Legal
Page: 92
A Houston judge sided with Megan Thee Stallion on Wednesday in an early skirmish in her legal war with record label 1501 Certified Entertainment, refusing to grant the company a quick victory and ordering the case to instead be decided by a jury.
Megan has long been at odds with the label over a record deal she calls “unconscionable,” but the current battle was filed earlier this year over claims that 1501 was unfairly refusing to count her 2021 Something for Thee Hotties as an “album” to keep her locked into the deal for another release.
In September, 1501 asked a judge to quickly decide that dispute himself — arguing Megan’s contract had a clear definition of “album” and that Thee Hotties obviously didn’t meet it. Megan’s lawyers fought back, saying there were key disputes that need to be decided a jury and that the rapper must be “allowed her day in court.”
On Wednesday, Judge Robert Schaffer sided with Megan in that dispute, denying 1501’s motion and allowing the “album” question to proceed to a jury trial. The ruling came no written explanation, simply saying Schaffer was “of the opinion that the motion should be and hereby is denied in its entirety.” A trial date has not yet been set.
A rep for Megan declined to comment on the ruling. Steven Zager, lead attorney for 1501, told Billboard he disagreed with the judge’s decision but stressed that the ruling had not resolved any issues in either side’s favor.
The star rapper (real name Megan Pete) has been fighting with 1501 for more than two years now, 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.”
She filed the current case in February, claiming 1501 had wrongly classified Thee Hotties as something less than an album — a key distinction, since she owes a set number of albums under the record deal. 1501 quickly countersued, arguing that Thee Hotties contained just only 29 minutes of original material and was obviously not an “album.”
The two sides then escalated the case last summer. Megan filed a new complaint seeking more than $1 million in damages over claims that 1501 had “systematically failed” to pay enough royalties. 1501 then fired back with new accusations of its own, claiming it’s actually Megan who owes “millions of dollars.”
With those other issues still pending, 1501 asked the judge in September for so-called summary judgment on the core dispute — meaning a quick ruling about whether Thee Hotties counted as an album. The company argued there was nothing ambiguous about the contract, and that the judge himself could decide the issue without further proceedings.
“There is no amount of discovery that will change the answer to that question,” 1501’s lawyers wrote at the time. “The court can compare the recording to the contractual requirements for an album and determine that ‘Something for Thee Hotties’ is not an album as a matter of law.”
Megan’s lawyers sharply disagreed. In a response this month, they cited supposed disputes over basic facts, like whether or not 1501 gave approval prior to the release of Thee Hotties, and said those disagreements would need to be sorted out by a jury, not a judge.
“Pete should be allowed her day in court to present evidence and testimony to the jury demonstrating that she has done all that was required of her in the delivery and release of her albums,” her lawyers wrote.
A federal judge is refusing to overturn Cardi B’s courtroom victory in lawsuit over a man who was unwittingly photoshopped into a “raunchy” album cover, ruling that he would not “second-guess” the verdict handed down by a jury.
Kevin Brophy had asked the judge to toss out an October jury verdict clearing Cardi of wrongdoing over the bawdy cover of her 2016 mixtape Gangsta Bitch Music Vol. 1, which Brophy claimed had “humiliated” him by making it appear he was performing oral sex on the superstar rapper.
But such rulings are reserved for rare situations where a jury clearly got something wrong — like a verdict that flies in the face of the evidence that was actually presented in court. And in a ruling on Wednesday, Judge Cormac J. Carney said there were plenty of reasons why the jury had sided with Cardi.
“In short, reasons abound to sustain the jury’s verdict,” the judge wrote. “It is not for this Court to second-guess the verdict now.” Notably, the judge also ordered Brophy to repay the legal bills that Cardi incurred defending the lawsuit, which can often amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Among other reasons for siding with Cardi, Judge Carney said jurors could have been swayed by evidence and testimony that Brophy had not actually suffered any harm – none at all – as a result of Cardi’s supposedly humiliating album cover.
“Brophy testified that neither he nor any member of his family sought treatment from a psychiatrist or psychologist or marital or family counseling for the alleged humiliation, embarrassment, and mental distress,” the judge wrote, adding that Brophy had also seen no adverse impact on his professional career. “He is happily married to his wife, Lindsay, who also testified to the strength of their relationship, and their eldest child, who saw the mixtape cover once, never mentioned it to Brophy again.”
Released in 2016, the cover image of Gangsta Bitch featured the then-rising star is seen taking a swig of a large beer, staring directly into the camera with her legs spread wide and holding a man’s head while he appears to perform oral sex on her.
The actual man in the image was a model who had consented to the shoot, but a giant tattoo on the man’s back belonged to Brophy. Unbeknownst to Cardi, a freelance graphic designer had typed “back tattoos” into Google Image, found one that fit (Brophy’s), and Photoshopped it onto the model’s body.
Brophy sued in 2017 for millions in damages, claiming he was “devastated, humiliated and embarrassed” by the cover. He claimed Cardi and others violated his so-called right of publicity by using his likeness without his consent, and also violated his right to privacy by casting him in a “false light” that was “highly offensive.”
Cardi’s lawyers called the allegations “sheer fantasy” and “vastly overblown,” arguing that nobody would have recognized a relatively unknown man based merely on his back. And after a four-day trial in which the star herself demanded “receipts” to support the allegations, a jury agreed – clearing Cardi of all Brophy’s claims.
In Wednesday’s decision upholding that verdict, Judge Carney said jurors had an “ample basis” to reach that decision. Among other things, he cited testimony about how the model in the image appeared to be a Black man, while Brophy himself is white.
“The jury could have reasonably concluded that the back tattoo on the model on the mixtape cover at issue in this suit was not sufficiently identifiable with Brophy,” the judge wrote. “Because the model’s face is not visible, identification based on facial appearance is impossible.”
The judge said jurors also had good reason to believe the cover represented a “transformative fair use” of the image – meaning it was legal for Cardi to use it to create her own new image on the cover.
“Brophy’s tattoo played a minor role in what was a larger visual commentary on sexual politics,” the judge wrote. “Brophy’s tattoo was but one tattoo on the back of the model, who was himself but one part of a suggestive portrayal of a man with his head between Cardi B’s legs.”
“The purpose, Cardi B testified, was to show her in control, reversing traditional gender roles,” the judge concluded.
Wednesday’s is likely not the end of the road for Brophy’s lawsuit, since he can still take the case to a federal appeals court to seek a reversal of Judge Carney’s decision. Brophy’s attorney declined to comment on the ruling when reached by Billboard.
Rapper Tory Lanez has been found guilty on all three counts in the closely-watched trial over whether he shot Megan Thee Stallion in the foot, ending a nearly two-week trial over the July 2020 incident and setting the stage for a potentially lengthy prison sentence.The verdict was handed down by a jury in Los Angeles court on Friday (Dec. 23). Lanez was convicted on all counts: assault with a semiautomatic firearm; carrying a loaded, unregistered firearm in a vehicle; and discharging a firearm with gross negligence. He faces up to 22 years in prison.
Upon the reading of the verdict, Lanez’s father, who was present in the gallery, began screaming. “This wicked system. Shame of all of you!” he cried out.
In the course of the trial, Lanez’s defense team made their best effort to sow doubt over pulled the trigger, painting a scenario in which Megan’s ex-friend and assistant Harris was the shooter. To make their case, they leaned on inconsistent statements made by Megan in the more than two years since the incident as well as an account from alleged eyewitness Sean Kelly. However, Kelly undercut the defense team’s theory by offering confusing and contradictory testimony from the stand on Tuesday — stating he saw a muzzle flash near where Megan and Harris were scuffling in the street near his home but also that he saw a man matching Lanez’s description holding a gun and, at another point, that he never saw a gun at all.
On the other side, prosecutors have continuously highlighted Megan’s emotional testimony last week, when the Grammy winner held back sobs as she recounted the ordeal and said that she’s received severe public blowback in the wake of the incident, at one point stating, “I wish he had just shot and killed me if I would have known I was going to go through this torture.” In addition to Megan’s direct claims that Lanez was the one who pulled the trigger, prosecutors also poked holes in the defense team’s theory that Harris was the one responsible. In closing arguments, Deputy District Attorney Alexander Bott strongly suggested that Harris — who in a prior interview with prosecutors said that Lanez shot Megan and also assaulted her when she tried to intervene — contradicted her prior statements only after being threatened or paid off.
The blockbuster trial arrived nearly two and a half years after Megan was shot at least once in the foot in the early morning hours of July 12, 2020, while on the way home from a small party thrown by Kylie Jenner. According to Megan, after a fight erupted between Lanez, Harris and herself in an SUV driven by Lanez’s security guard Jaquan Smith, she exited the car only to be shot at multiple times by Lanez, who she claimed at one point shouted, “Dance, b—-” while firing out the window. That is clearly the version of the story that jurors, who took less than two days to reach their unanimous verdict, chose to believe.
The trial could well have dragged on beyond Christmas had either Lanez or Smith taken the stand, but on Wednesday, the rapper said he would not be testifying and defense lawyers opted against placing Smith on the stand, citing procedural wrangling and the possibility of a delay that could have forced jurors to return after the holiday.
Megan was not present for the reading of the verdict on Thursday.
Rex Orange County has had all six counts of sexual assault dismissed in his native U.K. following an investigation by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).
“Today, all charges against me have been dropped,” the British singer-songwriter (born Alexander O’Connor) tweeted on Thursday (Dec. 22). “The Crown Prosecution Service reviewed the evidence and decided that there is no merit in this case going to trial. I have always denied these allegations and am grateful that the independent evidence has cleared me of any wrongdoing. I have never assaulted anyone and I do not condone violence or abusive behaviour of any kind.”
In early October, O’Connor was charged with assaulting a woman in London on six separate occasions in June 2021. O’Connor had pleaded not guilty, and was set free on unconditional bail ahead of a provisional trial date set for Jan. 3, 2023.
The CPS concluded that the evidence “no longer met” its test for a prosecution, the BBC reported.
O’Connor reaffirmed his innocence in his statement on social media, saying that the only evidence against him was the accuser’s account, which was refuted by CCTV camera footage and testimony from another witness.
The singer-songwriter also addressed what he called “inaccuracies” surrounding the six charges.
“I was wrongly accused of touching someone one evening on their leg, neck, back, and bottom,” he wrote. “That led to 6 charges of sexual assault. The only evidence against me was the individual’s account. However, CCTV footage obtained by the police contradicted their version of events. Their partner was also present throughout the evening in question and gave a statement to the police which did not support the allegations against me.”
O’Connor concluded by noting that it’s “been a difficult time for everyone involved and I’d like to thank the people who have helped me through it as well as my family and loved ones for their continued support.”
O’Connor rose to prominence as Rex Orange County after being featured on Tyler, the Creator‘s 2017 album, Flower Boy, including the single “Boredom.” The English artist has released four studio albums, the last two — 2019’s Pony and 2022’s Who Cares? — on RCA Records in the United States. Both albums reached the top five on the Billboard 200, while Pony hit No. 1 on Top Alternative Albums. He has also tallied three singles in the top 10 of Billboard‘s Hot Rock Songs chart with “Pluto Projector,” “10/10” and “Face to Face.”
See O’Connor’s full statement on Twitter below.
Whether it was Taylor Swift or Prince or Cardi B, 2022 saw major legal battles involving some of the music industry’s biggest stars, ranging from never-ending copyright fights to sprawling criminal cases centered on rap lyrics. Some stars, like Katy Perry, won big; others, like Young Thug and Gunna, faced repeated setbacks; still others, like Megan Thee Stallion and Ed Sheeran, just got exhausted. To catch up, here are 10 big music law stories that you need to remember from 2022.
Taylor Swift Finally Shakes It Off
There was no bigger music copyright lawsuit than the long-running case accusing Taylor Swift of stealing the lyrics to “Shake It Off.” Since 2017, songwriters Sean Hall and Nathan Butler had argued that Swift’s song (an all-time smash hit that spent 50 weeks on Hot 100) stole some of its core lyrics from “Playas Gon’ Play,” a 2001 song they wrote for the R&B group 3LW. And despite arguments from Swift’s white-shoe lawyers that lyrics about “playas” and “haters” were too commonplace to be monopolized under copyright law, federal courts repeatedly refused to dismiss the case. Following in the wake of earlier battles over Robin Thicke’s “Blurred Lines” and Katy Perry’s “Dark Horse,” the lawsuit raised big questions about the where copyright protection ends and the public domain begins. Those questions were set to be answered at a blockbuster trial in January – until Swift and her accusers reached a sudden settlement earlier this month.
Rap On Trial: A Year of Highs and Lows
Despite widespread criticism of the practice, prosecutors continued to cite rap lyrics as evidence in criminal cases in 2022, most prominently when Young Thug and Gunna were indicted in May as part of a sweeping gang case against dozens of members of the Atlanta rap crew YSL. The charges included numerous references to Young Thug and Gunna’s music, claiming lyrics were the kind of “predicate acts” that contributed to the overall criminal enterprise. And Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, who bought the case, offered no apologies for doing so: “If you decide to admit your crimes over a beat, I’m gonna use it,” Willis said. “I’m going to continue to do that, people can continue to be angry about it.” And yet, 2022 also saw the enactment of landmark legislation in California that would sharply restrict the practice, and efforts to pass similar laws in New York state and at the federal level – hopeful signs for critics who say it unfairly targets black men and violates their First Amendment rights.
Prince Estate Case Closed – Finally
The long legal battle over Prince’s $156 million estate was finally resolved in 2022, more than six years after the iconic rocker died suddenly from a fentanyl overdose without a will. The estate had been stuck in probate court for years, under the control of a court-appointed bank as rival groups of legal heirs wrangled over the rocker’s legacy. Over time, those proceedings came to be dominated in part by Primary Wave, the music industry giant that slowly bought out various Prince heirs to amass a 50 percent stake in the estate. The biggest hurdle was cleared in January, when the heirs reached a deal with the Internal Revenue Service to set a final tax valuation of $156 million, followed by a ruling February on the basic structure for how the assets would be split into two groups, and then a final judicial approval in August. Prince’s legacy is now a music story and a business story, not a legal story.
Ed Sheeran’s Copyright Nightmare
Ed Sheeran says he’s tired of all the copyright lawsuits, but 2022 was something of an up-and-down year on that front. In April, he won a dramatic victory in UK court over his chart-topping 2017 hit “Shape of You,” when a judge ruled that he didn’t copy the song from a little-known track called “Oh Why.” Following an 11-day London trial – in which an opposing attorney called Sheeran a “magpie,” the singer repeatedly took the stand to defend himself, and he once even sang in open court – the judge ruled there was no evidence Sheeran had intentionally or even “subconsciously” copied any of the earlier material. But the respite was short-lived: In October, a federal judge in New York ruled that Sheeran must face a jury trial in a separate case claiming he borrowed key elements of his “Thinking Out Loud” from Marvin Gaye‘s iconic “Let’s Get It On. Barring a reversal (and Sheeran’s lawyers are asking for one) the decision set the stage for a blockbuster trial at some point in 2023, but a date has not yet been set.
Cardi B v. The World
Cardi B started the year with a bang, winning a $4 million defamation verdict in January against Tasha K, a gossip blogger who made salacious false claims on YouTube about drug use, STDs and prostitution. (Cardi’s lawyers are still trying to collect that money, btw.) And in October, she won at trial again, avoiding millions in damages by beating back a bizarre lawsuit filed by a California man whose back tattoos were unwittingly photoshopped onto the “raunchy” cover of Cardi’s 2016 mixtape Gangsta Bitch Music Vol. 1. The star herself took the witness stand in both trials, testifying about the pain of being defamed and sparring with an opposing lawyer over whether he had “receipts.” Oh, and Cardi also resolved a long-standing criminal case by pleading guilty in September to misdemeanor charges stemming from a 2018 bottle-throwing incident at a Queens strip club. All in all, a quiet year.
Dua Lipa’s Double-Whammy
One could argue you’re not truly a pop star until you’ve been sued for copyright infringement a few times; just ask Taylor Swift and Ed Sheeran. That means Dua Lipa must have truly arrived this year, when she was hit with not one but two separate lawsuits claiming she copied earlier songs when she wrote “Levitating”– the longest-running top 10 song ever by a female artist on the Hot 100. One case was filed by a Florida reggae band named Artikal Sound System, which claimed Lipa lifted the core hook for her song from their 2015 “Live Your Life.” The other case, filed a few days later in March, accused her of copying both a 1979 song called “Wiggle and Giggle All Night” and a 1980 song called “Don Diablo.” Armed with a top-flight legal team, Lipa has already struck back in both cases – but both remain pending.
Taylor Swift … Trust Buster?
Ticketmaster’s disastrous November presale for Taylor Swift’s upcoming Eras Tour – which saw widespread service delays and website crashes as millions of fans tried (and many failed) to buy tickets – resurfaced some uncomfortable legal questions for the all-powerful concert giant and its parent company Live Nation. Those questions have never fully gone away since the two companies merged in 2010, but in the days after the fiasco, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle called for new antitrust investigations – and that was before news broke that the U.S. Department of Justice had already launched such a probe. If violations are found, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), the chair of the Senate subcommittee for antitrust issues, urged regulators to consider “breaking up the company.” Meanwhile, state attorneys general across the country are also probing the debacle, and at least one class action lawsuit has already been filed accusing the company of fraud and “anticompetitive conduct.” Hell hath no fury like Swifties scorned…
Megan Thee Stallion’s Exhausting Year
Following an October appearance on Saturday Night Live promoting the release of her album Traumazine, Megan Thee Stallion said she needed to take a break because she was “so tired, physically and emotionally.” After her 2022 legal battles, it’s hard to blame her. In February, Megan’s long fight with her former record label, 1501 Certified Entertainment, escalated significantly when she accused the company of purposefully mislabeling an album to keep her locked into the deal. 1501 quickly countersued, then Megan upped the stakes again in August with new allegations and demands for damages. And all of that had nothing to do with the even bigger Megan story: A criminal case against Tory Lanez over charges that he shot her in the foot during a July 2020 altercation in Los Angeles. When a trial in that case kicked off earlier this month, Megan took the witness stand to recount the shooting and the toll it had taken on her. “I wish he had just shot and killed me,” she tearfully recounted.
R. Kelly Gets 30 Years – And Gets Convicted Again
Things went from bad to worse for R. Kelly in 2022. After being convicted last year in New York on racketeering and sex trafficking charges, the disgraced R&B singer was sentenced to 30 years in prison on those charges in June. Then in August, he was convicted in Chicago on separate child pornography charges stemming from an infamous video tape involving him and minor, meaning he faces decades more in prison time. His attorneys plan to appeal both convictions.
Katy Perry Wins Case and Makes Law
When Katy Perry won a copyright ruling at a federal appeals court in March, declaring that her 2013 chart-topper “Dark Horse” hadn’t infringed an earlier song, it was a bigger deal than just one case. Sure, it was important to Perry herself, who avoided $2.8 million verdict by defeating the accusations. And the star was obviously pleased, telling a Las Vegas concert crowd in a viral clip: “So just be sure…before you take me to court, ‘cause I’m a Scorpio, bitch!” But the ruling was also a clear rejection of similar infringement cases over songs, stressing that simple musical “building blocks,” like the short “ostinato” in Perry’s song, cannot be locked up by any particular songwriter because it would chill future songwriting creativity. Much like a 2020 ruling on “Stairway To Heaven,” the decision for Perry could be seen as part of a pendulum swing away from earlier decisions over Robin Thicke’s “Blurred Lines,” which were criticized by some for expanding music copyrights to more basic elements.
Tory Lanez said Wednesday (Dec. 21) that he will not take the witness stand in his own defense in the trial over whether he shot Megan Thee Stallion in the foot, signaling the end of testimony in the week-long trial and setting the stage for jurors to begin deliberating on a verdict.
Putting a defendant on the stand to be cross-examined by prosecutors is a big gamble in any criminal case, and Lanez’s attorneys opted not to do so — resting their case without giving Lanez a chance to personally persuade jurors that he didn’t pull the trigger the night Megan was shot.
“I will not testify,” said Lanez, sitting beside his father, to Judge David V. Herriford.
During Wednesday morning’s proceedings, it was also revealed that Jaquan Smith, Lanez’s driver who was present the night of Megan’s shooting, would similarly not be testifying. Smith, who could have provided eye-witness testimony to the incident, had been present at the courthouse earlier in the day.
With no testimony from Lanez or Smith, both the prosecution and the defense will proceed to make their closing arguments later in the day on Wednesday. After that, the case will be submitted to the jury, with a verdict expected as early as Wednesday evening.
Lanez stands accused of three felony counts over the July 12, 2020 incident, during which prosecutors say he yelled “Dance, b—-” and shot at Megan’s feet, striking her at least once. If convicted on all three counts, he faces up to 22 years in prison. His lawyers have steadfastly maintained his innocence, suggesting throughout the trial that the trigger might instead have been pulled by Kelsey Harris, Megan’s former friend and assistant who was also in the vehicle that night.
Kicking off Dec. 12, the trial has seen gripping testimony from Megan herself, who recounted the alleged shooting, pinned the blame on Lanez and said, “I wish he had just shot and killed me.” Harris — expected to be a star witness for the prosecution — also took the stand, but she largely failed to re-affirm previous statements pinning the blame on Lanez. Then on Friday (Dec. 16), prosecutors played recordings of Harris’ earlier statements, in which she clearly stated that Lanez had shot the Grammy-winning rapper and then tried to buy both women’s silence with million-dollar bribes.
Back in court this week, jurors heard confusing and contradictory testimony from Sean Kelly, a man who allegedly saw the entire incident from his nearby home. Expected to be a key witness for Lanez’s defense team, Kelly told jurors that he saw Harris violently grappling with Megan outside the vehicle, but that he also saw a man matching Tory Lanez’s description holding a gun. Bizarrely, he then later said he never actually saw a gun at all.
Smith, the driver of the vehicle, could have provided additional perspective as the only other person present during the incident — and the only one who has never been suggested to have been involved in the shooting. But like Lanez, he was never placed on the witness stand on Wednesday.
Speaking to Billboard during the recess, Lanez attorney George Mgdesyan said he’d wanted Smith to testify, but that procedural wrangling and the possibility of a delay that could have forced jurors to return after Christmas prevented him from taking the stand.
This is a developing story and will be updated later on Wednesday with more information from the afternoon’s proceedings.
Sean Kelly, an alleged eye witness to the 2020 incident in which Megan Thee Stallion was shot, offered confusing and contradictory testimony Tuesday (Dec. 20) about what really happened, saying he never actually saw a gun — but also that he saw a man matching Tory Lanez’s description holding one, and that Megan’s former friend and assistant Kelsey Harris may also have fired.
During the seventh day of the blockbuster trial, Kelly (a key witness for Lanez’s defense team) testified that when he first looked outside his home on the night of the incident, he saw Megan and Harris kicking and punching each other outside of a vehicle. “They were pulling their hair and hitting each other. It was quite violent,” he told Lanez’s attorney George Mgdesyan.
Shortly after a man matching the description of Lanez’s driver Jaquan Smith got out of the car and attempted to separate them, Kelly says he heard a shot fired. He said a man matching Lanez’s description then exited the car, leading to a scuffle between all four people — and that four or five more shots then rang out.
Lanez’s defense team has suggested throughout the trial that Harris, not Lanez, potentially pulled the trigger, partly based on an earlier interview Kelly gave to them in Jan. 2021. In confusing testimony that repeatedly contradicted itself, Kelly didn’t offer much clarity on that point. The alleged witness, who called 911 but never identified the shooters on that call, first said he “never saw a gun” and “just saw flashes” and that he believed one of the women fired it — before later appearing to confirm that he saw Lanez (referred to as “the shorter guy”) holding the weapon.
“Did you see the shorter guy with a gun in his hand?” asked Mgdesyan.
“Yes,” answered Kelly.
Later in his testimony, Kelly said he witnessed three of the people beating one of the women in the street as she was curled in a ball, before hearing the man matching Smith’s description say, “The cops are coming!” He then said he saw someone in the group pick the woman up — at which point he believed the group was going to attempt to throw her into a nearby creek. “It appeared to me they were trying to kill her. Dragged her across the street and picked her up,” he said.
Kelly became visibly agitated during cross-examination from the prosecution, when he once again testified that he saw the man matching Lanez’s description shooting the gun, saying “the short guy was agitated; he got out of the car. His arm was stretched out and he was firing everywhere. Four or five shots.” At this point, Lanez, wearing a white turtleneck under a white jacket, looked on sternly, his eyes bulging as he listened to Kelly’s testimony.
During the redirect with Mgdesyan, Kelly once again appeared to contradict his own version of events, stating, “I believe the girl [Harris] fired the first shot.”
Kelly’s testimony came more than a week into a closely-watched trial over the July 12, 2020 incident, during which prosecutors say Lanez yelled “Dance, b—-” and shot at Megan’s feet, striking her at least once. He’s charged with three felony counts — assault with a firearm, gun possession and discharging a firearm with gross negligence — and could face as much as 22 years in prison if convicted.
The first week of the trial saw gripping testimony from Megan herself, who recounted the alleged shooting, pinned the blame on Lanez, and said, “I wish he had just shot and killed me.” Later in the week, Harris — expected to be a star witness for the prosecution — largely failed to re-affirm previous statements pinning the blame on Lanez. But on Friday (Dec. 16), prosecutors played recordings of those earlier statements, in which Harris clearly stated that Lanez had shot the Grammy-winning rapper and then tried to buy both women’s silence with million-dollar bribes.
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: Gunna takes a plea deal to escape the sprawling case against Atlanta rap crew YSL, the Tory Lanez/Megan Thee Stallion trial continues with blockbuster testimony, Metallica loses a battle with its insurance company, and much more.
THE BIG STORY: Gunna Pleads Guilty, But Says He Won’t Flip
With a trial looming in less than a month, the rapper Gunna bowed out this week from the closely-watched criminal case against members of the Atlanta rap crew YSL, reaching a deal with prosecutors that will allow him to end his “personal ordeal” while seemingly still not cooperating against Young Thug or the other defendants.The chart-topping, Grammy-nominated rapper (real name Sergio Kitchens) took a so-called Alford plea — a maneuver that allows a defendant to enter a formal admission of guilt while still maintaining their innocence. After pleading guilty to the single charge he was facing, he was sentenced to five years in prison but immediately released because he was credited with one year of time served, while the rest of the sentence was suspended.Gunna’s plea deal will allow him to exit a sweeping criminal case filed in May by Fulton County prosecutors, who claimed YSL was not really a record label called “Young Stoner Life,” but a violent Atlanta street gang called “Young Slime Life.” Listing dozens of individual allegations (including murder, carjacking, armed robbery, drug dealing and illegal firearm possession), the case accused Young Thug (real name Jeffery Williams) and 27 others of violating Georgia’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, a state version of the more famous federal RICO statute that’s been used to target the mafia. Such laws make it easier for prosecutors to sweep up many members of an alleged criminal conspiracy based on smaller “predicate acts” that aren’t directly related.A plea deal for Gunna made sense. The rapper was facing only a single charge and was named in only nine of the 191 predicates that make up the YSL RICO case — and most of those were either problematic references to his music or linked to an earlier case in which he eventually pled guilty to having illegally tinted windows. By way of comparison, Young Thug is facing several other separate criminal charges over guns and drugs and is named in substantially more of the RICO predicates.But such a deal was always going to raise heated debate about the touchy subject of snitching — about whether Gunna had won his freedom by promising to cooperate with prosecutors against Young Thug and the other defendants. In his own statement announcing the deal, the rapper strongly denied any such arrangement.“While I have agreed to always be truthful, I want to make it perfectly clear that I have NOT made any statements, have NOT been interviewed, have NOT cooperated, have NOT agreed to testify or be a witness for or against any party in the case and have absolutely NO intention of being involved in the trial process in any way,” Gunna wrote.The situation is a little more complicated. In footage of the plea hearing, Gunna acknowledged that YSL was both “a music label and a gang,” and that he had “personal knowledge that members or associates of YSL have committed crimes in furtherance of the gang.” He also acknowledged that if called by any party in the case, he would be required to testify “truthfully.” But he also reserved his Fifth Amendment right to avoid incriminating himself and, in texts released on social media this week, Gunna’s lawyer made clear that if subpoenaed, the rapper would indeed “take the 5th and not testify.”The trial against Young Thug and the rest of the defendants is set to kick off Jan. 9, so stay tuned.
Other top stories this week…
TORY LANEZ TRIAL CONTINUES – The criminal trial over whether Tory Lanez shot Megan Thee Stallion in the foot ran all week long, featuring blockbuster testimony in which Megan herself recounted the alleged shooting and said, “I wish he had just shot and killed me.” Later in the week, the rapper’s former friend and assistant Kelsey Harris — expected to be a star witness for the prosecution — largely failed to re-affirm previous statements pinning the blame on Lanez. But then on Friday (Dec. 16), prosecutors played recordings of those earlier statements, in which Harris said Lanez had shot the Grammy-winning rapper and then tried to buy both women’s silence with million-dollar bribes. The trial continues and, though a verdict was expected this week, it’s unclear if the case is moving fast enough to get there.LIVESTREAM FIASCO – Nearly two years after Marc Anthony was forced to cancel his highly-anticipated “Una Noche” livestream concert at the last minute, event promoter Loud and Live Entertainment filed a breach of contract lawsuit against Maestro, the streaming platform that hosted the show. Loud and Live says Maestro assured them its technology could “automatically scale” to accommodate over 100,000 ticketholders, but had suffered a “complete collapse” when users tried to log on, causing “significant economic losses.”METALLICA LOSES INSURANCE BATTLE – A California judge ruled that Metallica’s insurance company (a unit of Lloyd’s of London) doesn’t need to pay for six South American concerts that were canceled when COVID-19 struck, thanks to an exclusion in the policy for “communicable diseases.” The case is one of many that have been filed by music venues, bars and other businesses seeking insurance coverage for harm caused by COVID-19 — and one of many that have been decided in favor of insurance companies.DEVIL IN THE DETAILS FOR MGK – Citing the name of Machine Gun Kelly’s 2019 album Hotel Diablo, lawyers for the superstar last week quietly launched a legal battle to block the television network Fox from securing a trademark registration on the term “Diablo” — the name of an anthropomorphic dog character on Fox’s animated sitcom HouseBroken. Kelly’s attorneys, who are currently seeking to trademark a wide range of terms linked to the star, argued that Fox’s “Diablo” was “confusingly similar in overall commercial impression” to “Hotel Diablo” and must be refused.ULTRA V. ULTRA – Nearly a year after Ultra Records founder Patrick Moxey sold his 50% share of the lauded dance imprint to Sony Music, the major label sued him for trademark infringement over his continued use of the “Ultra” name. When Moxey parted ways with the imprint, which he founded in 1995, he held on to another company called Ultra International Music Publishing, but the new lawsuit from Sony claims he has no legal rights to use the “Ultra” name following the sale: “He has sought to perpetuate the falsehood that he remains involved with Ultra Records by wrongfully continuing to use Ultra Records’ ULTRA trademark.”
Harvey Weinstein on Monday (Dec. 19) was found guilty of rape in a Los Angeles trial. The conviction further cements his plunge from one of the most influential producers in Hollywood to the face of the #MeToo movement.
But the jury acquitted Weinstein of sexual battery by restraint against one of his Jane Doe accusers.
Jurors also couldn’t reach a decision on three sexual assault charges, including rape.
This trial centered on testimony from four women, all known as Jane Does in court, who accused Weinstein of raping or sexually assaulting them from 2004 to 2013. Four others also testified that they were assaulted, though their claims didn’t lead to charges. In total, prosecutors called 44 witnesses to the stand to make their case against the former movie mogul.
Weinstein faced two counts of rape and five counts of sexual assault. He pleaded not guilty to all charges against him. Weinstein is currently serving a 23-year sentence following his conviction by a New York jury in Feb. 2020 of committing a criminal sexual act in the first degree and third-degree rape. He appealed the sentence, but it was affirmed by an appeals court in June.
Jurors started deliberating on Dec. 2. It reached a verdict on the 10th day of deliberations, after roughly 41 hours considering the case.
Weinstein sat at end of the defense table with his attorneys Mark Werksman and Alan Jackson after the jury walked into the ninth floor courtroom of the Clara Shortridge Foltz courthouse in downtown Los Angeles to announce that it had reached a verdict.
The verdict comes on the heels of a host of other decisions in cases with #MeToo implications. Across the hall of the downtown Los Angeles courtroom in which Weinstein’s trial unfolded, a judge declared a mistrial on Nov. 30 in actor Danny Masterson’s rape case after the jury said it was “hopelessly deadlocked.” In New York, Academy Award-winning filmmaker Paul Haggis was ordered to pay $10 million to a woman who accused him of rape, while actor Kevin Spacey beat a sexual misconduct suit brought by Anthony Rapp, who alleged sexual abuse when he was 14.
Weinstein, who reigned as one of Hollywood’s most influential producers, didn’t testify. The defense primarily focused on poking holes in the testimony of the eight accusers — four Jane Does and four named witnesses whose accusations didn’t lead to charges.
Werksman said Jane Does No. 1 and 2 lied about their accusations, while Jane Does No. 3 and 4 had “transactional sex” with Weinstein to advance their careers.
“Take my word for it — five words that sum up the entirety of the prosecution’s case,” said Alan Jackson, also representing Weinstein, in closing arguments on Dec. 1.
Jane Doe No. 1 — a model and actress — testified that she was raped in a hotel room in February 2013. After demanding to be let in, she alleges that Weinstein started to masturbate before forcing her to perform oral sex and raping her. She reported the incident to law enforcement in 2017.
The Hollywood Reporter doesn’t typically name people who say they were sexually assaulted unless they voluntarily come forward. Several of the women who testified against Weinstein have disclosed that they were assaulted.
Among them is Jennifer Siebel Newsom, who was a relatively unknown actress when she met Weinstein at the Toronto International Film Festival in 2005 before marrying Gov. Gavin Newsom. She testified that she was raped in a meeting Weinstein set up to discuss her career, bursting into tears when asked to identify the disgraced movie mogul. “He’s wearing a suit and a blue tie, and he’s staring at me,” she said from the witness stand.
Prosecutors detailed a “recorded pattern” among the assaults of Weinstein luring his accusers into an isolated hotel room under the guise of professional meetings.
During opening statements, Werksman said Siebel Newsom would be “just another bimbo who slept with Harvey Weinstein to get ahead in Hollywood” if she wasn’t married to the governor.
The accusations against Weinstein date to a time when he was at the apex of his powers in Hollywood. Over 40 years in the industry, he played a part in launching the careers of countless A-listers and award winners.
More to come.
This article originally appeared on The Hollywood Reporter.
For Machine Gun Kelly and Fox, the devil might be in the details.
Citing the name of Kelly’s 2019 album Hotel Diablo, lawyers for the superstar last week quietly launched a legal battle to block the television network from securing a trademark on the term “Diablo” — the name of a character on Fox’s animated sitcom HouseBroken.
Fox Media LLC applied to register the term as a trademark for selling a wide range of goods “in connection with an animated, dog-like character.” That was clearly a reference to “Diablo,” an anthropomorphic terrier voiced by Tony Hale on the hit animated show, which rolled out its second season earlier this month.
But in a case filed on Tuesday (Dec. 13) at the federal trademark office, lawyers for Kelly’s company Lace Up LLC argued that Fox’s trademark was “confusingly similar in overall commercial” to the term “Hotel Diablo,” meaning consumers might be duped into thinking that Kelly was somehow involved in the Fox merch.
Kelly’s lawyers appear to have filed the case because their own application, seeking to register “Hotel Diablo” as a trademark, was suspended earlier this year due to the existence of the Fox “Diablo” application.
Released on July 5, 2019, Hotel Diablo wasn’t as big a hit as Kelly’s more recent chart-topping albums Tickets To My Downfall and Mainstream Sellout, but it still reached No. 5 on the Billboard 200 and eventually spent 20 weeks on the chart.
In December 2020, Kelly’s Lace Up LLC applied at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to secure a trademark registration on the album name — a maneuver commonly used by major artists that makes it easier to sue over fake merch, online scammers and other brand infringements. Kelly’s company already owns such a registration for his “MGK” logo, and is currently seeking similar protection for “Machine Gun Kelly” itself as well as the name of his famous “Rap Devil” diss track and many other terms he claims as trademarks.
But in February, the USPTO suspended Lace Up’s application on the grounds that it might be confusingly similar to Fox “Diablo” application, which had been filed six months earlier in June 2020.
So last week, Kelly’s lawyers filed the current case at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, a court-like body within the USPTO where rival trademark owners can battle over who has better rights to a disputed name. They say the star has “priority of use” and that Fox’s application must be denied.
“Because of the similarity between the DIABLO Mark and the HOTEL DIABLO Mark, and because the goods covered under the DIABLO Application are related to the goods sold under the HOTEL DIABLO Mark, consumers are likely to be confused, mistaken, or deceived into believing that Applicant’s goods originate with Opposer or are in some way associated with or connected, sponsored, or authorized by Opposer,” Kelly’s lawyers wrote.
The filing of the case will initiate a lawsuit-like proceeding, in which Fox will have a chance to respond to defend its “Diablo” trademark and the board will ultimately issue a ruling. But many such disputes end with settlements, including with a simple agreement that the two brands can co-exist peacefully without confusing consumers.
An attorney for Kelly’s company and a rep for Fox did not immediately return a request for comment.