Legal
Page: 9
On Valentine’s Day, Drake teamed up with OVO signee and frequent collaborator PARTYNEXTDOOR to release the collaborative album Some Sexy Songs 4 U, a 21-track project that marks his first release since the three-track project 100 Gigs last August.
More significantly, it’s his first release since he filed a lawsuit against his record label, Universal Music Group (UMG), on Jan. 15 for defamation over the release of Kendrick Lamar’s “Not Like Us,” the searing, chart-topping diss track aimed at the Canadian rapper that was released by UMG’s Interscope Records. In the lawsuit, lawyers for Drake alleged that “UMG intentionally sought to turn Drake into a pariah, a target for harassment, or worse,” by pushing a “false and malicious narrative” that the star rapper was a “certified pedophile,” as Lamar rapped on the track. (UMG, in response, said in part, “Not only are these claims untrue, but the notion that we would seek to harm the reputation of any artist—let alone Drake—is illogical.”)
That raises the question: How is Drake able to release an album while he’s actively suing the record label to which he’s signed?
Trending on Billboard
First, the logistics: The new album was released jointly through OVO Sound, to which PARTYNEXTDOOR is signed, which is distributed by Santa Anna, a company under Sony Music Group’s Alamo Records umbrella; and OVO, which is Drake’s vehicle through UMG’s Republic Records. They are co-billed that way and in that order on digital service providers like Spotify and Apple Music. These types of joint releases are relatively common; think Future and Metro Boomin’s back-to-back We Don’t Trust You albums last year, released jointly via Future’s label Epic Records (also a Sony label) and Metro’s label Republic Records. (Coincidentally, We Don’t Trust You contained the song “Like That” featuring Lamar, the track that kicked off the Drake-Kendrick beef in earnest.) Another, more current, example is the Lady Gaga–Bruno Mars collaboration “Die With A Smile,” currently sitting at No. 1 on the Hot 100 for its fifth week, which is co-billed to Gaga’s Interscope and Mars’ Atlantic Records.
That means UMG would have had to legally clear Drake’s appearance on the album, an outcome that a handful of lawyers consulted by Billboard say would not necessarily be affected by any ongoing litigation. “Suing UMG shouldn’t preclude him from working with them legally,” one lawyer says. “As for their desire to be in a contractual relationship with him while he is litigating against them, that’s a different story.” Adds another, who agreed that it would not affect his ability to release an album: “Whether or not UMG decides to properly fund and support a release that Drake wants to do while Drake is suing UMG is another question.”
A UMG spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment. In its response to the initial lawsuit last month, the company wrote, “We have invested massively in [Drake’s] music and our employees around the world have worked tirelessly for many years to help him achieve historic commercial and personal financial success. … Throughout his career, Drake has intentionally and successfully used UMG to distribute his music and poetry to engage in conventionally outrageous back-and-forth ‘rap battles’ to express his feelings about other artists. He now seeks to weaponize the legal process to silence an artist’s creative expression and to seek damages from UMG for distributing that artist’s music.”
An artist suing their record label is not an unheard-of occurrence; it has happened several times through the years, often over royalty payments or other contractual disputes. Suing their own record label for defamation over a diss track, however, is unprecedented; given the mutually beneficial financials involved in an artist and an album’s commercial success, it would stand to reason that UMG would not aim to materially harm one of their superstar artists. But that’s a determination for the courts to make.
Additional reporting by Elias Leight.
A Manhattan federal judge has tossed out a sexual assault lawsuit against Russell Simmons on grounds that he now lives in Indonesia, but legal problems still abound for the Def Jam co-founder.
In a decision issued Tuesday, Judge John Koeltl ruled that Simmons had shown by “clear and convincing evidence” that he is now a permanent resident of the Indonesian island of Bali, meaning his federal court lacked required form of jurisdiction to hear the case.
The ruling is a setback for the unnamed Jane Doe plaintiff, who sued Simmons last year over accusations that he raped her in the 1990s while she served as an executive at Def Jam. But the case can likely be re-filed in state court, where it would potentially not face the same issues.
In a statement to Billboard on Thursday, her attorneys vowed to do so – claiming Simmons was trying to “dodge accountability for his reprehensible behavior and escape litigation on procedural grounds.”
“From the beginning of this case, Simmons has claimed to be a stateless citizen domiciled in Bali, despite building his life and career in New York and taking advantage of his clear ties to the state when it benefits him,” said Kenya Davis, a lawyer at the firm Boies Schiller Flexner. “Our plaintiff is not deterred by this gamesmanship. We respect the judge’s decision, and we will see Mr. Simmons in New York state court.”
In his own statement, an attorney for Simmons praised the judge’s decision to dismiss the case: “Our justice system is based on rules and procedures,” said David Fish an attorney at the law firm Romano Law. “We are pleased that the court followed the rules of civil procedure and case law related to who can be brought into court.”
Asked about whether the case would continue in state court, Fish said: “I can’t predict what plaintiff’s counsel will do going forward.”
Simmons, who founded Def Jam Recordings in 1984 and later built a formidable hip hop empire, has faced a slew of abuse allegations since 2017 — first in an investigative article by the New York Times, then in a 2020 documentary film that featured interviews with numerous alleged victims.
Last year, Simmons was hit with two lawsuits over such claims. The first came from the Jane Doe at the center of this week’s ruling, who says that she was serving as a successful music video producer when she was “sexually harassed, assaulted, sexually battered, and raped by her boss.”
The other case came from Drew Dixon, a former A&R at Def Jam who accused Simmons of rape in both the Times article and the documentary. In her February 2024 lawsuit, Dixon accused Simmons of defaming her by suggesting during an interview that she was lying about the incident.
That case remains pending. Simmons had moved to dismiss Dixon’s lawsuit at the outset on free speech grounds, but that request was denied by a judge last week, sending the case toward more litigation and an eventual trial.
Simmons also faces additional litigation from three other accusers — Tina Klein-Baker, Toni Sallie and Alexia Norton Jones – who alleged in New York court filings last month that the hip hop mogul had reneged on confidential settlements that separately required him to pay them a total of nearly $8 million.
R. Kelly’s racketeering and sex trafficking convictions, along with a 30-year prison sentence, were upheld Wednesday by a federal appeals court that concluded the singer exploited his fame for over a quarter century to sexually abuse girls and young women.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan ruled Wednesday after hearing arguments last March.
The Grammy-winning, multiplatinum-selling R&B songwriter was convicted in 2021 in Brooklyn federal court of multiple charges, including racketeering and sex trafficking.
Attorney Jennifer Bonjean, representing R. Kelly, said in a statement that she believed the Supreme Court will agree to hear an appeal. She called the 2nd Circuit ruling “unprecedented,” saying it gives prosecutors limitless discretion to apply the racketeering law “to situations absurdly remote” from the statute’s intent.
Last year, the high court declined to hear an appeal of a 20-year sentence Kelly received after he was convicted in 2022 of child sex charges including charges of producing images of child sexual abuse in Chicago.
The 2nd Circuit rejected Kelly’s arguments that the trial evidence was inadequate, the constitutionality of some state laws used against him were questionable, four jurors were biased, the trial judge made some improper rulings and a racketeering charge more commonly used in organized crime cases was improper.
“Enabled by a constellation of managers, assistants, and other staff for over twenty-five years, Kelly exploited his fame to lure girls and young women into his grasp,” the appeals court said, noting members of his entourage helped introduce him to underage girls.
“Evidence at trial showed that he would isolate them from friends and family, control nearly every aspect of their lives, and abuse them verbally, physically, and sexually,” the three-judge panel said.
The appeals court said it was “neither arbitrary nor irrational” that several accusers were permitted to testify at trial that Kelly gave them herpes without disclosing he had an STD, and it was not unduly prejudicial or cumulative that seven witnesses who were not yet adults when Kelly began to abuse them were allowed to testify.
“None of the testimony was more inflammatory than the charged acts,” the appeals court said.
The 2nd Circuit also said it was not unfairly prejudicial for the trial judge to let jurors view graphic videos. The videos, the appeals court said, “were properly admitted to show the means and methods of the enterprise, including the level of control and dominance Kelly had over his victims.”
Bonjean, in her statement on R. Kelly’s behalf, also cited a partial dissent in which one 2nd Circuit judge, Richard J. Sullivan, concurred with what he described as the majority’s “excellent opinion,” but dissented in part over a restitution award given one victim for a lifetime supply of a suppressive regime of herpes medication. The award was based on the cost of the brand-name drug when a generic drug is available.
“This was not restitution. This was an effort by the government to unfairly enrich government witnesses for their testimony,” Bonjean said.
Kelly, born Robert Sylvester Kelly, is known for work including the 1996 hit “I Believe I Can Fly” and the cult classic “Trapped in the Closet,” a multipart tale of sexual betrayal and intrigue.
Kelly sold millions of albums and remained in demand even after allegations about his abuse of young girls began circulating publicly in the 1990s. He was acquitted of child sexual abuse image charges in Chicago in 2008, but a second trial in Chicago in 2022 ended with his conviction on charges of producing images of child sexual abuse and enticing girls for sex.
Widespread outrage over Kelly’s sexual misconduct did not emerge until the #MeToo reckoning, reaching a crescendo after the release of the documentary “Surviving R. Kelly.”
This story was originally published by The Associated Press.
Sean “Diddy” Combs filed a lawsuit on Wednesday (Feb. 12) against NBCUniversal, claiming the company defamed him with the Peacock documentary Diddy: The Making of a Bad Boy.
According to documents filed in New York state court, Combs’ lawsuit claims the documentary — which debuted on Peacock in January — knowingly defamed him by making false murder and sex trafficking allegations, among other claims, which his attorneys say there is no credible evidence to support.
“The entire premise of the Documentary assumes that Mr. Combs has committed numerous heinous crimes, including serial murder, rape of minors, and sex trafficking of minors, and attempts to crudely psychologize him,” the lawsuit reads. “It maliciously and baselessly jumps to the conclusion that Mr. Combs is a ‘monster’ and ‘an embodiment of Lucifer’ with ‘a lot of similarities’ to Jeffrey Epstein.”
According to the lawsuit, the documentary “maliciously” claims that Diddy played a role in the deaths of his ex-wife Kim Porter, Christopher “The Notorious B.I.G.” Wallace and Dwight “Heavy D” Myers.
The documentary “shamelessly advances conspiracy theories that lack any foundation in reality,” the suit adds, “repeatedly insinuating that Mr. Combs is a serial killer because it cannot be a ‘coincidence’ that multiple people in Mr. Combs’s orbit have died.”
Combs is seeking $100 million in damages from the multimedia giant.
“As described in today’s lawsuit, NBCUniversal Media, LLC, Peacock TV, LLC, and Ample LLC made a conscious decision to line their own pockets at the expense of truth, decency, and basic standards of professional journalism,” Diddy’s attorney, Erica Wolff, said in a statement. “Grossly exploiting the trust of their audience and racing to outdo their competition for the most salacious Diddy exposé, Defendants maliciously and recklessly broadcast outrageous lies in Diddy: The Making of a Bad Boy.”
Wolff continued: “In the purported documentary, Defendants accuse Mr. Combs of horrible crimes, including serial murder and sexual assault of minors — knowing that there is no evidence to support them. In making and broadcasting these falsehoods, among others, Defendants seek only to capitalize on the public’s appetite for scandal without any regard for the truth and at the expense of Mr. Combs’s right to a fair trial. Mr. Combs brings this lawsuit to hold Defendants accountable for the extraordinary damage their reckless statements have caused.”
Billboard has reached out to NBCUniversal for comment.
Combs has remained behind bars since his arrest in September on sex trafficking and racketeering charges. He’s accused of being the face of a multi-faceted criminal enterprise with the goal of satisfying his sexual fantasies, including by hosting so-called “freak-off” parties. The disgraced hip-hop mogul has repeatedly been denied bail and will stay in the custody of Brooklyn’s Metropolitan Detention Center until his trial begins on May 5. He faces life in prison if convicted on all charges. In addition to his criminal case, Combs has been hit with dozens of lawsuits alleging sexual assault and other crimes.
A$AP Rocky waived his right to testify on Tuesday (Feb. 11) during the ongoing trial over accusations that he fired a gun at former friend A$AP Relli near a Hollywood hotel in November 2021. In a TMZ video, Superior Court Judge Mark S. Arnold reminds the former A$AP Mob rapper (real name Rakim Mayers) that he […]
Ye (formerly Kanye West) is facing a lawsuit from a former employee who says the rapper compared himself to Hitler and threatened her because she is Jewish.
The case, filed Tuesday (Feb. 11) in Los Angeles court, claims he subjected the unnamed woman to “antisemitic vitriol,” including texting her “Hail Hitler” and calling her “ugly” and a “bitch.” And the woman says she was “swiftly terminated” when she complained.
“Ye carried out a calculated campaign to threaten and psychologically torment Jewish people around him, specifically plaintiff,” the woman’s lawyers wrote. “There can be little doubt that Ye treats those around him, especially Jewish people and women, much worse than just a bully. He is a self-proclaimed ‘Nazi’.”
The Jane Doe accuses Ye and his Yeezy LLC of religious and gender discrimination, wrongful termination, breach of contract, and a variety of other legal wrongdoing.
The new lawsuit, one of many filed by former employees against Ye, came days after he went on an offensive tirade on X (formerly Twitter) that included antisemitic comments (“I’m a Nazi” and praise for Adolf Hitler) as well as a bizarre demand to free Sean “Diddy” Combs, who is currently in custody awaiting trial on sex crime charges. On Sunday, Ye ran a TV ad during the Super Bowl that directed viewers to an online store where they could purchase a shirt emblazoned with a swastika.
It was hardly the first time the rapper has made such statements. After a string of similar antisemitic rhetoric and other erratic behavior in October 2022, the star lost much of what was a once-formidable business empire, including fashion partnerships with Adidas, The Gap and Balenciaga, as well as his representation by Creative Artists Agency and many of his lawyers.
In Tuesday’s lawsuit, the Jane Doe plaintiff says she was hired at Ye’s Yeezy LLC as a marketing specialist in December 2023, shortly before he issued an apology (written in Hebrew) for those earlier antisemitic statements. But she says the apologetic sentiment was “short lived.”
A month later, amid renewed controversy over the cover art of his Vultures Vol. 1, the woman claims she suggested that Ye issue a statement condemning Nazism. When the message was relayed to the star himself, he allegedly responded with a text message (included in the lawsuit) reading “I Am A Nazi.”
“This not only deeply offended Doe but the loud and proud antisemitism also made her feel endangered,” her attorneys wrote.
Months later, the rapper allegedly texted her and another Jewish employee “What the fuck is everyone here getting paid?” In another screenshotted text, he allegedly followed up: “Welcome to the first day of working for Hitler.”
The abuse allegedly escalated from there, the lawsuit says, including a series of texts in June 2024 in which Ye allegedly said “Shut the f— up b—-” called her “ugly as f—” and texted “Hail Hitler.” Later, he also allegedly texted, “You what’s left after I said deathcon” — a message that Jane Doe says was intended to reference his previous antisemitic rants and meant as a threat based on her religion.
Just hours after she complained about the text messages to her manager, the lawsuit says she was sent an email from an attorney representing Yeezy terminating her employment.
A spokesman for Ye did not immediately return a request for comment on Tuesday (Feb. 11).
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: Kendrick Lamar plays “Not Like Us” during his Super Bowl halftime show despite Drake’s defamation lawsuit; an appeals court sends a case over Jimi Hendrix’s music to trial; the estate of Notorious B.I.G. sues over a famed photo; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: Say, Drake…
If a team of lawyers tried to dissuade Kendrick Lamar from performing “Not Like Us” during Sunday night’s Super Bowl halftime show, they didn’t do a great job.
Trending on Billboard
After much speculation about whether or not the rapper would play his chart-topping, Grammy-sweeping hit at the Superdome – a performance that came weeks after Drake sued Universal Music Group over allegations that the song defamed him by calling him a pedophile — Kendrick really didn’t hold back much.
With a trolling grin, he looked directly into camera and made eye contact with 120 million viewers when he rapped “Say, Drake, I hear you like ’em young” – a lyric he then followed up with lines like “You better not ever go to cell block one” and “Just make sure you hide your lil’ sister from him.” If anyone was expecting him to avoid the controversy entirely, think again.
Lamar did avoid saying the actual word “pedophile,” but that hardly made a difference when thousands in the crowd sang it for him — and millions more at home knew exactly what was missing. And no such omission spared Drake from the song’s comedic punchline: “Tryna strike a chord and it’s probably A minnnnorrrrr.”
The very structure of Kendrick’s set seemed designed to mock the idea that a lawsuit might stop him. Early in the show, he explicitly referenced the case, saying “I wanna do their favorite song, but they love to sue” before teasing the song’s infectious four-note riff. When Lamar quickly moved on to another song, it seemed like he wanted the fans to think that might be it. Maybe it was a happy compromise? A quick nod that wouldn’t give the lawyers heartburn?
Lol, nope: Minutes later, Kendrick launched into a full-blown rendition of “Not Like Us” on the world’s biggest stage. “They tried to rig the game,” he said right before he started, “but you can’t fake influence.” For good measure, Lamar brought out Serena Williams – rumored to be a one-time romantic partner of Drake – to crip walk on his metaphorical grave.
What does it all mean for the lawsuit? For Kendrick, probably not much. Don’t forget: he isn’t actually named as a defendant, and Drake’s lawyers have taken great pains to stress that their client is only suing a malevolent record label that boosted a defamatory song, not the rival rapper who created it: “UMG may spin this complaint as a rap beef gone legal,” they wrote in the original complaint, “but this lawsuit is not about a war of words between artists.”That stance doesn’t appear to be changing. Just hours before Kendrick took the stage in New Orleans, Drake’s lawyers released a new statement on the case that harshly attacked UMG – but they never mentioned the man himself. It would be hard to reverse course now, even after that stare into the camera.
Perhaps Drake’s legal team will try to add Fox or the NFL or even Apple (the show’s sponsor) as defendants, claiming they gave Kendrick a platform to republish lyrics they knew were defamatory. Or maybe they’ll cite the performance as more ammo against UMG — the latest example of how the popularity of the “Not Like Us” is harming Drake’s reputation. As CNN wrote after the game, in which the Philadelphia Eagles thrashed the Kansas City Chiefs: “Drake lost worse than the Chiefs at the Super Bowl.”
At the end of the day, those secondary moves won’t matter much unless a federal judge eventually rules that “Not Like Us” is actually defamatory in the first place. And as I wrote last week, legal experts are skeptical that’s going to happen.
Stay tuned at Billboard for more as Drake’s case moves forward – we’ll keep you updated on any major (or minnnnorrrrr) developments.
Other top stories this week…
JIMI HENDRIX TRIAL – A long-running legal battle over the rights to Jimi Hendrix’s music is headed to trial after a U.K. appeals court ruled against Sony Music. The case was filed by the estates of his two Jimi Hendrix Experience bandmates (bassist Noel Redding and drummer Mitch Mitchell), who say they own part of the copyrights to the trio’s albums and that Sony owes them millions. After the appeals court refused Sony’s renewed bid to dismiss the case, a trial is tentatively set for December in London.
BIGGIE BIGGIE BIGGIE – The estate of legendary rapper Notorious B.I.G. filed an infringement lawsuit against Target, Home Depot and others over allegations that they sold unauthorized canvas prints of a famed photo called the “King of New York.” Joined by the photographer who snapped the image, the estate accused a company called iCanvas of showing a “disdain for intellectual property law” by creating the prints sold by the big box stores: “Defendants specifically chose to use Mr. Wallace’s persona, name, image, likeness … in an attempt to capitalize on their fame and extraordinary financial value.”
A “WILD” COPYCAT? – MTV owner Viacom filed a lawsuit claiming that Nick Cannon’s new comedy battle rap game show (Bad vs. Wild) is a “flagrant” copycat of his long-running series Wild ’N Out. Notably, the lawsuit targeted only the streaming service that produces the show, Zeus Network, and not Cannon himself – claiming that the streamer effectively poached the star and is now “cosplaying” as successor to MTV’s Wild: “Zeus has chosen the path of least resistance: stealing the fruits of Viacom’s goodwill and decades of labor and innovation, and pawning it off as its own original idea.”
SUCH A LOVELY MESS – A year after the spectacular implosion of a criminal trial over the Eagles legendary 1976 album Hotel California, one of the accused men filed a civil lawsuit against Don Henley and longtime manager Irving Azoff over accusations they engaged in a “malicious prosecution.” The new case, filed by rare-books dealer Glenn Horowitz, says Henley knew the handwritten notes at the center of the trial were not stolen but misled authorities into bringing the charges. The trial ended abruptly last spring after new evidence cast doubt on whether Henley’s materials were stolen in the first place, prompting a judge to suggest prosecutors had been “manipulated” into filing the case.
MEGAN THEE PLAINTIFF – A federal judge ruled that Megan Thee Stallion can proceed with a defamation lawsuit accusing social media personality Milagro Gramz of waging a “campaign of harassment” against the star on behalf of Tory Lanez, who was convicted in 2022 of shooting the star rapper during an argument. The judge said Megan had made a “compelling case” that the blogger had defamed her with her posts, including those that suggested the star lied in her testimony during Lanez’s trial: “Plaintiff’s claims extend far beyond mere negligence — they paint a picture of an intentional campaign to destroy her reputation.”
OZZY SUED OVER OZZY PIC – Ozzy Osbourne was hit with a copyright lawsuit for allegedly posting images of himself to Instagram and other social media platforms, filed by a veteran rock photographer who snapped the pictures. The legendary rocker is just the latest to celeb to face that kind of bizarre-sounding lawsuit, joining the ranks of Miley Cyrus, Dua Lipa, Justin Bieber and many others. Once again for those in the back: the copyrights to a photo are almost always retained by the person who took it, and simply appearing in an image does not give a celebrity the right to repost it.
POP SMOKE PLEA DEAL – Corey Walker, a man charged with murder over the killing of Pop Smoke (Bashar Jackson), reached a deal with prosecutors to avoid a looming trial, pleading guilty to lesser charges of voluntary manslaughter and home invasion robbery that will see him serve 29 years in prison. The actual triggerman in the 2020 shooting, an unnamed 15 year old, admitted to the killing in 2023 and was sentenced as a juvenile to detention until is 25.
Don Henley and his longtime manager Irving Azoff are being sued by one of the men who was criminally charged — and later vindicated — for allegedly attempting to sell handwritten lyrics connected to the Eagles‘ 1976 album Hotel California, claiming they and their attorneys engaged in a “malicious prosecution” that harmed his reputation and caused him financial losses and emotional distress.
The complaint, filed in New York state court on Thursday (Feb. 6), was filed against Henley, Azoff and the firms that represented them in their case: Manatt, Phelps & Phillips and Loeb & Loeb. In it, Horowitz claims the parties falsely alleged that he and his two co-defendants in the criminal case “knew or had reason to believe” that the lyric sheets “had been unlawfully obtained” and nonetheless attempted to profit off of them via an online auction. However, Horowitz claims the men and their attorneys knew all along that the notes had been acquired through legal means in the first place.
Trending on Billboard
Horowitz, a rare book dealer, and his co-defendants — Rock & Roll Hall of Fame curator Craig Inciardi and memorabilia auctioneer Edward Kosinski — were criminally charged in 2022 over an alleged conspiracy to resell the lyrics that had been handwritten by Henley while working on the Eagles’ iconic Hotel California album. At the time, prosecutors had accused the three men of hiding the fact that the documents had been stolen from Henley’s home by Ed Sanders, a journalist hired by Henley and Azoff to write a never-published book on the Eagles in the late 1970s.
But in a stunning turnaround in March 2024, Manhattan prosecutors dropped the case after Henley produced new evidence previously withheld under attorney-client privilege that cast doubt on his and Azoff’s allegations. The judge in the case subsequently dismissed the charges and chastised Henley, Azoff and their attorneys for “obfuscat[ing] and hid[ing] information that they believed would be damaging to their position that the lyric sheets were stolen.”
According to Horowitz’s attorney Caitlin Robin, the evidence cited by prosecutors and the judge in dropping the charges — a series of emails between Henley, Azoff and their attorneys — proves they were aware that Sanders had legally obtained the lyric sheets in the course of writing the never-published Eagles book. Nonetheless, she alleges they “purposefully withheld any disclosure thereof because they knew it would exculpate Plaintiff GLENN HOROWITZ and essentially destroy the fraudulent allegations they made about him.”
As a result of his “unjust prosecution,” Horowitz claims he “was deprived of his liberty and suffered humiliation, defamation, media harassment, diminished reputation, loss of business and/or loss of wages amounting in more than ten million dollars ($10,000,000.00), in addition to mental anguish, indignity, frustration and financial loss.” The complaint further alleges that Horowitz’s wife Tracey (who is listed as a co-plaintiff) also “suffered humiliation, defamation, media harassment, diminished reputation, and mental and emotional anguish” as a result of her husband’s prosecution.
In a statement sent to Billboard, Henley and Azoff’s attorney Dan Petrocelli said, “Don Henley was a witness and a victim in a criminal trial brought by the Manhattan District Attorney after a formal indictment of Glenn Horowitz by a New York grand jury. The indictment highlighted the dark underbelly of the memorabilia business that exploited the brazen, unauthorized taking and selling of Mr. Henley’s handwritten lyrics. The only malicious prosecution involved here is the filing of this case by Mr. Horowitz.”
The Horowitzes are asking for damages “in excess of the jurisdictional limits of all the lower Courts of the State of New York.”
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips and Loeb & Loeb did not immediately respond to Billboard‘s requests for comment.
Do you know what the initials “AWGE” stand for? Don’t feel too bad because only a few people know the answer to that, and apparently it’s a big secret. AWGE is the name of A$AP Rocky‘s creative agency and record label, and the meaning of what the letters stand for has never been made clear. […]
Ozzy Osbourne is facing a copyright lawsuit over alleged social media posts featuring unlicensed photos of a famous rock star: Ozzy Osbourne.
The case, filed Monday in Los Angeles federal court, claims the Black Sabbath frontman illegally posted multiple images — of himself – that were snapped by prolific rock photographer Neil Zlozower.
The photographer’s attorneys say Ozzy posted the images to his massive followings on Facebook, Instagram and X (formerly Twitter) without seeking permission or paying Zlozower a licensing fee.
“The accounts are key components of defendant’s popular and lucrative commercial enterprise,” the lawsuit says. “Defendant has over 12 million followers on [Facebook], and over 6 million followers on [Instagram], and over 5 million followers on [X] — all of which are monetized and provide significant financial benefits to defendant.”
A rep for Ozzy did not immediately return a request for comment on the allegations.
Trending on Billboard
While it might sound unfair to a celebrity, the copyrights to a photo are almost always retained by the person who took it. Simply appearing in an image does not give a celebrity co-ownership of it, nor does it give them a right to repost it for free. To understand why, read Billboard‘s explainer here.
Ozzy is hardly the first celebrity to get sued over that legal reality. Over the last few years, Miley Cyrus, Dua Lipa, Justin Bieber, Ariana Grande, Emily Ratajkowski, LeBron James, Katy Perry and others have faced copyright cases after they re-used photos of themselves snapped by someone else.
And in allegedly using photographs snapped by Zlozower, Ozzy picked the wrong guy to test. Since 2016, court records show the litigious photographer has filed nearly 60 copyright cases against a range of defendants over images of Elvis Costello, Guns N’ Roses, Mötley Crüe and more.
In Monday’s lawsuit, Zlozower’s attorneys say Ozzy used several different photos. Five are staged portraits of the rocker standing alongside Zakk Wylde, the lead guitarist for Osbourne’s backing band since 1987; another features Osbourne onstage embracing Randy Rhoads, who served as guitarist on Osbourne’s first two solo albums before dying suddenly in a 1982 plane crash.
Zlozower says his team reached out to Ozzy about the allegedly infringing social posts in June – and then again in August and September. But he says the star “failed to respond,” meaning he was “forced to seek judicial intervention for defendant’s infringing activity.”