fans.”
But García could not release music because his recording contract was tied to AH and Flow La Movie, aka Hernandez.
According to García’s lawsuit, filed last year, the problems started when Hernández’s mother, Ilianes Ruiz, claimed to be the sole heir to Hernández’s estate, via a will allegedly signed by Hernández. Because she controlled the estate, Ruiz did not allow García to release new music, as his recording contract was part of Hernández’s estate.
However, the signature on Hernández’s will was determined to be suspect. As a result, Hernández’s only living child, Keigelyan Hernandez, claimed the inheritance as hers, and joined the lawsuit that García had already filed against Ruiz.
Hernández’s estate went into probate, and all contracts and music tied to it came to a screeching halt until Dec. 13, 2021, when all parties signed a global settlement agreement that names Hernández the personal representative of her father’s estate. The agreement, shared exclusively with Billboard, also released García from any obligation with AH, allowing him to enter a new recording agreement with Glad Empire.
“The only thing we wanted to do was continue to release music and carry out Flow La Movie’s wishes and legacy,” says Camille Soto, CEO of GLAD Empire, who late last year, after the agreement was signed, released a compilation of Flow La Movie’s top hits, titled Flow Movie Remixes.
“I am so happy his music can live on.”
Music publisher BMG is suing a toymaker for promoting a brand of “unicorn poop” toys by releasing a song called “My Poops” – a scatological parody set to the tune of Black Eyed Peas’ “My Humps.”
In a lawsuit filed Thursday in Manhattan federal court, the publisher accused toymaker MGA Entertainment of infringing the copyright to the band’s smash 2005 hit, which reached No. 3 on the Hot 100 and spent 36 total weeks on the chart.
Released to promote MGA’s Poopsie Slime Surprise toys – unicorns that release sparkling “unicorn poop” slime – the song at issue features similar musical elements to the original, but with joke lyrics like “Whatcha gonna do with all that poop, all that poop.”
In addition to copying key musical elements, BMG says MGA’s song features a lead vocalist who “sounds very similar” to Black Eyed Peas lead singer Fergie.
“Music, especially a hit song such as ‘My Humps,’ adds great value when incorporated into a product or used in a video advertisement, because it increases consumer recognizability, consumer engagement and attention to the product,” BMG wrote in its lawsuit. “The infringing work is so substantially similar to ‘My Humps’ that it is obvious that the infringing work was intentionally copied.”
MGA’s song was released as a music video on YouTube, but BMG claims the copycat song was also incorporated into actual products. A sticker on the Poopsie Slime Surprise packages directed users to the video, the publisher says, and the actual dolls will play a snippet of the song when a “heart-shaped bellybutton” is pressed.
“Defendant has been selling the Dancing Unicorn Toys incorporating the Infringing Work all over the world and has received substantial revenue,” BMG’s lawyers wrote. “The Poopsie Slime Surprise product line has generated tens of millions of dollars in revenue for Defendant.”
In musical terms, BMG says that MGA’s song stole a number of key elements, including the melody, bass line, rhyme scheme, chord progression, cadence and others, and that the “My Poops” singer uses “a similar delivery and vocal inflections as used by Fergie.” It also says the name of the song is “an obvious play” on the name of the original.
Neither BMG nor MGA immediately returned requests for comment on Friday.
The new lawsuit sets the stage for a high-profile dispute over parody songs – a complex area of federal copyright law.
The legal doctrine of “fair use” expressly empowers people to parody existing copyrighted works, and one of the U.S. Supreme Court’s most seminal copyright rulings held that 2 Live Crew was legally allowed to release a bawdy parody of Roy Orbison’s rock ballad “Oh, Pretty Woman” without paying royalties. But the music industry’s premiere parodist, “Weird Al” Yankovic, voluntarily chooses to license all of the songs that he parodies. And the legal analysis is undoubtedly trickier when a parody song is used for outright commercial advertising or as part of an actual consumer product, rather than merely as a new song.
A more recent case pitted the Beastie Boys against a toy company called GoldieBlox, which released a viral parody of the group’s 1987 song “Girls” to promote its engineering and construction toys for girls. After the band threatened copyright infringement, GoldieBlox argued fair use – saying it had aimed to criticize the “highly sexist” message of the original Beastie Boys track and “further the company’s goal to break down gender stereotypes.”
But six months later, GoldieBlox agreed to a settlement in which it apologized to the Beastie Boys and agreed to donate a portion of its revenues to charities of the band’s choosing.
Read BMG’s entire lawsuit here:
Karen Bass, newly elected mayor of Los Angeles, will give the keynote speech at the Recording Academy Entertainment Law Initiative’s Grammy Week Event on Friday, Feb. 3 at the Beverly Wilshire Hotel in Beverly Hills, Calif.
“We are honored to welcome Mayor Karen Bass to the Entertainment Law Initiative [ELI] Grammy Week Event as we gather and celebrate with the trailblazing professionals and students who are paving the way forward in the entertainment law industry,” Harvey Mason jr., CEO of the Recording Academy, said in a statement.
“Mayor Bass has been a longtime supporter of music creators’ rights in her legislative roles, and she has a unique understanding of how the creative industries intersect with law and policy that we look forward to hearing at this year’s event.”
Said Mayor Bass: “I’m proud to support Grammy Week because of the role that our entertainment industry plays in powering our local economy and to encourage efforts to increase equity and opportunities for Angelenos to break into the music business.”
Mayor Bass took office on Dec. 11, 2022, after serving in the U.S. House of Representatives from 2011 to 2022. Between 2004 and 2010, she served in the California State Assembly, where she was elected Speaker in 2008.
The Entertainment Law Initiative’s Grammy Week Event will also honor the winner and runners-up of the ELI Writing Contest, co-sponsored by the American Bar Association, which challenges students in Juris Doctorate and Master of Laws programs at U.S. law schools to research a pressing legal issue facing the modern music industry and outline a proposed solution in a 3,000-word essay.
The winner of this year’s Writing Contest is Aron Lichtschein, a JD student at NYU School of Law, for his essay, “Tickets to Ride: NFTs and the Future of Concert Ticketing.” Lichtschein will receive a $10,000 scholarship as well as tickets to the 65th Grammy Awards and other Grammy Week events. His essay will be published in the ABA’s journal, Entertainment & Sports Lawyer. Two runners-up, Gina Maeng and Amanda Sharp, students at Georgetown Law School and University of San Diego School of Law, respectively, will each receive $2,500 scholarships for their essays.
The Recording Academy announced last month that Peter T. Paterno, partner at King, Holmes, Paterno & Soriano, LLP, will receive the 2023 Entertainment Law Initiative Service Award at the ELI Grammy Week Event.
The latest battleground in Megan Thee Stallion’s war with her record label is a dispute over whether her manager – Roc Nation CEO Desiree Perez – can be forced to sit for a deposition.
For months, the two sides have sparred over whether Perez must answer questions from lawyers for record label 1501 Certified Entertainment. They say she is “one of the most critical” witnesses in the ongoing case; Megan’s lawyers say they’re just trying to “harass” a busy executive who has little pertinent info.
In the latest filing on Tuesday, Megan’s attorneys said 1501’s arguments in the dispute are “entirely off base, bordering on nonsensical.” Perez doesn’t have any “unique or superior personal knowledge,” they said, and 1501’s lawyers should have sought such info from “alternative sources.”
The star rapper (real name Megan Pete) has been fighting with 1501 for more than two years, claiming the company duped a young artist into signing an “unconscionable” record deal in 2018 that was well-below industry standards. She says that when she signed a new management deal with Jay-Z’s Roc Nation in 2019, she got “real lawyers” who helped her see that the deal was “crazy.”
That core dispute has mushroomed into additional litigation, with both sides accusing the other of various forms of wrongdoing and claiming millions in damages. A judge ruled in December that the case will need to be decided by a jury trial; a date has not yet been set.
With both sides preparing to make their case, 1501 sought to have Perez sit for a deposition – meaning she would meet with the company’s lawyers and answer questions about Megan’s case under oath. But the rapper’s lawyers quickly threw a challenge flag in November, seeking a so-called protective order that would have shielded Perez from what they called “gamesmanship” by 1501.
They pointed to what’s known as the apex doctrine, which limits when high-ranking executives can be forced to give a deposition. (That’s the same rule that Spotify cited last year when it tried to shield CEO Daniel Ek from questioning in a copyright lawsuit.) Under the apex doctrine, busy top officials only need to testify when they have unique info that can’t be derived from other less burdensome sources.
“1501 does not seek relevant, admissible evidence because Perez does not have any,” Megan’s lawyers wrote in their November filing. “Rather, 1501 is intent on harassing Perez and disrupting her responsibilities as CEO of Roc Nation.”
The label quickly fired back in December, arguing that Perez had been “directly, personally, and substantially involved in the underlying facts of the lawsuit.” They claimed she’d had direct conversations about whether Megan’s 2021 Something for Thee Hotties counted as an “album” under her deal – a central dispute in the case. And they said Perez had personally negotiated one of Megan’s record contracts at issue in the lawsuit.
“Ms. Perez is trying to use her position at Roc Nation to prevent 1501 from obtaining otherwise discoverable information from her as a fact witness,” the label’s lawyers wrote. “1501 is not seeking discovery from Ms. Perez as CEO of Roc Nation. Rather, 1501 is seeking discovery from Ms. Perez as a fact witness.”
With Tuesday’s new filing from Megan’s lawyers, both sides have now fully made their arguments, and a judge will rule in the coming weeks or months on whether Perez must sit down with 1501’s lawyers. A rep for Megan and Roc Nation did not immediately return a request for comment on the deposition dispute.
Steve Zager, lead attorney for 1501, told Billboard his client was simply trying to obtain key information from an individual who was “intimately involved” in the events that led to litigation: “It is not harassment to try to serve a witness with knowledge of the facts of a case with a deposition subpoena where her lawyers have refused to accept service on her behalf.”
Read this week’s entire legal filing from Megan Thee Stallion’s lawyers here:
A Florida jury on Wednesday (Jan. 18) awarded Flo Rida $82 million in damages from energy drink maker Celsius in a lawsuit that claimed the company violated an endorsement deal with the rapper.
After a day of deliberations, a Broward County jury awarded the sum after finding that Celsius breached two contracts it had struck with the rapper in the mid-2010s, his lawyers confirmed to Billboard. Flo Rida’s lawsuit, filed in 2021, claimed he was owed millions in additional stock and ongoing royalties under the terms of the deals.
In an interview with Billboard, Flo Rida’s attorneys said their client was pleased with the outcome and believed that “the justice system performed well today.”
“It was a matter of respect,” said John J. Uustal of the firm Kelley Uustal PLC, who repped the rapper along with partner Cristina M. Pierson. “He was due these shares, he worked for them, and he wasn’t going to just let it go.”
An attorney for Celsius did not immediately return a request for comment on the verdict. Celsius will be able to appeal the verdict, first by asking the judge to overturn it and later by appealing the case to a state appeals court.
During a five-day trial, attorneys for the rapper (real name Tramar Dillard) argued that Celsius had met key sales thresholds that entitled Flo Rida to additional stock amounting to a one-percent stake in the business — a cut his lawyers claimed was worth at least $75 million now that Celsius had grown successful. They said his promotion had helped boost “a tiny local company that was about to go out of business.”
Celsius’ lawyers argued back that the company had broken no promises, saying the sales thresholds hadn’t been triggered and that the rapper had already been paid “far in excess” of what he was owed. They told the jury that Flo Rida was simply chasing a large cash payout to which he wasn’t entitled: “A business deal is a business deal. You don’t get a do-over just because you’re unhappy with the results.”
On Thursday, the lawyers for Flo Rida told Billboard that they believed arguments painting their client as “greedy” had backfired with jurors: “They understood all these complicated legal issues and in our view came to the right conclusion,” Uustal said. “After our client finished testifying, the was no doubt that this was not a greedy individual.”
After three years of silence and in the midst of an ongoing legal battle, Bassnectar (real name Lorin Ashton), appears to be staging a comeback.
On Tuesday evening, a new mix was uploaded to the Bassnectar Mixcloud account, with the producer’s official Instagram account wiped clean around the same time. Most significantly, however, is a new website, UnlockTheOtherSide.com, which went live around the same time and features the signature Bassnectar logo. Fans discovered the site — the landing page for which was live but password protected on Tuesday evening but is currently offline — with copy describing it as “the new home for the Bassnectar universe & beyond,” according to screenshots reviewed by Billboard.
Access for a membership to the site, according to additional screenshots, costs $150 with an “early bird” discount being offered for $100. Membership promises access to “tickets to curated events,” “exclusive access to music,” archived content, “in-depth conversations,” “unreleased mixtapes and radio shows” delivered monthly, behind-the-scene access, remastered albums, a new album and more.
Despite these developments — which have spurred chatter in online Bassnectar communities on Reddit, Twitter and a longstanding private Bassnectar Discord channel — there has been no official announcement of a return from the artist himself. Ashton’s last public remark was a social media post on July 3, 2020, that has since been deleted, addressing sexual misconduct allegations made against him at the time and announcing an indefinite hiatus. He has not performed any known shows or released any new music since — until now.
On April 6, 2021, Ashton was sued by two women, who allege that he engaged in sexual abuse of minors, child pornography and human trafficking. Just a month later, two more women joined the lawsuit. (One of these women who joined the suit anonymously later removed herself when the court required her to reveal her legal name in order to proceed.)
Ashton, alongside the four other defendants named in the case (his management, label, and others), filed motions to dismiss. On Jan. 11, 2022, Judge Aleta A. Trauger granted all motions to dismiss except for Ashton’s, which was denied. The case is currently in discovery with a target trial date set for September.
Ashton now appears to be taking a comeback strategy with his Bassnectar project that goes directly to fans without reliance on intermediaries such as record labels and promoters, who may be reluctant to work with him. That tactic has already proven successful for Louis C.K., the comic who similarly stepped back from the public eye in 2017 after facing numerous sexual misconduct allegations. (Unlike Ashton, C.K. has not faced any criminal or civil charges.) Three years later — the same length of time as Bassnectar’s hiatus — in April 2020, C.K. announced a new comedy special called Sincerely Louis CK that he released directly to fans through his own website, with no advance notice. That album went on to win a Grammy for best comedy album last year and the comedian is performing at Madison Square Garden next week. He continues to release material strictly on LouisCK.com.
As for Bassnectar, Ashton’s fans appear thrilled about the return of an artist who for many represented the apex of the bass music realm. “THE KING IS BACK!! Happy Nectar Day to all the Fam!!!,” posted one fan to Twitter on Tuesday.
A representative from Ashton did not respond to Billboard‘s request for comment at time of publishing.
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: Kanye West’s former lawyers go to extraordinary lengths to cut ties, indie rockers OK Go somehow find themselves in litigation over cereal, BMG is sued over the royalties to “Uptown Funk,” and much more.
Sign up for the free email version of The Legal Beat here.
THE BIG STORY: Kanye’s Lawyers Really, Really Want Out
Just like his corporate partners, his longtime record label, and many of his fans, Kanye West’s lawyers now want nothing to do with him.
In the wake of a string of antisemitic comments last fall, a who’s who of the nation’s top law firms publicly distanced themselves from the rapper. That included Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft, the prestigious Wall Street firm that repped him in his dealings with The Gap; Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, a white-shoe litigation firm that West had reportedly sought to hire; and Cohen Clair Lans Greifer Thorpe & Rottenstreich, one of many law firms that briefly handled his divorce from Kim Kardashian.
But no firm has done so with quite the flair of Greenberg Traurig, which had been handling a copyright case that accused West of using an unauthorized sample in one of the songs on Donda 2. After months of being unable to formally notify him that he’d been dropped, the firm has proposed an extraordinary alternative: printing newspaper ads announcing they’re no longer repping the disgraced rapper.
Yes, you read that right. Read the entire story here.
Other top stories this week…
A BAND VERSUS A CEREAL BRAND – In a bizarre new lawsuit, indie rockers OK Go found themselves embroiled in trademark litigation with Post Foods over a new line of on-the-go cereal cups called “OK Go!” The band says Post “chose to steal the name of our band”; Post says those allegations are “unfounded.”
“UPTOWN FUNK” ROYALTIES FIGHT – BMG was hit with a lawsuit claiming it has failed to pay royalties from the smash hit “Uptown Funk” to the families of late members of the Gap Band, who are credited as co-writers on the song. As reported by Billboard at the time, those credits were suddenly added in 2015 (months after the song was released) in an apparent effort to avoid litigation. So much for that…
DRAKEO DEATH CASE MOVES FORWARD – A Los Angeles judge rejected Live Nation’s first attempt to end a wrongful death lawsuit over the 2021 murder of Drakeo The Ruler at a music festival, ruling that the late rapper’s family might have a valid case against the concert giant.
HARRY STYLES FIGHTS COUNTERFEITS – Attorneys for Harry Styles filed a lawsuit against online retailers for allegedly violating his intellectual property rights by selling counterfeit merchandise to unsuspecting fans. The aim was to freeze assets and shut down the fake sites, which the lawyers said were mostly based in China.
DRE’S COPYRIGHT THREATS WORK – Marjorie Taylor Greene responded to a cease and desist letter from Dr. Dre over her unlicensed use of the rapper’s 1999 smash hit “Still D.R.E.,” promising to make “no further use” of the song. Dre had blasted the lawmaker for using his hit to “promote your divisive and hateful political agenda.”
SOCIAL MEDIA STAR SUED FOR ABUSE – Singer and influencer Malú Trevejo was sued by four former staffers, who alleged that they “endured mental, emotional, sexual and physical punishment” during their employment with the 20-year-old artist.
If you saw a portable snack package of Fruity Pebbles or Honey Bunches of Oats under the brand name “OK Go!” on a supermarket shelf, would you think that the rock band OK Go was somehow involved?
That bizarre question is at the center of a new lawsuit filed by cereal giant Post Foods against the power pop band, which is best known for its viral music videos, including a Grammy-winning video for the song “Here It Goes Again.”
In a complaint filed Friday (Jan. 13) in Minnesota federal court, Post said OK Go had been quietly threatening to sue for months, claiming that the company had infringed the trademark rights to the band’s name by launching the new on-the-go packages earlier this month.
“Without resolution by this court, Post will be unfairly forced to continue investing in its new OK GO! brand while under the constant threat of unfounded future litigation by defendants,” the cereal company wrote in its lawsuit.
Post is seeking what’s known as a “declaratory judgment,” meaning a ruling by a judge that says the company did nothing wrong. Post says the trademark rights of a rock band like OK Go don’t extend to an unrelated product like cereal, and that the new cups of Fruity Pebbles and other cereals are clearly marked with Post’s own branding to avoid any confusion.
In a statement to Billboard, the members of OK Go said they’d been surprised to learn of Post’s lawsuit.
“A big corporation chose to steal the name of our band to market disposable plastic cups of sugar to children. That was an unwelcome surprise, to say the least,” the band wrote. “But then they sue US about it? Presumably, the idea is that they can just bully us out of our own name, since they have so much more money to spend on lawyers? I guess that’s often how it works, but hopefully, we’ll be the exception.”
According to Post’s lawsuit, the dispute with OK Go goes back many months — and court records reveal the kind of legal back-and-forth that often precedes such litigation.
Back in September, an attorney for the band sent a cease-and-desist letter to Post, saying that OK Go had been “surprised and alarmed” to see Post’s use of its name on the new products. He claimed the new brand name would “suggest to consumers that OK Go is endorsing Post’s products,” or falsely imply that the cereal company had received permission to use the band’s name on its products.
Citing advertising collaborations with brands like Sony, Mercedes Benz, Google and Chevrolet, the band’s attorney argued that consumers had come to associate the “OK Go” name with consumer products across an array of industries. And he made particular mention that the band had even previously worked with Post itself, releasing a series of promotional videos for Honey Bunches of Oats back in 2011.
“Our client regards this matter with the utmost seriousness and has authorized us to take all steps necessary in any venue to protect its rights,” OK Go’s attorney wrote in the September letter. “If we do not hear from you within 10 days of the date of this letter, we will assume that Post does not wish to resolve this matter amicably.”
A week later, an attorney representing Post responded, saying that the company must “respectfully disagree” with the band’s accusations. The attorney argued that rock music and breakfast cereal were “clearly unrelated” products and that the phrase “OK Go” was merely a common term that had previously been used by many other companies on their products. He also flatly rejected the band’s arguments about its previous work promoting Honey Bunches of Oats.
“Given the length of time that has passed since that limited collaboration over a decade ago, the very small number of views indicated on the YouTube videos you referenced, and the general consuming public’s rather short attention span, it will also have absolutely no bearing on consumer perception of Post’s mark OK GO! used with cereal or cereal-based snacks, and will not lead to any mistaken association with OK Go,” Post’s attorney wrote in the response.
According to Post’s complaint on Friday, the company offered to pay the band as part of a “good faith effort” to resolve the dispute without resorting to litigation, despite its belief that the accusations lacked legal merit. The total figure that Post offered for such a “branding collaboration/co-marketing arrangement” was not disclosed in court documents.
But the food company says OK Go rejected that offer last week and made no counter-proposal, leaving Post with no choice but to file a lawsuit. Citing a “clear threat of potential litigation,” Post wrote that the judge must rule that the company is “free to use the OK GO! Mark.”
The case was filed in federal court in Minnesota, where Post is headquartered. An attorney for Post did not immediately return a request for comment on the lawsuit.
Read the entire lawsuit here:
Kanye West’s lawyers are asking a federal judge to let them print newspaper ads announcing they’ve dropped the embattled rapper, claiming he has thus far evaded all their efforts to formally notify him that he’s been fired as a client.
Greenberg Traurig, one of the many law firms that have cut ties with West in the wake of his antisemitic statements last year, told a California federal judge on Friday (Jan. 13) that the firm had “exhausted all methods” of contacting the rapper, who has legally changed his name to Ye. The cell phone he listed is deactivated, they said, and his reps no longer work for him.
“GT has been unable to locate Ye for personal service despite its best efforts,” attorneys from the prestigious firm wrote. “GT has tried to arrange for personal service by dispatching process servers to his last known location and using all available means to contact Ye and his representatives since November but has not been successful.”
Claiming that Kanye appears to be engaged in “deliberate avoidance and obstruction,” the firm asked the judge to permit an extraordinary alternative: printing a formal public notice in Los Angeles newspapers.
“Publication of the Withdrawal Order’s contents in two Los Angeles-area newspapers, where Ye appears to reside, will also apprise him of the Withdrawal Order,” his former lawyers wrote. “Given Ye’s public status, publication of the Withdrawal Order will likely garner significant media attention, resulting in broader publication and provide an even greater likelihood of apprising Ye of the Order.”
The filing came in a copyright lawsuit that alleged West had failed to pay for a sample he used in the track “Flowers” from his album Donda 2. Greenberg had represented him from the beginning of the case, but following West’s ugly statements, the firm announced publicly in October that it would withdraw: “This firm was founded by individuals who faced discrimination and many of us lost ancestors because of that kind of hate and prejudice.”
The firm got formal approval from the judge to withdraw from the case a short time later. But federal litigation rules and legal ethics require lawyers to serve clients with formal notice that they’ve been dropped; it’s this step that Greenberg says Kanye has evaded.
The request will require approval from the judge overseeing the case. West could not immediately be located for comment on Friday’s letter from his former lawyers.
In the wake of his public self-destruction last year, West has lost nearly every aspect of his once-formidable business empire. His representatives at CAA have dropped him, and his signature fashion partnerships with Adidas, The Gap and Balenciaga have all been terminated.
His lawyers have done the same. In addition to Greenberg, West has also been dropped by Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft, the prestigious Wall Street firm that repped him in his dealings with The Gap; Cohen Clair Lans Greifer Thorpe & Rottenstreich, who repped him in his divorce from Kim Kardashian; and Brown Rudnick partner Camille Vasquez, who rose to prominence representing Johnny Depp in his defamation case against Amber Heard and briefly repped West last fall. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan partner Alex Spiro, who reps Jay-Z and Elon Musk, publicly clarified that West sought to hire him but never did so.
Read Greenberg Traurig’s full letter here:
BMG Rights Management is facing a new lawsuit claiming the publisher has failed to pay royalties from Mark Ronson and Bruno Mars‘ smash hit “Uptown Funk” to the families of late members of the Gap Band who are credited as co-writers on the song.
In a complaint filed Thursday in Manhattan federal court, the heirs of Robert and Ronnie Wilson claim that BMG breached a 2015 deal that was inked because “Uptown Funk” incorporated elements of the Gap Band’s 1979 song “I Don’t Believe You Want to Get Up and Dance (Oops Upside Your Head).”
“Despite its obligations to account for and pay to plaintiffs their share of all income received from the Uptown Funk musical composition, BMG has refused and failed to provide either the funds due to plaintiffs or an accounting despite plaintiffs’ repeated demands,” the lawsuit says.
A rep for BMG did not immediately return a request for comment on the allegations on Friday. Mars and Ronson are not accused of any wrongdoing and are not named in the lawsuit.
In a statement, Wilson family attorney Michael Steger told Billboard that his clients had been “working for years” to receive credit for their contributions to “Uptown Funk” and had been “left with no choice but to pursue litigation to protect their rights.”
As reported by Billboard at the time, the songwriting credits to “Uptown Funk” were suddenly amended in 2015, months after the song was released. After the owners of “Oops Upside Your Head” filed a claim against the song on YouTube – and in the cautious aftermath of a blockbuster infringement verdict over Robin Thicke‘s “Blurred Lines” — the five co-writers of the Gap Band song were each given 3.4% stakes in the then-new track.
The new case was filed by Linda Wilson, the widow of Ronnie Wilson, and by Robin Lynn Wilson, LaTina Wilson and Robena Wilson, the heirs of Robert Wilson, over those two late band members’ respective 3.4% stakes. The other three members who received such stakes are not involved in the case.
In their complaint, the Wilson heirs called the new allegations of non-payment against BMG “yet another chapter in a long-running series of disputes” over the hit song, which spent 14 weeks atop the Hot 100 and 56 total weeks on the chart.
They aren’t wrong. In the years after “Uptown Funk” was released, at least three lawsuits were filed claiming Ronson and Mars stole elements from earlier songs. One case involved the 1983 song “Young Girls” by the band Collage; another centered on the 1980 funk song “More Bounce to the Ounce” by the band Zapp; the third alleged they copied material from the 1979 classic “Funk You Up” by The Sequence.
All three cases were later dropped or settled.
Read the entire new lawsuit against BMG here: