The Legal Beat
Page: 7
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: Two new misconduct lawsuits, one against publishing exec Kenny MacPherson and another against R&B star Jason Derulo; a ruling for Cardi B that a gossip blogger can’t use bankruptcy to escape a huge defamation judgment; a new Supreme Court case that’s “vitally important to the music industry”; and more.
Want to get The Legal Beat newsletter in your email inbox every Tuesday? Subscribe here for free.
THE BIG STORY: Music #MeToo
The music industry was rocked last week by two new sexual misconduct lawsuits: one against a powerful publishing executive and another against a chart-topping R&B star.
In a complaint filed Wednesday, a woman named Sara Lewis leveled accusations of sexual assault and harassment against Kenny MacPherson, the CEO of Hipgnosis Songs Fund’s publishing unit. Lewis claimed she “endured an onslaught of unwanted sexual advances” from MacPherson while she worked as an A&R at Chrysalis Music during the mid-2000s when he served as the company’s president.
Through an attorney, MacPherson “vehemently” denied the allegations, stressing that the “unverified” claims stemmed from nearly two decades in the past. But Hipgnosis quickly placed him on leave of absence pending an internal investigation: “Hipgnosis Songs Fund has a policy of zero-tolerance to harassment or abuse,” a company spokesperson said.
A day later, a woman named Emaza Gibson accused singer Jason Derulo of repeatedly sexually harassing her, then dropping her from a deal with his Atlantic Records imprint Future History after she rebuffed his advances. He strongly denied the claims, calling them “completely false and hurtful.”
Nearly six years on from the start of the #MeToo movement, the music industry is experiencing a new wave of such accusations. Two women filed lawsuits late last year against Atlantic Records over sexual assault allegations against late co-founder Ahmet Ertegun; country star Jimmie Allen was hit with two sexual assault lawsuits in May; and Backstreet Boys member Nick Carter has been sued by three different women who claim he sexually assaulted them as minors in the 2000s.
Go read the entire story on the Derulo accusations here and the entire story on the MacPherson allegations here, featuring full breakdowns of the cases and access to the actual court documents.
Other top stories this week…
BETTER HAVE MY MONEY – Two years after Cardi B won a nearly $4 million defamation verdict against a YouTube host named Tasha K over her salacious lies about drug use, STDs and prostitution, a federal judge ruled that the gossip blogger could not use Chapter 11 bankruptcy to avoid paying most of the judgment.
TRANSATLANTIC CUSTODY SETTLEMENT – Lawyers for Joe Jonas and Sophie Turner, currently locked in a very public divorce, said the former couple was close to an “amicable resolution” to end Turner’s unusual federal lawsuit, which cited international treaties on child abduction to demand the return of the couple’s two young daughters to her native England.
ELECTRIC ZOO SUITS MOUNT – A month after this year’s chaotic iteration of the Electric Zoo festival in New York, a group of ticket buyers filed a class action over what they called an “absolute fiasco.” The lawsuit is at least the fourth such lawsuit filed against Brooklyn promoter Avant Gardner, the organizer of the popular dance music event.
FILE THE SUIT, PAY THE PRICE? – Sam Smith and Normani demanded to be reimbursed for money they spent defeating a failed copyright lawsuit that accused them of ripping off their 2019 hit, “Dancing With a Stranger,” from an earlier song. The final legal bill? A whopping $732,202.
MUSIC BIZ HEADS TO SCOTUS – The U.S. Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari filed by Warner Music Group, agreeing to tackle a case over copyright damages that labels and publishers have called “vitally important to the music industry.” The case is complicated, so go read our deep-dive explainer here.
LADY GAGA DOGNAPPING CASE – A Los Angeles judge once again ruled that Lady Gaga was not obligated to pay a $500,000 reward for the return of her stolen French bulldogs to the very same woman who was criminally charged over the incident. Echoing an earlier ruling, the judge said the woman had “unclean hands” that prevented her from profiting from her actions.
‘MY HUMPS’ v. ‘MY POOPS’ – Abruptly ending what could have been a major battle over copyright fair use, BMG Rights Management reached a settlement to end a copyright lawsuit against toymaker MGA Entertainment over “My Poops” — a scatological parody song set to the tune of The Black Eyed Peas’ “My Humps.”
TUPAC MURDER CASE UPDATE – Duane “Keffe D” Davis, the man who prosecutors say masterminded the 1996 shooting death of Tupac Shakur in Las Vegas, made his first court appearance. Davis, who had been a long-known suspect in the case and publicly admitted his role in the killing in a tell-all memoir, was indicted late last month on one count of murder with a deadly weapon.
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: The owners of the rights to the “Space Jam” theme song are demanding payment for a song that’s been heavily used in internet memes and online mashups; Cardi B and Megan Thee Stallion beat a copyright lawsuit over ‘WAP’; Karol G and Tiësto are sued for infringement over a little-known song; and much more.
Want to get The Legal Beat newsletter in your email inbox every Tuesday? Subscribe here for free.
THE BIG STORY: Everybody Get Up, It’s Time To Sue Now
The theme song to the movie Space Jam, performed by Florida hip-hop trio Quad City DJ’s, is a mid-1990s classic, with bass-heavy dance beats that instantly call to mind Michael Jordan and the characters from Looney Tunes squaring off in a basketball game against alien invaders. I know you can hear it now: Here’s your chance, do your dance, at the Space Jammmm….
But it’s also, weirdly, a mid-2000s classic. Somewhere in the hazy early days of social media, the theme embarked on a bizarre second act as a meme – the basis for hundreds or thousands of absurdist “slam remix” videos that combined the song with other audio and video, often inexplicably featuring NBA star Charles Barkley. By the early 2010s, the trend had largely faded away – most memes do. But many slam remixes still exist on YouTube, and whole websites dedicated to the art of slamming are still live in 2023.
Now, that might be something of a problem — because, two decades later, the Space Jam theme song has new owners who are carrying out an increasingly active legal campaign to demand payment from people who used it.
Watson Music Group, a company that bought the rights to “Space Jam” the song in 2019 from its three original songwriters, has filed three federal lawsuits in the last three months, accusing companies of infringing its copyrights by using the song on the internet without permission. It’s also sent legal threats to an unknown number of other alleged infringers, arguing that unauthorized users must pay a “retroactive license” to avoid legal liability.
For more about the legal campaign over the rights to “Space Jam,” go read our full story, featuring details about the latest lawsuit and a response from the company’s lawyer.
Other top stories this week…
CARDI & MEGAN BEAT COPYRIGHT CASE – A federal judge tossed out a lawsuit accusing Cardi B and Megan Thee Stallion of stealing the lyrics to their smash hits “WAP” and “Thot Shit” from an earlier track called “Grab Em by the P—-,” ruling that short lyrics like “p—- so wet” were simply too unoriginal to be covered by copyright law.
EARTH, WIND & FIRE NAME LAWSUIT – A tribute band that was sued earlier this year by Earth, Wind & Fire for trademark infringement is firing back with a bold counterargument: That the famed R&B act has actually abandoned any intellectual property rights to its name.
NICK CARTER ABUSE LITIGATION – The Backstreet Boys member, who is facing multiple accusations of sexual assault from the 2000s, was hit with a third such lawsuit, this time from an unnamed woman who claims he assaulted her when she was 15 years old. But Carter also won a ruling allowing him to proceed with a defamation countersuit, which claims he’s victim of “conspiracy” orchestrated by his accusers.
KAROL’S COPYRIGHT CLASH – Karol G and Tiësto were hit with a copyright lawsuit over their song “Don’t Be Shy,” filed by a Cuban-American songwriter (Rene Lorente) who says their track features elements that are “practically identical” to his earlier tune called “Algo Diferente.”
TEXAS DRAG LAW BLOCKED – Following similar rulings in Tennessee and Florida, a federal judge in Texas blocked the state from enforcing a newly-enacted law restricting drag performances, ruling that the law likely violates the First Amendment.
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: Eminem invokes special political licensing rules to block a Republican presidential candidate from using his music at rallies; a federal judge cites Biggie & Wu-Tang to dismiss a copyright case; the messy Isley Brothers lawsuit has no quick end in sight; and much more.
Want to get The Legal Beat newsletter in your email inbox every Tuesday? Subscribe here for free.
THE BIG STORY: Eminem Pulls Music From GOP Candidate
Eminem is demanding that a Republican presidential candidate stop using “Lose Yourself” on campaign stops — and, lucky for him, licensing groups like ASCAP and BMI have made it easy for him to do so.
In a letter obtained by Billboard, a rep for BMI formally asked Vivek Ramaswamy’s campaign last week to stop using Eminem’s music, saying the star himself had requested that they do so. The move came less than two weeks after the candidate was captured in a viral video rapping the lyrics to the smash hit song at an event in Iowa.
“This letter serves as notice that the Eminem Works are excluded from the Agreement effective immediately,” the group wrote in the letter. “BMI will consider any performance of the Eminem Works by the Vivek 2024 campaign from this date forward to be a material breach of the agreement for which BMI reserves all rights and remedies.”
A spokeswoman for the campaign quickly announced that Ramaswamy would comply, saying they would “leave the rapping to the real Slim Shady.”
And that’s because they pretty much had to under the terms of BMI’s special “political entities” license – a unique legal solution crafted to address the problem of music stars who want to freely license their songs to stadiums, bars and other public spaces, but not to certain politicians.
To learn more about Eminem’s letter to Ramaswamy – and the history of top artists complaining about their music being used at political rallies – go read our full story over at Billboard.
Other top stories…
JUDGE KNOWS HER HIP HOP – It’s not every day that you see a federal judge cite Biggie, Wu-Tang, Kanye, F. Scott Fitzgerald and Neil Young in a single ruling. But that’s what Judge Martha Pacold did when she tossed out a copyright lawsuit against Future claiming he ripped off his 2018 song “When I Think About It” from an earlier track by a little-known Virginia rapper.
TRUMP HIRES GUNNA’S LAWYER – Facing a sweeping racketeering case in Atlanta, former President Donald Trump hired attorney Steven Sadow, a veteran Georgia criminal defense attorney who just represented Gunna in the high-profile criminal case against Young Thug and other rappers. Sadow, who has also represented Rick Ross, T.I. and Usher, will take over for Drew Findling, another lawyer with close ties to Atlanta’s hip hop community.
ISLEY BATTLE CONTINUES – A federal judge refused to quickly end a nasty lawsuit pitting members of the Isley Brothers against each other over the trademark rights to the band’s name. The ruling means more litigation over Rudolph Isley’s accusation that brother Ronald Isley of improperly is trying to secure sole ownership over a name that’s supposed to be jointly owned.
R. KELLY’S UMG ROYALTIES – More than $500,000 in R. Kelly’s royalties held by Universal Music Group must be handed over to Brooklyn federal prosecutors to help pay his victims, a federal judge ruled last week. The decision covers most of Kelly’s money held by Universal, but leaves unresolved questions about his funds held by Sony, Kelly’s former label, and about millions in additional money he owes to victims and debtors in other cases.
NAME CHANGE ENDS ‘FEST’ SUIT – Major League Baseball’s Minnesota Twins agreed to change the name of an upstart “TC Summer Fest” concert series in Minneapolis, a month after they were sued for trademark infringement by the organizers of Milwaukee’s decades-old Summerfest. The lawsuit accused the Twins of picking the name to “piggy-back” on the success of the existing event.
LIVE NATION SUED OVER INJURY – A stagehand hired to prepare a recent concert by The Weeknd in Texas is suing Live Nation, claiming that the company is liable for negligence after his leg was run over by a forklift while the stage was being built.
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: A federal judge rules that works created by A.I. are not covered by copyrights; an appeals court revives abuse lawsuits against Michael Jackson’s companies; Smokey Robinson beats a lawsuit claiming he owed $1 million to a former manager; SoundExchange sues SiriusXM for “gaming the system” on royalties; and much more.
Want to get The Legal Beat newsletter in your email inbox every Tuesday? Subscribe here for free.
No Copyrights For A.I. Works – But Tougher Questions Loom
The rise of artificial intelligence will pose many difficult legal questions for the music business, likely requiring some combination of litigation, regulation and legislation before all the dust settles. But on at least one A.I. issue, a federal judge just gave us a clean, straightforward answer.
In a decision issued Friday, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell ruled that American copyright law does not cover works created entirely by artificial intelligence – full stop. That’s because, the judge said, the essential purpose of copyright law is to encourage human beings to create new works.
“Non-human actors need no incentivization with the promise of exclusive rights under United States law, and copyright was therefore not designed to reach them,” the judge wrote.
Though novel, the decision was not entirely surprising. Federal courts have long strictly limited copyrights to content created by humans, rejecting it for works created by animals, by forces of nature, and even those claimed to have been authored by divine spirits, like religious texts.
But the ruling was nonetheless important because it came amid growing interest in the future role that could be played in the creation of music and other content by so-called generative AI tools, similar to the much-discussed ChatGPT. The issue of copyright protection is crucial to the future role of AI, since works that are not protected would be difficult to monetize.
Trickier legal dilemmas lie ahead. What if an AI-powered tool is used in the studio to create parts of a song, but human artists then add other elements? How much human direction on the use of AI tools is needed for the output to count as “human authorship”? How can a court filter out, in practical terms, elements authored by computers?
On those questions, the current answers are much squishier – something that Judge Howell hinted at in her decision. “Undoubtedly, we are approaching new frontiers in copyright as artists put AI in their toolbox to be used in the generation of new visual and other artistic works. The increased attenuation of human creativity from the actual generation of the final work will prompt challenging questions.”
“This case, however, is not nearly so complex.”
Other top stories this week…
MJ ABUSE CASES REVIVED – A California appeals court revived lawsuits filed by two men who claim Michael Jackson sexually abused them as children, ruling that they can pursue negligence claims against his companies. A lower court dismissed the cases on the grounds that staffers had no power to control Jackson, who was the sole owner of the companies. But the appeals court called such a ruling “perverse” and overturned it: “A corporation that facilitates the sexual abuse of children by one of its employees is not excused from an affirmative duty to protect those children merely because it is solely owned by the perpetrator.”
SMOKEY ROBINSON TRIAL VICTORY – The legendary Motown singer won a jury trial against a former manager who claimed he was owed nearly $1 million in touring profits, capping off more than six years of litigation over the soured partnership. Robinson himself took the stand during the case, telling jurors that the deal was never intended to cover concert revenue.
“GAMING THE SYSTEM” – SoundExchange filed a lawsuit against SiriusXM claiming the satellite radio giant is using bookmaking trickery in order to withhold more than $150 million in royalties owed to artists. The case centers on allegations that SiriusXM is manipulating how it bundles satellite services with web streaming services to “grossly underpay the royalties it owes.”
TIKTOK JUDGE RESPONDS – A judge in New Jersey defended himself against misconduct allegations over TikTok videos in which he lip-synced to Rihanna’s “Jump” and other popular songs, admitting “poor judgment” and “vulgar” lyrics but saying he should receive only a light reprimand for what intended as “silly, harmless, and innocent fun.”
LAWSUIT OVER TAKEOFF SHOOTING – Joshua Washington, an assistant to the rapper Quavo, filed a lawsuit over last year’s shooting in Houston that killed fellow Migos rapper Takeoff. He claims injuries sustained during the attack are the fault of the bowling alley where the shooting took place, which he says failed to provide adequate security, screening or emergency assistance.
GUNPLAY FACING FELONY COUNTS – The rapper Gunplay was arrested in Miami and hit with three felony charges over an alleged domestic violence incident in which he is reportedly accused of drunkenly pointing an AK-47 assault rifle at his wife and child during an argument.
FRENCH DIDN’T CLEAR SAMPLE? – The rapper French Montana was hit with a copyright lawsuit claiming his 2022 song “Blue Chills” features an unlicensed sample from singer-songwriter Skylar Gudasz. She claims he tentatively agreed to pay her for the clip – both in an upfront payment and a 50 percent share of the publishing copyright — but then never actually signed the deal.
YOUTUBE FRAUDSTER SENTENCED – Webster “Yenddi” Batista Fernandez, one of the leaders of the largest-known YouTube music royalty scam in history, was sentenced to nearly four years in prison after pleading guilty to one count of wire fraud and one count of conspiracy. Under the name MediaMuv, Batista and an accomplice fraudulently collected roughly $23 million in royalties from over 50,000 songs by Latin musicians ranging from small artists to global stars like Daddy Yankee.
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: Record labels sue the Internet Archive over a project to digitize old records; Dua Lipa loses a bid to dismiss one of the “Levitating” copyright lawsuits; a federal judge questions the fairness of Live Nation’s arbitration agreements with ticket buyers; and much more.
Want to get The Legal Beat newsletter in your email inbox every Tuesday? Subscribe here for free.
THE BIG STORY: Historical Preservation or Blatant Infringement?
Like almost anything implicating copyright law, the Great 78 Project is something of a Rorschach test.
To the Internet Archive, it’s a project of “preservation, research and discovery,” aimed at creating a “digital reference collection of underrepresented artists and genres.” Digitizing hundreds of thousands of old 78rpm records is a much-needed effort to “ensure the survival of these cultural materials for future generations to study and enjoy.”
But according to a new lawsuit filed last week by Universal Music, Sony Music and Concord, the Great 78 is nothing more than “blatant” copyright infringement under a “smokescreen” of preservation.
“The Great 78 website is a massive, unauthorized, digital record store of recordings,” lawyers for the music companies wrote in the massive lawsuit this week, which claims the Internet Archive infringed more than 2,700 songs and potentially owes as much as $412 million in damages.
“Although Internet Archive describes the Great 78 Project’s goal as ‘the preservation, research and discovery of 78 rpm records,’ the Great 78 Project is actually an illegal effort to willfully defy copyright law on an astonishing scale,” the labels wrote.
At issue in the case are so-called pre-1972 songs — a category of music that was, when the Great 78 Project launched in 2006, not covered by federal sound recording copyrights. But in 2018, federal lawmakers extended such protection to the old records as part of the Music Modernization Act.
While the new law contained carveouts that allowed “non-commercial” uses of certain old records, the labels say the Internet Archive simply “ignored the new law and plowed forward as if the Music Modernization Act had never been enacted.”
For more, go read our full breakdown of the lawsuit, including access to the actual legal complaint filed against the Internet Archive.
Other top stories…
10 YEARS FOR TORY LANEZ – The rapper was sentenced to 10 years in prison for shooting Megan Thee Stallion in the foot, capping off three years of legal drama over the violent 2020 incident. The sentence was much harsher than the penalty sought by Lanez’s lawyers (just probation) but less than the 13 years that prosecutors had requested.
DUA LIPA CAN’T BEAT DISCO CASE – A federal judge ruled that Dua Lipa must face a copyright lawsuit accusing her of copying “Levitating” from a 1979 disco song, refusing the star’s early bid to end the case. Though she ruled that Lipa’s accusers had failed to show that the pop star had ever heard the song she was accused of copying, the judge said they had shown “just enough” to proceed on their claim that the song was so “strikingly similar” that it constitutes infringement.
TWITTER FIRES BACK AT PUBLISHERS – Twitter filed its first real response to a lawsuit from music publishers alleging widespread copyright infringement on the platform, arguing that it cannot be held liable for the actions of its users. The case claims that Twitter infringed over 1,700 different songs from writers like Taylor Swift and Beyoncé, but in a motion to dismiss the case, lawyers for the Elon Musk-owned site (now rebranded to X) said the company itself was not on the hook for illegal posts by its users.
The 1975 KISS FALLOUT CONTINUES – The organizers of a Malaysian music festival are seeking 12.3 million ringgit ($2.7 million) in losses from British band The 1975 after lead singer Matty Healy’s on-stage protest of the country’s anti-gay laws prompted authorities to shut down the festival.
NO ARBITRATION FOR LIVE NATION – A federal judge ruled against Live Nation in an antitrust lawsuit over allegations of inflated ticket prices, declaring that the case should proceed as a federal class action rather than via private arbitration. Concertgoers opt into that out-of-court process when they buy tickets, but the judge ruled that the arbitration process posed a “serious risk of being fundamentally unfair” to consumers: “Because Defendants are often in effect the only ticketing game in town, would-be concertgoers are forced to accept Defendants’ [arbitration agreement] in full, or else forego the opportunity to attend events altogether.”
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: Taylor Swift beats a copyright case that her lawyers say “never should have been filed”; Lizzo faces a sexual harassment lawsuit from former tour dancers; a Cardi B concertgoer files a police report after the star throws a microphone at a Las Vegas show; and much more.
Want to get The Legal Beat newsletter in your email inbox every Tuesday? Subscribe here for free.
THE BIG STORY: Taylor Swift Beats Copyright Lawsuit
“This person might as well sue anyone who’s ever written a diary or made a scrap book.”
That’s what Aaron Moss, a veteran music litigator at the firm Greenberg Glusker, told me last August, when Teresa La Dart first sued Taylor Swift for copyright infringement. The case claimed that Swift’s companion book for her album Lover had borrowed several key elements from La Dart’s self-published book of poetry, also called Lover.
The problem? That La Dart was essentially suing Swift over stock book design elements, including the use of “pastel pinks and blues,” as well as an image of the author “photographed in a downward pose.” She also alleged that Swift copied the book’s “format,” namely “a recollection of past years memorialized in a combination of written and pictorial components.”
That kind of stuff isn’t covered by copyrights – and experts said the case against Swift probably bordered on frivolous: “This lawsuit should be thrown out on a motion to dismiss, if the plaintiff’s lawyer doesn’t think better of it and voluntarily withdraw the complaint first,” Moss said at the time.
One year later, those predictions have come true. Go read our entire story on the end of the lawsuit against Swift, including the arguments from Taylor’s lawyers about how the case “never should have been filed.”
Other top stories…
HARASSMENT CASE AGAINST LIZZO – The star and her Big Grrrl Big Touring Inc. were hit with allegations from three former dancers who claimed they were subjected to sexual harassment and a hostile work environment, including being pressured to touch nude dancers during a live sex show. They also claimed Lizzo “called attention” to a dancer’s weight gain – a particularly loaded allegation against an artist who has made body positivity a central aspect of her personal brand.
ACTIVISION ISN’T PLAYING GAMES – Video game giant Activision filed a lawsuit against a prominent TikTok music critic named Anthony Fantano, accusing him of running a “scheme” to demand “extortionate” settlements over a heavily-memed video he created. Activision says Fantanto intentionally uploaded the audio from his “enough slices” video into TikTok’s free sound library, but now is unfairly threatening to sue the company and others for using it: “A textbook example of how intellectual property law can be misused.”
CARDI’S VEGAS MICROPHONE TOSS – A concertgoer filed a police report after Cardi B was captured on video at a Las Vegas event throwing her microphone at a fan who splashed her with a drink. Though police did not mention Cardi by name, the report (alleging battery) was filed by an individual who claimed to have been “struck by an item that was thrown from the stage” at the venue where the star was performing.
ASTROWORLD REPORT RELEASED – The Houston Police Department released the 1,200-page+ police report on the deadly 2021 crowd crush disaster at Astroworld, offering a full accounting of the chaos that left 10 people dead and hundreds injured. The report features transcripts of calls to 911, summaries of police interviews, and reams of text messages from that night: “I know they’ll try to fight through it but I would want it on the record that I didn’t advise this to continue,” said one festival official. “Someone’s going to end up dead.”
MATTY HEALY MALAYSIA KISS FALLOUT – The 1975 and lead singer Matty Healy could be facing legal action after he kissed a male bandmate on stage at a concert in Malaysia and sharply criticized the country’s anti-LGBTQ+ policies. The stunt – criticized by some local gay rights activists as counterproductive – resulted in the Malaysian government canceling the rest of the three-day Good Vibes Festival, citing Healy’s “controversial conduct and remarks.”
LAST CALL FOR PRE-1972 SONGS – More than nine years after members of the 1960s rock band The Turtles filed a series of groundbreaking lawsuits over the legal protections for so-called pre-1972 sound recordings, a federal judge dismissed their final case — a lawsuit against Pandora that he called the band’s “last case standing.”
JOHN SUMMIT ENDS NAME CONTROVERSY – DJ John Summit vowed to change the name of his new record label (Off The Grid) and apologized after a brief – but very public — legal dispute with a smaller company that had been using the name for dance music events for the better part of a decade.
Subscribe to The Legal Beat here for free.
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: Lady Gaga defeats a lawsuit claiming she owes a $500,000 reward to a woman convicted over the 2021 gunpoint robbery of the star’s French bulldogs; Kanye West faces another lawsuit about allegations of unsafe conditions at his Donda Academy; Diddy makes new racism accusations in an unsealed version of his tequila lawsuit; and much more.
Want to get The Legal Beat newsletter in your email inbox every Tuesday? Subscribe here for free.
THE BIG STORY: Lady Gaga Doesn’t Have To Pay Her Dog-Napper
When Jennifer McBride sued Lady Gaga in February, demanding that the star pay out on a $500,000 reward she’d offered for the return of her stolen French bulldogs, McBride left out one very small detail: that she herself had been convicted of a crime over the violent 2021 robbery.
McBride was one of five people charged in connection with the Feb. 2021 gunpoint dog-napping, in which Gaga’s dog walker, Ryan Fischer, was shot and nearly killed. Though she returned the dogs days after the incident and claimed she’d found them tied to a pole, police later connected McBride to the thieves and she eventually pleaded out to one count of receiving stolen property.
But in a chutzpah-laden civil lawsuit, McBride claimed that Gaga made a binding “unilateral” offer to pay the reward in return for the safe return of the dogs, citing media reports that the offer would be paid with “no questions asked.” McBride said that regardless of her role in the crime, she had simply held up her end of a valid contract.
Gaga’s attorneys begged to differ, arguing last month that it would be absurd to allow McBride to “profit from her participation in a crime” even if she had eventually returned the dogs: “The law does not allow a person to commit a crime and then profit from it,” Gaga’s lawyers wrote.
In a ruling on Monday (July 10), Judge Holly J. Fujie agreed with those arguments, dismissing the case. To find out why, go read our entire story, which contains a link to the judge’s full written ruling.
Other top stories this week…
MORE DONDA ACADEMY ACCUSATIONS – Kanye West was hit with another lawsuit about allegedly unsafe conditions at his Donda Academy, including the bizarre accusation that the school lacked windows because the embattled rapper “did not like glass.” The case came months after a separate case that claimed the rapper fed students only sushi and that he was “afraid of stairs.”
NEW CLAIMS IN DIDDY TEQUILA CASE – An unredacted version of Diddy’s lawsuit against Diageo revealed new details about his allegations that the spirits giant unfairly treated his DeLeon Tequila as a “Black brand.” Among the new accusations was a claim that Diageo developed a watermelon flavor despite Diddy’s protests about the racist history and negative connotations with watermelon in brands aimed at Black consumers.
DABABY DROPPED FROM ‘LEVITATING’ CASE – The rapper was voluntarily dismissed from a copyright lawsuit accusing him and Dua Lipa of ripping off their smash hit “Levitating” from a 1979 song called “Wiggle and Giggle All Night” and a 1980 song called “Don Diablo.” The rapper had been named because he was featured on a popular remix of Lipa’s smash hit, which spent more than a year on the Hot 100.
CHALLENGE TO TIKTOK BAN – TikTok and a group of five users asked a federal judge to block Montana from enforcing its first-in-the-nation law banning the video-sharing app from the state, warning that the law is unconstitutional and could cause irreparable harm if allowed to go into effect in January.
ARETHA FRANKLIN ESTATE BATTLE – A jury in Michigan decided that a handwritten document created by singer Aretha Franklin in 2014 and found in her couch after her 2018 death was a valid will, overriding a 2010 will that was discovered around the same time in a locked cabinet.
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: Dr. Luke and Kesha end their long-running lawsuit with a settlement just weeks before trial; the RIAA takes legal action against a popular message board centered on artificial intelligence-driven voice mimicry; Kanye West aims to dismiss a lawsuit accusing him of illegally sampling a legendary hip hop group; and much more.
Want to get The Legal Beat newsletter in your email inbox every Tuesday? Subscribe here for free.
THE BIG STORY: Dr. Luke v. Kesha Ends With Settlement
After nearly a decade of bitter litigation between Kesha and Dr. Luke, in which she accused him of rape and he accused her of defaming him by doing so, the lawsuit will end not with a blockbuster trial, but with joint statements wishing each other well.
Just weeks before the case had been set to go to trial, the two sides announced that they had reached a settlement to resolve the long fight, which kicked off in 2014 after Kesha accused her former producer of drugging and raping her after a 2005 party.
The start of the lawsuit pre-dated the #MeToo movement, but it foreshadowed many of the themes that would characterize much of the litigation arising from that cultural reckoning. Dr. Luke claimed her “vengeful” allegations had been designed to “extort” him into releasing her from her record deal; Kesha claimed he was using the court system to silence and bully a victim who spoke out.
It’s not hard to speculate why Dr. Luke settled rather than test his defamation claims before a jury. Ten days before the deal was reached, New York’s top appeals court finally weighed in on key issues that had long delayed the case, and the result wasn’t good for the producer. The court not only said he was a “public figure” – a designation that makes it extremely hard to win libel cases in American courts – but also that Kesha could potentially recoup her legal bills if she won at trial.
But with or without a courthouse showdown, Dr. Luke appears to have gotten some of what he wanted. In their joint statement, Kesha said that “only god knows what happened that night” and that she “cannot recount everything that happened.” In the same joint statement, Dr. Luke was unequivocal: “I never drugged or assaulted her and would never do that to anyone.”
Go read the full statements, and the long backstory of the case, in our story on the big settlement.
Other top stories this week…
FLORIDA DRAG LAW BLOCKED – A federal judge barred Florida from enforcing its recently enacted restrictions on drag performances, ruling that the law likely violates the First Amendment. Proponents of the statute, including presidential hopeful Gov. Ron DeSantis, claimed it was needed to protect children from “lewd” performances, but the judge said the vague new rules were “dangerously susceptible to standardless, overbroad enforcement which could sweep up substantial protected speech.”
RIAA’S AI CRACKDOWN – Lawyers for the industry group moved to shut down a popular Discord server centered on artificial intelligence and voice models called “AI Hub,” obtaining a federal court subpoena to reveal the identities of its users and sending takedown request demanding that Discord shut down the entire channel. The RIAA’s actions are the latest effort by music companies to rein in the disruptive new technology.
NO SCOTUS FOR GENIUS – The U.S. Supreme Court said that it would not take up a lawsuit claiming Google stole millions of song lyrics from Genius, the popular music database that lets users add and annotate lyrics. Genius claimed Google free-rode on the site’s work, but multiple lower courts had ruled that the site couldn’t sue over copyrighted lyrics it didn’t actually own.
SUMMERTIME SETTLEMENT – Lana Del Rey reached a settlement to end a copyright lawsuit claiming her 2012 music video for “Summertime Sadness” featured 17 seconds of material lifted directly from a short film by a director named Lucas Bolaño. The agreement came weeks after a federal judge denied a motion to dismiss the case filed by Del Rey’s lawyers, who argued that the case was filed well after the statute of limitations.
TROY AVE SHOOTER SENTENCED – Hip-hop podcaster Taxstone was sentenced to 35 years in prison following his conviction earlier this year on manslaughter charges over his 2016 fatal shooting of rapper Troy Ave’s bodyguard during a T.I. concert at a New York City venue. His attorneys told Billboard they would appeal: “Justice wasn’t served.”
BOOSIE RELEASED ON GUN CHARGE – Rapper Boosie Badazz was ordered released on bond on his federal gun charge, after a judge rejected a request by prosecutors to keep him behind bars even longer. The charge follows a May 6 traffic stop in which the feds say the New Orleans rapper was found with a handgun — an alleged violation of a federal law prohibiting former felons from possessing firearms.
KANYE RIPS SAMPLING LAWSUIT – With Kanye West facing a lawsuit for allegedly using an uncleared sample from the pioneering rap group Boogie Down Productions, his lawyers made an unusual argument: That BDP founder KRS-One had “emphatically” stated in a 2006 documentary that “my entire catalogue is open to the public” and “you will not get sued if you sample.”
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: Twitter is facing a lawsuit from dozens of music publishers over copyright infringement; Bad Bunny, Daddy Yankee and other reggaeton stars fight back against a massive lawsuit; unsealed documents offer key details on the gun charges against Boosie BadAzz; and much more.
Want to get The Legal Beat newsletter in your email inbox every Tuesday? Subscribe here for free.
THE BIG STORY: Twitter’s $250 Million Music Problem
In last week’s least surprising development, the music publishers sued Twitter. After years of warnings from National Music Publishers’ Association — David Israelite called Elon Musk’s website his “top legal focus” earlier this year — dozens of the group’s members filed a sweeping copyright lawsuit in federal court.
Surprise or not, the case is a big deal. The publishers claim that Twitter has infringed over 1,700 different songs from writers like Taylor Swift and Beyoncé — a claim that, if proven, could put the social media giant on the hook for as much as $255 million in damages.
Damages aren’t likely the end goal for the publishers. Licensing deals outside the realm of plain ole music streaming, ranging from social media sites like Instagram to gaming platforms like Roblox to fitness services like Peloton, have become an increasingly large slice of the revenue pie for publishers and songwriters in recent years. But many of those deals only came as settlements to lawsuits — just ask Roblox and Peloton. Twitter, the publishers say, is one of the last holdouts refusing to sign such a deal.
To read more about the lawsuit, including the actual complaint itself, go read our entire story here.
If it doesn’t end in a quick settlement, the case will also be a fascinating look at the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, a federal law that limits how websites like Twitter can be sued over copyright infringement by their users — and one that has long frustrated content owners. The DMCA provides sites like Twitter with immunity from litigation over material uploaded by their users, so long as they promptly remove infringing content and ban repeated violators from the platform. The new lawsuit claims Twitter failed to do either of those things, meaning the site has legally forfeited the DMCA’s protections.
In that sense, the lawsuit against Twitter is something of spiritual sequel to a series of cases filed against internet service providers like Cox, which pioneered the argument that providers had waived the DMCA’s safe harbor by failing to crack down on subscribers who repeatedly infringed. After a federal judge ruled that Cox had lost the DMCA’s protections, a jury later ordered the company to pay $1 billion in damages to the three major music companies. Yes, billion, with a “B.”
Will those same arguments work against Twitter? Stay tuned.
Other top stories this week…
MASSIVE REGGAETON CASE – Bad Bunny, Daddy Yankee, Karol G and dozens of other artists asked a federal judge to toss out a sprawling copyright lawsuit that claims hundreds of reggaeton tracks infringed a single 1989 song. In their motion to end the case, Daddy Yankee and many other stars argued that the accusers are “effectively claiming ownership of an entire genre of music.” Bad Bunny, in his own filing, said the case aims to “stake monopolistic control over the reggaeton genre.”
BOOSIE BADAZZ GUN CHARGE – Newly-unsealed charging documents against rapper Boosie Badazz revealed that his recent federal gun charge came after San Diego police tracked his Instagram account and even used a helicopter to locate him in an allegedly gang-affiliated neighborhood.
BAD SERVICE? A judge ruled that Sony Music Entertainment could serve a copyright lawsuit on a TikTok rapper by sending him a message through his DMs. The ruling detailed how the label’s lawyers had spent months unsuccessfully trying to do so in-person — including showing up to his mom’s house on Mother’s Day “in hopes that he would be there to celebrate with her.”
50 CENT ENDS BOOZE BATTLE – The rapper reached a settlement with Rémy Martin to resolve a lawsuit that claimed his Branson brand of cognac copied the design of the company’s bottles. The confidential deal will end litigation that 50 Cent’s company had called “meritless” and designed to “destroy a competitor.”
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: A man who unsuccessfully sued Cardi B over an album cover agrees to repay her $350,000 legal bill; Kesha wins a major appellate ruling in her ongoing defamation battle with Dr. Luke; Dua Lipa’s copyright accusers drop their case for good; and much more.
Want to get The Legal Beat newsletter in your email inbox every Tuesday? Subscribe here for free.
THE BIG STORY: Don’t Mess With Cardi B (Or Her Lawyers)
Omar Little, the notorious Baltimore stick-up man who robs drug dealers on HBO’s The Wire, once famously said: “You come at the king, you best not miss.” Well, that same sentiment seems to be increasingly true about Cardi B and her team of lawyers: If you come at her, you better be sure you’re ready for the consequences.
Back in 2017, a guy named Kevin Brophy did exactly that, suing the superstar for millions in damages. His case claimed that Cardi had left him “humiliated” after an image of his enormous back tattoo was inadvertently photoshopped onto the “raunchy” cover of her debut mixtape, Gangsta Bitch Music, Vol. 1.
But now, six years later, it’s Brophy who’s paying Cardi, not the other way around.
Months after a federal jury rejected his lawsuit, Brophy agreed this week to hand over a whopping $350,000 in legal bills that the superstar spent defeating his case. He also agreed to voluntarily end his efforts to revive the case and waived any chance at a future appeal.
Why would he do all that? Go read our full story here to find out.
For Cardi, turning the tables on Brophy is just the latest financial trouncing of a legal opponent.
Late last month, a gossip blogger named Tasha K who made salacious claims against the rapper was forced to file for bankruptcy after Cardi B won more than $3 million in a defamation lawsuit against her. Shortly after Cardi won that verdict, she tweeted “imma come for everything” along with the acronym BBHMM — “bitch better have my money” — and then spent months chasing the cash, including seizing money from Tasha’s YouTube royalty account.
The takeaway? At least when it comes to legal matters: You come at the queen, you best not miss.
Other top stories this week…
KESHA v. DR. LUKE RULING – New York’s top appeals court handed a key victory to Kesha in her legal battle with Dr. Luke, making it more difficult for him to prove at a looming trial that she defamed the producer when she accused him of rape in 2014. The court said Dr. Luke was a “public figure,” meaning he will need to show that Kesha acted with “actual malice” when she made her statements — a notoriously difficult legal hurdle to clear.
DUA LIPA CASE CLOSED – A Florida reggae band called Artikal Sound System decided to drop its copyright case accusing Dua Lipa of copying her smash hit song “Levitating” from their earlier track. The move — a unilateral capitulation, not a confidential cash settlement — came just days after a federal judge cast serious doubt on whether Artikal would be able to prove that Lipa ever even heard the song she was accused of stealing.
JIMMIE ALLEN SUED AGAIN – The country star was hit with a second sexual abuse lawsuit, claiming he assaulted a woman in a Las Vegas hotel room and filmed the encounter without permission. The case came a month after Allen was accused of sexually harassing and raping a woman on his management team. Allen has strongly denied the allegations and has vowed to “mount a vigorous defense.”
TORY LANEZ SENTENCING – Los Angeles prosecutors formally asked a judge to impose a 13-year prison sentence on Tory Lanez after he was convicted last year of shooting Megan Thee Stallion, telling a judge that Lanez had “waged a campaign to humiliate and re-traumatize the victim” in the wake of the 2020 incident. Sentencing had been set for this week but was rescheduled to Aug 7.
MUSIC AS SEX DISCRIMINATION – The Ninth Circuit issued a first-of-its-kind ruling that said blasting music with “sexually graphic” and “violently misogynistic” lyrics in a workplace could violate federal discrimination laws. Reviving a case against a company that played songs like Too $hort‘s “Blowjob Betty” and Eminem‘s “Stan” at its Nevada warehouse, the court said the music potentially created a “hostile or abusive environment.”
COURT RIPS BAD SETTLEMENT – In another big music ruling, the Ninth Circuit overturned a class action settlement in a royalties lawsuit against the relaunched Napster, sharply criticizing an “unreasonable” deal that secured just $53,000 for songwriters while paying their lawyers a whopping $1.7 million in legal fees. The court said that paying attorneys “more than 30 times the amount that the class received” was likely to “make the average person shake her head in disbelief.”
YOUTUBE CASE DROPPED – Just a day before it had been set to go to trial, a Grammy Award-winning composer dropped her closely-watched lawsuit against YouTube over access to its anti-piracy tools like Content ID. The ruling came weeks after a federal judge gutted the case by refusing to let it move forward as a class action — a ruling the composer had said would “gravely undermine” the goals of her lawsuit.
ASTROWORLD GAG ORDER STANDS – A Texas appeals court refused to lift a strict gag order on the lawsuit over the deadly 2021 disaster at Travis Scott‘s Astroworld festival. The court was unmoved by arguments from ABC News, which argued that the “sweeping” restrictions clearly violated the First Amendment’s protections on free speech and had created a “news desert” in which almost no reliable information about an important case is being shared with the public.
COVID RELIEF HIJINKS? The owners of a small Palm Springs, Calif., venue filed a lawsuit against Marc Geiger and his company SaveLive, claiming the former WME agent deceived them into accepting an investment in their venue during the COVID-19 pandemic as part of a ruse to take over the business without paying a fair price.