The Legal Beat

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: Drake is sued for using a fake Vogue cover story to promote his new album, the sprawling lawsuit over Astroworld passes the one-year mark with no quick end in sight, Mariah Carey beats a lawsuit over “All I Want For Christmas Is You” and much more.

THE BIG STORY: Vogue Isn’t Laughing About Drake’s PR Stunt

A publicity stunt is all fun and games until somebody gets sued.For the past week, Drake and 21 Savage have been on a media blitz to promote their new album Her Loss, which debuted Friday. The stars appeared on the cover of an issue of Vogue magazine, performed on Saturday Night Live, teased an appearance on NPR’s Tiny Desk and sat for an interview on The Howard Stern Show.Just one problem: All of those appearances were fake. The Vogue covers were photoshopped onto fake issues distributed around the country (Jennifer Lawrence was on the real October issue); the SNL performance was a spoof, with a high-profile assist from Michael B. Jordan as the fake “host”; NPR quickly confirmed the Tiny Desk show wasn’t happening; and the Stern appearance was an elaborate deepfake.The whole thing appears to be a publicity stunt, carried out by an artist who doesn’t really need to do promo for his album releases and hasn’t done so in recent years — but would be eagerly invited to actually appear on those outlets if he wanted to go that route.Case in point: NPR used the stunt as an opportunity to tell the star he was “welcome anytime” on the beloved concert series: “Let’s do it forreal tho.” And Stern laughed the whole thing off, jokingly quipping about the convincing deepfake version of himself: “Whenever I have to visit my mother, I wish I could do this.” No word from SNL, but a show famous for parody is unlikely to be offended.The same cannot be said for Vogue publisher Condé Nast, which filed a lawsuit against Drake and 21 in New York federal court this week that called the stunt a “flagrant infringement” of the company’s trademark rights, aimed at exploiting the “tremendous value that a cover feature in Vogue magazine carries” without actually securing that honor.The publisher seemed particularly miffed by Drake’s Instagram post teasing the fake cover story, in which he personally thanked famed Vogue editor Anna Wintour. The infamous magazine editor “had no involvement” with Drake’s album and has “not endorsed it in any way,” Condé’s lawyers wrote.If the case doesn’t immediately settle with Drake pulling down the images (a strong possibility in any trademark case) Condé’s lawsuit could lead to an interesting debate over parody. Is Drake’s stunt a commentary on the way media outlets like Vogue or SNL (or Billboard, for that matter) team up with celebrities to help them promote their latest offerings? Or is he just exploiting their names to pump sales of his album without actually doing the hard work of a press tour?

The Other Big Story: Astroworld Update

A year on from the deadly disaster at Travis Scott‘s Astroworld festival, Billboard took a deep dive into the status of the sprawling lawsuit that’s been filed by victims.More than 4,900 legal claims have been filed against Live Nation, Scott and other festival organizers, accusing them of being legally negligent in how they planned and conducted the event. Combined, the cases are seeking billions in damages over the disaster.With no quick ending in sight, we asked some of the country’s top experts in such cases: Where do things stand? What comes next? And how will it all end? Read the whole thing here.

Other top stories this week…

RECORD LABELS WIN BIG PIRACY VERDICT – A federal jury in Texas ordered internet service provider Grande Communications to pay more than $46 million in damages to the three major record labels and others over music illegally downloaded by the company’s subscribers. The case was one of several filed by music companies against ISPs, aimed at forcing them to take more proactive steps to eliminate piracy on their networks — the same kind of case that ended with a shocking $1 billion verdict against Cox Communications in 2019.OBSCURE RULE IS BIG WIN FOR SONGWRITERS – As first reported by Billboard last week, the U.S. Copyright Office is quietly proposing a new rule to make sure that songwriters who invoke their termination rights actually get paid their streaming royalties. The rule change would overturn a previous “erroneous” policy by the Mechanical Licensing Collective that critics worried could potentially have kept sending such money to former owners in perpetuity, even after a songwriter has reclaimed their rights. Groups like the Recording Academy and the Songwriters of North America, which lobbied for the rule change, praised it as a win for songwriters.MARIAH CAREY ‘CHRISTMAS’ ACCUSER DROPS CASE – Vince Vance, a songwriter who sued Mariah Carey over accusations that she stole her “All I Want for Christmas is You” from his earlier song of the same name, dropped his lawsuit over Carey’s 1994 holiday blockbuster. But he dismissed the case “without prejudice,” leaving open the possibility that he could refile the case at some point in the future. If you’re confused why Carey can be sued over a decades-old song, go read our explainer on the issue (spoiler: because the Supreme Court said so!) Though legally dubious, Vance’s case was a big deal simply because Carey’s song is a big deal: It has reached No. 1 on the Billboard Hot 100 during each of the past three holiday seasons.KESHA & DR. LUKE GET A TRIAL DATE – A New York judge scheduled a July trial for Dr. Luke’s defamation lawsuit against Kesha, setting the stage for a courtroom showdown nearly nine years after the case was first filed. A trial had previously been scheduled to start in February, but with key issues in the case still awaiting rulings by a state appeals court, both sides saw that plan as unworkable (and blamed the other for the delay). If you’ve forgotten: Dr. Luke is accusing Kesha of defaming him with a “false and shocking” allegation that he drugged and raped her after a 2005 party.

The best of the rest…

–Kanye West paid a settlement to a former employee who alleged having witnessed more than one incident in which the once-beloved rapper praised Hitler or Nazis in business meetings. In the settlement agreement, West denied the claims made by the former employee. (NBC News)-The U.S. Supreme Court said it wouldn’t hear music producer Gary “G-Money” Frisby’s copyright suit against Sony Music and rapper Bryson Tiller over beats on Tiller’s album Trapsoul. (Law360)–Trey Songz won the dismissal of a $20 million sexual assault lawsuit that had been filed, dismissed and then re-filed by a Jane Doe accuser. A judge ruled that the accuser missed a key deadline to respond to Songz’s defense that the statute of limitations on her allegations had expired. (Rolling Stone)

This is The Legal Beat, a weekly column 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: Cardi B goes to trial in a weird case over a bawdy album cover, Gunna is again refused bond in Atlanta, Ed Sheeran warns that a copyright ruling might “strangle” future songwriters and much more.

THE BIG STORY: Cardi Heads to Trial Over Bawdy Album Cover

In one of the weirder cases you’ll ever hear about, Cardi B is headed to a federal courthouse today to defend against claims that the cover of her debut mixtape “humiliated” a man named Kevin Brophy, who alleges he was unwittingly photoshopped into the artwork to make it look like he was performing oral sex on the now-superstar.Yes, you read that right. And I didn’t even tell you yet that the entire thing hinges on a giant back tattoo featuring “a tiger battling a snake.”As Cardi’s star was rising in 2016, she released Gangsta Bitch Music Vol. 1 with a provocative cover – an image of her swigging a beer, staring into the camera … with a man’s head between her legs. The actual guy in the image was a model (who consented to the whole thing), but the giant tattoo on his back belonged to Brophy (who didn’t). Unbeknownst to Cardi, a freelance graphic designer had typed “back tattoos” into Google Image, found one that fit, and Photoshopped it onto the model’s body. It apparently didn’t occur to him that he would need anyone’s approval to do so.Years later, the two will now square off before a jury over whether the image broke the law, and whether Cardi herself is to blame.Brophy claims the star and others violated his right of publicity by using his likeness without his consent, and also invasion of his privacy by casting him in a “false light” that was “highly offensive” to a reasonable person. He claims he was “devastated, humiliated and embarrassed” by the cover.Cardi says those accusations are “sheer fantasy” and “vastly overblown.” Her legal team says Cardi had no idea Brophy’s image was being used, and that he’s just suing her in an effort to “cash in the legal equivalent of a lotto ticket.” But their chief argument is even simpler: That nobody would have ever recognized a relatively unknown person based on a cropped image of his back tattoo.“No matter how much plaintiff may be obsessed with the notion, the fact remains that it is not  ‘him,’ or a ‘likeness of him,’ or ‘his identity’ in the cover image,” Cardi’s lawyers wrote.Cardi is expected to testify at some point, with a verdict expected by the end of the week or early next week. We’ll keep you posted over at Billboard.com when the news drops.

Other top stories this week…

VLOGGER BETTER HAVE MY MONEY – Elsewhere in Cardi-world, a federal judge ruled that Tasha K – a gossip blogger who made salacious claims about the star – must either immediately pay up on an almost $4 million defamation verdict or secure a bond covering the entire amount. Tasha is currently appealing the verdict and wanted to pause the judgement while she does so, but Cardi’s lawyers warned last month that the YouTuber had bragged about taking steps to “insulate herself” from the huge damages award, and might use the delay to avoid paying entirely.GUNNA DENIED BOND YET AGAIN – For a third time, a Georgia judge refused to release Gunna from jail ahead of his January trial in the sweeping case against Young Thug and others accused of operating a violent gang in the Atlanta area. The order came after prosecutors claimed to have text messages in which a co-defendant in the sprawling case offered to “whack someone” on the rapper’s behalf, prompting the judge to say that he had the “same concerns” about the potential for witness tampering. But just a day later, Gunna’s lawyers cried foul, claiming the alleged smoking gun text actually had “nothing to do with witness intimidation” and had been used to mislead the court.SHOTS FIRED OVER POWERHOUSE MUSIC LAWYER – In an exclusive interview with Billboard’s Frank DiGiacomo, Rolling Stone founder Jann Wenner blasted the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame for its upcoming induction of powerhouse music lawyer Allen Grubman, saying it was “about money and bending to the ego of a music business power broker.” Grubman is one of the most powerful attorneys in the industry, counting Bruce Springsteen, Lizzo, The Weeknd, Lil Nas X, Lady Gaga and other stars as clients, as well as major music companies and digital streamers. But Wenner said he decided to speak out because he believes Grubman clearly doesn’t fit the criteria: “Grubman has made no contribution of any kind, by any definition, to the creative development or the history of rock & roll.”WARHOL & PRINCE AT SCOTUS – More than three decades after Andy Warhol‘s death and six years after Prince‘s sudden passing, the two pop culture icons took center stage at U.S. Supreme Court , as the justices heard arguments in a major copyright case. At issue in the dispute is whether the late Warhol made a legal “fair use” of a photograph of Prince when he used it as the basis for a set of his distinctive screen prints – or merely infringed the copyrights of Lynn Goldsmith, the photographer who snapped it. During the proceedings, the justices grappled with tough questions, like what exactly is necessary to “transform” a copyrighted work into a fair use. In a lighter moment, Justice Clarence Thomas disclosed that he had been a fan of Prince’s music “in the ’80s,” to which Justice Elena Kagan asked “no longer?” As the room erupted in laughter, Thomas replied enigmatically: “Only on Thursday night.”ED SHEERAN WARNS OF ‘STRANGLED’ SONGWRITERS – The pop star’s lawyers asked a federal judge to rethink a recent decision that said the singer must face a trial over whether “Thinking Out Loud” infringes Marvin Gaye‘s “Let’s Get It On.” The decision came two weeks after Judge Louis Stanton refused to toss the case out, ruling that a jury would have to decide Sheeran’s argument that he only borrowed basic, unprotectable musical “building blocks.” In the new filing, the star’s lawyers warned the judge that forcing musicians to face trials over such material would have a chilling effect on the industry and threaten to “strangle creation” by future songwriters. In technical terms, Sheeran’s attorneys want the judge to either undo the ruling entirely, or allow them to immediately appeal it before he faces trial.SLACKER HIT WITH HUGE UNPAID ROYALTY BILL – A federal judge ruled that streaming platform Slacker owes nearly $10 million in unpaid performance royalties to record labels and artists. SoundExchange, which collects streaming royalties for sound recordings, sued Slacker and parent company LiveOne in June, claiming they had refused to pay millions over a five-year period. This week, Judge André Birotte Jr. made it official, ordering that Slacker pay $9,765,396 in unpaid royalties and late fees. Importantly, he also banned the company from using the so-called statutory license – a key copyright provision that allows radio-like streamers to get easy access to licenses at a fixed rate. Now, Slacker will presumably need to negotiate direct licenses from rights holders for sound recordings, similar to what on-demand streaming services like Spotify must do.