Photo Credit: Jimmy Buffett and Jane Slagsvol / Jimmybuffett.com

Jimmy Buffett’s widow and his former business manager sue each other to remove one another from the administration of the late star’s estate.

Jane Buffett (née Slagsvol), Jimmy Buffett’s wife of 46 years, and Rick Mozenter, his former business manager, are seeking to remove one another from the administration of the late singer-songwriter’s estate. Both parties have launched court actions against each other, each accusing the other of hostility and mismanagement of a trust containing $275 million worth of assets.

Buffett’s wife became the sole beneficiary of a marital trust holding the bulk of the legendary hitmaker’s assets upon his death in September 2023. Her court filing says these assets, which include real estate and a 20% stake in his island-themed hospitality company, Margaritaville, are worth around $275 million.

She was made a co-trustee of the marital trust alongside Rick Mozenter, an account at the business management firm Gelfand Rennert & Feldman. However, the relationship between the two parties has soured, with both pursuing litigation to remove the other from their administration roles tied to the estate.

Mozenter’s petition, filed on Monday (June 2) in Florida, claims he was Jimmy Buffett’s “trusted financial advisor” for over 30 years. He further asserts that Buffett intentionally limited Jane Buffett’s control of the trust out of concern over his wife’s “ability to manage and control his assets.”

“Other than serving as a non-controlling trustee, Jane has no ability to manage the trust,” write Mozenter’s attorneys. “This fact has made Jane very angry. As a result, Jane has repeatedly acted in a hostile manner toward Rick and has been completely uncooperative with Rick in his attempts to administer the trust.”

Attorneys for Mozenter, from the law firm Comiter Singer, say Jane has refused to meet with him or otherwise assist him with “key duties” involved in managing the trust. Instead, Mozenter claims she has interfered with his work, namely by ousting her husband’s longtime law firm and harassing his former boat captain to such a degree that the trust was forced to pay a large settlement.

But Jane tells a different story. Her court petition, filed in California on Tuesday (June 3), alleges that Mozenter has been “openly hostile and adversarial” while blocking her access to key information about the late singer’s financial portfolio.

“Mr. Mozenter has failed to perform even the most basic tasks required of him in his role as co-trustee, including providing Mrs. Buffett with information concerning trust assets and finances, which has left Mrs. Buffett in the dark with regard to the state of her own finances,” write her attorneys, from the firm Sullivan & Cromwell. “Mr. Mozenter has belittled, disrespected, and condescended to Mrs. Buffett in response to her reasonable requests for information she undoubtedly was entitled to receive.”

Jane Buffett’s court filing says she met with Mozenter a month after Jimmy’s death in October 2023, asking how much income she should expect to receive annually from the trust. According to Jane’s filing, Mozenter “dragged his feet” for 16 months, repeatedly ignoring her requests for an answer.

In February 2025, Mozenter finally provided the requested estimate, but the results were “shocking.” Jane was told she would see less than $2 million in annual income, which her lawyers argue is not enough to cover her expenses and is “a remarkably poor return for a trust with an estimated $275 million in assets.”

According to Jane’s lawyers, that estimate is even more surprising given that the trust had received over $14 million in distributions from Margaritaville over the previous 18 months. As a result, Jane became concerned that Mozenter was mismanaging the trust. She requested additional financial information from him, and claims he once again stonewalled.

Further, Jane’s filing claims that in addition to being “unprofessional and combative” toward her, he refused her request to sell a piece of real estate in the Bahamas—despite the Buffett family rarely using the property, and the fact that it costs over $300,000 a year to operate.

Both Jane Buffett and Rick Mozenter are seeking to nix the other from the marital trust’s administration and have a new co-trustee appointed. Mozenter’s petition also asks that the court remove Jane as the personal representative of Jimmy Buffett’s estate.

Lizzo, who’s once again firing back against a harassment lawsuit from her former touring dancers. Photo Credit: Raph_PH

Lizzo is firing back against the marathon sexual harassment lawsuit she’s facing from several former touring dancers, maintaining that the conduct in question is protected speech.

That interesting position came to light in a new appeal from Team Lizzo, which is specifically challenging a prior decision allowing some of the dancers’ claims to proceed.

By now, most are at least generally aware of the years-old allegations against the singer, who’s looking to ride a comeback out of the cancellation waters. Not helping the effort are the ongoing sexual harassment claims and a distinct case spearheaded by another ex-tour employee.

It’s worth clarifying that fashion designer Asha Daniels submitted the latter suit to a federal court in September 2023. We promptly covered the action – alleging sexual harassment, racial harassment, assault, and more.

In the complaint, Daniels also said she’d witnessed tour employees mistreating dancers while on the road with Lizzo. And long story short, this federal suit, despite a partial dismissal in December 2024 and a subsequent lack of media coverage, is still in motion.

The December order tossed the complaint against a payroll-company defendant – which wound up causing the case to be “erroneously closed” with regard to all defendants.

In mid-April, the court acknowledged the administrative misstep, underscored that the claims against Lizzo’s Big Grrrl Big Touring “remained unresolved and pending,” and tentatively teed up a December 1st jury trial.

Bearing the details in mind, the dancers themselves first sued Lizzo in 2023, and their state-level action, likewise partially dismissed last year, is currently making its way through the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

We’ve already broken down their claims – chief among them allegations of sexual harassment. This refers in large part to an alleged episode wherein Lizzo purportedly pressured her dancer employees to attend a strip-club afterparty of sorts in Amsterdam.

There, the team members were allegedly exposed to and compelled to participate in a series of decidedly work-inappropriate activities, we reported nearly two years ago.

Enter Lizzo’s initially mentioned First Amendment defense and push to dismiss the case.

As quoted by Billboard, the artist’s legal team is arguing that the suit represents “‘an attack on Lizzo’s First Amendment right to perform her music and advocate for body positivity,’” with the above-described strip-club shenanigans allegedly constituting components of “‘Lizzo’s creative process.’”

“‘There’s no disagreement that Lizzo held these outings as a necessary part of her creative process,’” the dismissal motion reportedly spells out.

It probably doesn’t need reiterating, but there’s plenty of distance between the plaintiffs’ position (the outing was both extremely inappropriate and not quite optional) and Lizzo’s stance.

As to where things go from here, the presiding judge has scheduled a status conference for July 16th. Regardless of how the legal battles play out, it’s safe to say they aren’t exactly benefiting Lizzo’s comeback, including reported plans for a fresh album later in 2025.

Photo Credit: OLENS Global / CC by 3.0

A Seoul court has hit K-Pop group NewJeans with an injunction, with fines for independent activity starting at $730,000 per infraction.

The Seoul Central District Court ruled on Friday that K-pop girl group NewJeans must refrain from performing without Ador’s consent or approval until a decision is made in a lawsuit over the validity of its members’ exclusive contracts.

Should the group violate the court’s order, each member will be required to pay 1 billion won ($730,000) per infraction to Ador. The court also ordered NewJeans to pay the legal costs of the filing.

NewJeans notified Ador of their request for contract termination last November after internal conflicts at the company quickly went public. Since then, the group has attempted to pursue independent activity under the name NJZ, but is now barred from doing so without repercussion.

In March, the court accepted Ador’s initial injunction request, against which NewJeans’ members quickly filed an appeal. They voiced their intent to continue promotional events and performed as NJZ at the ComplexCon event in Hong Kong.

On Friday, NewJeans responded to the court order by clarifying that the decision was related to the previous injunction issued in March. That order prohibited the members from conducting independent activities. The new ruling, they emphasized, was not part of the ongoing appeal they filed against the initial injunction.

The group’s attorneys noted that the court’s latest decision is “temporary until the appeal is resolved.” They add: “If the NewJeans members win the injunction appeal, both the original and the related indirect enforcement rulings will lose their legal effect. In practice, indirect enforcement is typically issued in conjunction with an injunction ruling.”

During the first hearing over the dispute between NewJeans and Ador last month, the group’s legal team expressed no intention of settling. Ador’s representatives, meanwhile, indicated they were open to a settlement. The next hearing is scheduled for June 5.

Photo Credit: Eminem by EJ Hersom for DoD News / CC by 2.0

Eminem’s music publisher, Eight Mile Style, is suing Meta with allegations of widespread copyright infringement on Facebook and Instagram.

Eight Mile Style, Eminem’s music publishing company, has filed a lawsuit against Meta, alleging the tech company’s social media platforms allow widespread use of the rapper’s songs without proper licensing.

The complaint, filed Friday in U.S. District Court in Detroit, says Meta has “created and stored” copies of Eminem’s songs on their servers and distributed them to “billions of users” around the world. According to the publisher, the rapper’s songs have been used in millions of videos across Facebook and Instagram that have collectively been viewed “billions of times.”

Further, through Meta’s online tools that encourage creating content based on another user’s content, users can “steal” music from others’ posts for use in their own, “resulting in exponential infringement,” the lawsuit claims.

Eight Mile Style asserts that Meta is “actively encouraging” users to stream the rapper’s music by making his songs available for use on Facebook, Instagram, and the messaging service WhatsApp. These apps’ algorithms also allegedly promote his music directly to users via “For You” pages and “Trending” features.

Eminem’s publisher brought the issue to Meta’s attention previously, the lawsuit claims, which resulted in the tech giant removing several Eminem tracks from its libraries. However, several alternative versions of his song “Lose Yourself,” including a karaoke version, an instrumental piano version, and a cover version, remained available to all users. Other prominent tracks from the artist also remained available—prompting the lawsuit.

“Meta’s years-long and ongoing infringement of the Eight Mile Compositions is another case of a trillion (with a ‘T’) dollar company exploiting the creative efforts of musical artists for the obscene monetary benefit of its executives and shareholders without a license and without regard to the rights of the owners of the intellectual property,” Eight Mile’s lawyers write.

The company is seeking damages, in addition to Meta’s “profits attributable to the infringement,” with maximum statutory damages that Eight Mile claims would exceed $109 million. Further, the company is seeking an injunction to cease further infringement.

The major labels, Suno, and Udio are reportedly negotiating possible settlements in their copyright infringement disputes. Photo Credit: Sebastian Herrmann

Nearly one year after suing Suno and Udio for copyright infringement, the major labels are reportedly exploring possible settlements with the gen AI music platforms – including a licensing and compensation framework.

Rumblings of the potential resolution discussions just recently entered the media spotlight. At the time of writing, however, neither the majors nor the AI-platform defendants had publicly addressed the matter; Suno and Udio didn’t respond to requests for comment in time for publishing.

But according to Bloomberg, the settlement discussions are ongoing, with the majors pushing for licensing fees and “small” equity interests in the AI upstarts. Additional details are few and far between, though the same source claimed that the talks “are happening in parallel.”

This doesn’t exactly come as a surprise given the cases’ considerable overlap and the fact that both Udio and Suno have tapped Latham & Watkins for representation. (Udio is also repped by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan.)

That said, it’s unclear whether there’s weight to the same report’s indication that the dual negotiations are “creating a race of sorts to see which” AI company will settle first.

To state the obvious, preventing (extremely) protracted courtroom confrontations can bring inherent advantages.

Here, avoiding even bigger attorneys’ fees would certainly qualify as one such advantage. Meanwhile, the majors would have the opportunity to invoke the resulting terms in licensing talks with other AI platforms, and Suno as well as Udio would put an end to an apparently thorny discovery process.

“Given the complexity of the case, the number of discovery requests at issue—to date, over fifty RFPs from each side— and the number of Plaintiffs and Asserted Works, this process has been a complex one that has required careful attention and compromise on both sides,” counsel for Udio and the majors summed up in an early May update.

Plus, “the parties spent several months negotiating the protocols that govern Plaintiffs’ inspection of Udio’s source code and training data,” they wrote.

With all this said, the settlement “race” description doesn’t necessarily paint a full picture of the situation. Most significantly, Suno and Udio remain adamant that their training processes constitute fair use.

As broken down by DMN Pro, the central argument is deceivingly strong from a legal perspective, and litigation wins aren’t guaranteed for the majors should the cases play out. In other words, it’ll be especially interesting to see whether the rumored back-and-forth resolves the cases and sets the stage for different AI licensing models throughout the wider industry.

Photo Credit: PBS

PBS files a lawsuit against the Trump Administration over an executive order signed earlier this month to cut funding to the public television network and NPR.

On Friday, the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) sued Donald Trump and his administration over the executive order signed early last month. The order aims to cut funding to public broadcasters like PBS and NPR. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., follows NPR and three of its Colorado-based member stations suing Trump over the same order.

According to attorneys for PBS, the executive order is “blatant viewpoint discrimination and an infringement of PBS and PBS Member Stations’ private editorial discretion. Further, they assert the order is a violation of the First Amendment, as well as parts of the Public Broadcasting Act passed in 1967. Much like NPR’s separate lawsuit over the same executive order, PBS’ lawsuit argues that Trump does not have the authority to block federal funding to the public TV and radio networks over their content.

“The EO [executive order] makes no attempt to hide the fact that it is cutting off the flow of funds to PBS because of the content of PBS programming and out of a desire to alter the content of speech,” reads the filing. “The EO smacks of retaliation for, among other things, perceived political slights in news coverage.”

Trump’s executive order, signed in early May, instructed the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), the private nonprofit that serves as the point of contact for government funding to public media, to cease federal funding for PBS and NPR. The order asserts that government funding serves to “support biased and partisan news coverage.” Further, the order says indirect government funding should be stopped, including funding to local stations that connect to a national news network.

When NPR’s lawsuit was filed last week, White House spokesman Harrison Fields told CBS News: “The Corporation for Public Broadcasting is creating media to support a particular political party on the taxpayers’ dime. Therefore, the President is exercising his lawful authority to limit funding to NPR and PBS.”

Notably, the CPB also sued Trump in a separate lawsuit over attempts to fire three members of its five-member board, asserting the president was overstepping his authority.

Should the executive order stand, PBS’ lawsuit says “it would have profound impacts on the ability of PBS and PBS Member Stations to provide a rich tapestry of programming to all Americans.”

PBS CEO Paula Kerger, on Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan, said that public broadcasters have “never seen a circumstance like this,” and stressed that the Trump Administration has been “coming after us [in] many different ways.” According to Kerger, a possible revocation of previously appropriated funds, as well as an effort to challenge corporate sponsorships—the primary way that public networks are funded—through the FCC, “among other things,” were possible retaliatory measures.

“We’re going to be pushing back very hard, because what’s at risk are our stations, our public television, our public radio stations, across the country,” said Kerger, who added that PBS only receives 15% of its funding from the federal government.

Smaller stations may receive up to 50% of their funding from federal sources, which adds the risk that those stations will cease to function altogether if that funding stops.

Washington, D.C.’s James Madison Memorial Building, which houses the U.S. Copyright Office. Photo Credit: UpstateNYer

The battle for Copyright Office control isn’t letting up: Shira Perlmutter is now seeking a high-speed summary judgement resolution, while the Trump administration is firing back against the sought “fast-track schedule.”  

Those developments might come as a surprise in light of the court’s most recent determination. Upon denying Perlmutter’s restraining order ask, the presiding judge also instructed the parties to “submit a joint proposed briefing schedule” concerning a potential preliminary injunction push on the plaintiff’s end, we reported yesterday.

Instead, Perlmutter’s legal team has opted to entreat the court to green-light an “expedited briefing schedule” on the summary judgement front.

There’s “a pressing need for both the parties and the public to obtain a speedy resolution of this matter,” the former USCO head indicated, “as the leadership of the Library of Congress and the Copyright Office will remain in dispute until the legality of Defendants’ actions is adjudicated on the merits.

“It would best serve judicial economy and the interests of the parties to proceed to final judgment,” the plaintiff summed up.

That refers specifically to a desired June 5th deadline for the actual summary judgement motion, a June 12th cutoff for the defendants’ response, and four days thereafter for Perlmutter’s reply.

However, if “expedited summary judgment is unavailable,” Perlmutter would like “an opportunity” to hammer out the aforementioned preliminary injunction schedule, per the legal document.

As highlighted, the Trump administration isn’t on board with the quick-moving schedule, which it formally opposed in a filing today.

“But there is nothing ‘pressing’ about a legal issue remaining ‘in dispute’ until an adjudication on the merits after a case has run its normal course,” the Justice Department penned.

“That is true of all litigation, but that fact does not give every plaintiff a right to expedited proceedings,” the Trump administration continued. “And it especially should not here, where this Court recognized in denying the motion for a temporary restraining order that Plaintiff has failed to show that any of the purported harms she identified are either irreparable or imminent.”

Besides rejecting the rapid-fire schedule, the court shouldn’t entertain Perlmutter’s above-described request to cement a preliminary injunction timetable, the defendants said in more words.

“This Court gave Plaintiff that opportunity already,” the DOJ wrote, “but rather than propose a schedule for preliminary injunction briefing to Defendants, Plaintiff filed her present motion. That is no doubt because Plaintiff does not believe she could obtain a preliminary injunction given this Court’s holding that she has failed to show the irreparable harm necessary for emergency injunctive relief.”

How, then, should the case proceed? According to the Trump administration, a June 5th “or later” summary judgement cutoff for the plaintiff would be suitable, followed by a three-week window for an opposition response and a cross-motion for summary judgement.

From there, Team Perlmutter would have another three weeks yet to respond, with the defendants’ reply in support of the summary judgement cross-motion due within two more weeks.

At the time of writing, the court hadn’t weighed in on the opposing views. Despite the benefit of frequent updates thus far, though, it’s possible that the case will spin out over weeks (if not months should a full legal proceeding take place).

Among other things, the window could bring with it the appointment of permanent Library and Copyright Office heads – and, in turn, fresh legal questions as well as a variety of considerations for the music space.

Photo Credit: RTR Distribution

RTR Distribution has issued a formal cease and desist letter to UnitedMasters over the use of the term ‘Real-Time Royalties’ on their website.

RTR Distribution, a platform for real-time royalty payments for content creators, has issued a formal cease and desist letter to UnitedMasters. This legal kerfuffle is over the unauthorized use of the term “Real-Time Royalties” on their website. RTR Distribution holds a pending patent for real-time royalty payment technology and has exclusive rights to the technology in the blockchain-based entertainment monetization space.

The cease and desist letter demands that UnitedMasters immediately remove the term “Real-Time Royalties” from their marketing, promotional materials, and any online references. Those references directly infringes upon RTR Distribution’s intellectual property. The company has given UnitedMasters a 14-day deadline to comply with the request.

“We have developed and have a pending patent on the technology that powers real-time payments for creators,” said Joshua D. Combs, Founder and CEO of RTR Distribution.

“Our platform enables artists, musicians, and content creators to receive instant payouts for their work, and we take great pride in the innovation we’ve brought to the industry. The use of the term ‘real-time royalties’ by UnitedMasters is not only misleading but also an infringement on the intellectual property we’ve worked tirelessly to build. If they do not comply, we will take the necessary legal steps to protect our pending patent and our business.”

The ability to provide real-time royalty payments has become increasingly important in the music and content creation industries. As the entertainment sector moves toward blockchain integration, RTR Distribution is hoping to lead the charge in ensuring that creators receive instant payouts for every stream, view, or download of their content. The patent-pending technology behind RTR Distribution’s platform ensures fair compensation for artists, producers, and content creators worldwide, without the traditional delays of legacy payment systems.

RTR Distribution is a platform built on blockchain technology that provides real-time royalty payments to content creators in the music, film, podcast, and digital media sectors. By using RLT tokens and smart contracts, RTR Distribution ensures that creators are paid immediately every time their content is consumed. RTR Distribution is working to revolutionize the way content creators are compensated, providing fairer, faster, and transparent payment solutions.

UnitedMasters is a digital music distribution company that allows independent artists to distribute their music across various streaming platforms. They offer a variety of tools to help artists manage and monetize their content independently.

Should UnitedMasters fail to comply with the cease and desist request, RTR Distribution is prepared to pursue legal action to protect its intellectual property rights. The company is committed to defending the technology that powers real-time payments and ensuring that creators receive the compensation they deserve, without compromise.

Photo Credit: Flaco2xs / reddit

Apple’s removal of the popular music streaming app Musi from the App Store has sparked a high-profile legal battle. Musi’s creators allege the tech giant engaged in collusion and ‘backroom dealings’ with major labels to force the app offline. Apple has dismissed these claims as ‘unfounded conspiracy theories.’

Musi garnered over 66 million downloads on the App Store before it was removed, serving millions of users across the globe. The app acted as a simple wrapper for YouTube music, playing music videos and enabling features like background play—which is a paid YouTube Music feature. Musi stripped YouTube’s ads and added its own or offered ad-free streaming for a price—in violation of YouTube’s API terms of service.

Following pressure from music industry organizations like the National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA), Sony Music, and the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) and YouTube itself—Apple removed Musi from the App Store in September 2024.

Musi filed a lawsuit against Apple in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in an attempt to force its way back onto the App Store. Musi claims that Apple’s decision was not merely a response to complaints, but was the result of ‘backroom dealings’ with major labels and YouTube. They allege that the ultimate goal it to eliminate Musi as a competitor. Musi points to internal Apple emails and meetings with music industry executives as evidence of this alleged conspiracy.

Apple has categorically denied those allegations, however. In court filings, the company argues that its developer agreement allows the company unilateral authority to remove an app at any time—with or without cause. Apple says the decision to remove the app came after numerous credible complaints of copyright infringement and violation of YouTube’s terms of service.

Apple even accused Musi of fabricating an email from a Universal Music executive in an earlier attempt to avoid removal, calling Musi’s accusations “baseless conspiracy theory.” Now Apple is seeking sanctions against the app’s creators for attempting to mislead the court. The court has denied Musi’s request for a preliminary injunction to force Apple to restore the app—finding no evidence that Apple acted in bad faith for the removal.

For now, Musi remains unavailable on the App Store. Meanwhile, hundreds of users who previously used the app flood the Musi subreddit seeking alternatives and ways to sideload the app on to their iPhones.

The Financial Supervisory Service (FSS) headquarters in Seoul. Photo Credit: Wikiwater2020

The trading-focused investigations into Hybe founder Bang Si-hyuk and other execs look to be intensifying. According to regional reports, authorities have conducted a raid of the K-pop giant’s Seoul headquarters.

As things stand, we don’t know the precise extent of these investigations. However, it’s been nearly six months since local media first linked Bang to scrutiny concerning alleged private-equity side deals executed ahead of his company’s 2020 IPO.

Evidently, this scrutiny isn’t letting up. Yesterday, we broke down the status of the reported allegations – and explored the situation’s possible impact on BTS’ full-group comeback.

Long story short, the Financial Supervisory Service is reportedly considering an expedited referral of the Bang case to prosecutors. And a separate police investigation into the same matter is said to be ongoing as well.

(Regarding all the “reportedly” and “is said to be” usages: Technically, Bang and the appropriate authorities have yet to comment publicly on the subject. Related details are trickling out through anonymous sources via South Korean outlets.)

Not coincidentally, information about the initially mentioned Hybe HQ raid emerged on the heels of the media-fueled update on Bang’s case.

According to the Korea Times, Seoul Southern District prosecutors searched Hybe’s office in connection with insider-trading allegations against a different exec.

The higher-up, whose name remains undisclosed, is reportedly accused of pocketing roughly $175,000 in profits by capitalizing on knowledge of Hybe’s YG Plus investment plans in 2021. Unsurprisingly, the latter entity’s shares (KRX: 037270) spiked in value after Hybe purchased almost 18% of the business.

Back to the allegations against Bang, per the Korea Herald, the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency has submitted a distinct search-warrant request to prosecutors over the IPO-fraud claims.

And while it probably doesn’t need saying, it’ll be worth keeping an eye out for this comparatively important raid and any adjacent revelations. Also more or less implied is that Hybe is cooperating with the investigations, regional outlets summed up.

In the bigger picture, though the situation appears serious, it certainly isn’t without precedent. During 2024 alone, authorities arrested Kakao’s billionaire founder on stock-manipulation charges stemming from the SM Entertainment takeover battle – after raiding the main offices of both SM and Kakao in 2023.

Meanwhile, YG founder and exec Yang Hyun-suk was indicted last year for allegedly failing to declare a pair of high-end wristwatches upon returning to Korea a decade prior.

Bearing all that in mind, Hybe investors don’t seem too bothered at present. Shares (KRX: 352820) dipped about 2% during today’s trading but, at $193/₩266,000 a pop, are still up approximately 36% since 2025’s start.

The E. Barrett Prettyman Federal Courthouse, where the lawsuit filed by former USCO head Shira Perlmutter is unfolding. Photo Credit: Toohool

A federal judge has rejected a request from Shira Perlmutter for a restraining order against the Trump administration. But the fired Register of Copyrights could be preparing to push for a separate preliminary injunction.

Both developments came to light in docket updates following a related in-person hearing. Per one of the updates, Judge Timothy Kelly denied Perlmutter’s sought temporary restraining order; among different things, the former Copyright Office head is looking to be restored to the post, we previously noted.

However, if Shira Perlmutter intends to seek the aforementioned preliminary injunction, the parties should “meet, confer, and submit a joint proposed briefing schedule,” the court also ordered.

This briefing-schedule order has a 2 PM PST deadline today, but at the time of writing, the appropriate document hadn’t made its way into the docket. In other words, the dispute appears poised for additional deliberation from here.

And while it probably goes without saying, it’ll be worth closely tracking the challenge moving forward. As broken down in detail by DMN Pro, evidence (including the Supreme Court decision allowing the removal of National Labor Relations Board Chair Gwynne Wilcox) suggests that reinstatement might be unlikely for Perlmutter.

Nevertheless, it isn’t outside the realm of possibility, and high-stakes Copyright Office questions are unanswered in any event.

First, the precise views of the current acting appointees – including Deputy AG Todd Blanche at the helm of the overarching Library of Congress – remain to be seen. Though there’s quite a lot to consider in this department, most of the recent framing has concerned the government’s stance on AI.

Probably not coincidentally, Perlmutter’s dismissal arrived on the heels of a Copyright Office report pertaining to artificial intelligence training. But as DMN has noted, if their prior comments are any indication, the acting Library and Copyright Office appointees aren’t exactly Big Tech proponents.

Thus, it’ll be interesting to monitor their approach to ever-pressing questions at the intersection of AI and IP. Also far from set in stone is whether they’ll stay aboard for the foreseeable future or make way for permanent replacements.

Of course, another Copyright Office overhaul would bring with it a fresh collection of considerations for a variety of sectors, chief among them the music industry.

Photo Credit: Jonathan

The Trump administration has thrown its support behind Cox Communications in the high-profile Cox v. Sony case as the case heads to potential review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

At the heart of the case is whether internet service providers (ISPs) like Cox should be held liable when subscribers use their networks to illegally download copyrighted music. If found liable, Cox would be required to boot offending customers and may face massive financial penalties for continuing to supply connection to alleged pirates.

The case was filed back in 2018 when more than 50 record labels including Sony Music Entertainment sued Cox for not terminating the accounts of subscribers accused of repeatedly pirating music. A Virginia jury initially awarded the music labels a $1 billion verdict against Cox—finding the ISP liable for both contributory and vicarious copyright infringement. However, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals later overturned the vicarious liability finding and the damages award. However, the appeals court upheld the contributory infringement ruling—sending the case back for a new trial on damages.

Both parties have since petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case. Cox is seeking to overturn any liability related to continuing to platform pirates, while the music industry seeks the reinstatement of the initial fine. In response, the Supreme Court has asked the Department of Justice (DOJ) to weigh in. This week, the Trump DOJ, through Solicitor General John Sauer, filed a brief urging the court to take up Cox’s appeal and reject Sony’s.

The Trump administration’s brief argues that the Fourth Circuit’s decision threatens to expose ISPs to sweeping liability. It also argues that it could force ISPs to disconnect users after receiving a single copyright complaint. Sauer notes that such an approach could set a precedent that leads to innocent users losing internet access over unproven allegations.

Sauer writes that the 4th Circuit decision if not overturned, “subjects ISPs to potential liability for all acts of copyright infringement committed by particular subscribers as long as the music industry sends notices alleging past instances of infringement by those subscribers.” He also argues that this could “encourage providers to avoid substantial monetary liability by terminating subscribers after receiving a single notice of alleged infringement.”

Sauer continues to argue that rulings in Sony v. Universal City Studios and MGM Studios v. Grokster “make clear that contributory liability for copyright infringement requires more than knowledge that others have put the defendant’s products to infringing use. Instead, it requires ‘culpable intent’ to cause infringement.”

The DOJ further argues that simply providing access to the internet—even after receiving infringement notices—does not constitute “material contribution” to copyright infringement. The DOJ draws parallels to a recent case involving X/Twitter, where the Court found that providing a platform does not make a company liable for its users’ illegal acts unless the company is actively participating.

“If Cox had explicitly or implicitly marketed its services as being particularly useful for infringers, or if it had encouraged subscribers to use Cox’s Internet service to infringe, liability might be appropriate. But as the court of appeals acknowledged, Cox’s business model was indifferent to whether it’s subscribers used the internet for lawful or unlawful purposes.”

Saur writes that siding with Sony would “threaten liability for other service providers” like electric utilities that might be asked to cut services to customers who used the service for unlawful purposes.

“Many accounts that triggered multiple notices belonged to hotels, hospitals, universities, and regional ISPs serving hundreds of thousands of individual users,” Sauer continues. “Under the decision below, Cox would be held liable for direct infringement committed by any of those users, whose identities it does not know and with whom it has no contractual relationship.”

Saur also urged the Supreme Court to reject Sony’s petition for a review. “The court of appeals correctly held that Sony had not satisfied its burden of showing that Cox financially benefited from infringement on its network. As the court explained, Cox charges its customers a flat fee for internet service, regardless of what its users do online.”

The Trump administration is firing back against a lawsuit filed by axed Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter. Photo Credit: Tabrez Syed

An intensifying battle for USCO control: The Trump administration is firing back against the lawsuit filed by axed Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter.  

We first covered that lawsuit (including a push for reinstatement) last week, and DMN Pro yesterday took an in-depth look at Perlmutter’s largely procedural action. Long story short: the former Copyright Office head maintains that the Library of Congress is part of the legislative, not the executive, branch, and is therefore off limits to the President.

Consequently, per Perlmutter’s complaint, President Trump’s dismissal of Librarian of Congress Carla Hayden is “unlawful.” (Among other things, said Librarian is tasked with appointing the Register of Copyrights.)

And in Perlmutter’s view, since Hayden’s firing is allegedly unlawful, the acting replacement (Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche) lacks the authority to boot her (Perlmutter) at all.

Perlmutter’s complaint contains several relief requests, the most noteworthy being a sought injunction declaring that she “may not be removed from her office as Register of Copyrights and Director of the U.S. Copyright Office, or in any way be treated as having been removed.”

Enter the Trump administration’s initially highlighted opposition to Perlmutter’s requested restraining order.

As described by the newer legal document, because the Library of Congress “is part of the Executive Branch and is subject to presidential control” under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA), “[t]he President had the power to remove the Librarian and designate an acting replacement.”

But even in the absence of the FVRA, “the President’s power to designate Mr. Blanche comes from the Constitution, not any statute,” per the defendants.

Following the idea to its logical conclusion, Perlmutter’s firing was lawful, and the presiding judge should deny the restraining order motion, according to the Trump administration.

“Because Mr. Blanche is properly serving as acting Librarian,” the legal text reads, “he had clear authority to remove the Register of Copyrights, as he did in designating Paul Perkins as acting Register. In addition, the President removed the Register directly—a removal that likewise is within his constitutional power where, as at that time, there is no Librarian.”

On cue, Perlmutter’s legal team submitted a reply supporting the restraining order motion and opposing the defendants’ above-described arguments. In brief, the follow-up mainly builds on the existing central position that the executive branch lacks the authority to dismiss the Librarian.

“Historical practice confirms that the President lacks any inherent authority to fill vacancies in principal offices,” the retort claims.

“Because the FVRA does not confer authority on the President to appoint an officer to temporarily perform the functions of the Librarian of Congress, the President’s appointment of Mr. Blanche was ultra vires,” the filing proceeds.

Suffice to say that it’ll be worth closely monitoring the courtroom confrontation – and especially the near-term trajectory of Perlmutter’s crack at reinstatement.

As explored in detail by DMN Pro’s aforementioned report, while evidence points to longshot odds of Perlmutter’s taking the USCO reins once again, the music industry may still be able to record IP wins under the new Copyright Office guard.

Also important is the “acting” nature of this guard; it remains to be seen who will serve as Librarian and Register on a permanent basis and when they’ll begin doing so.

Washington’s James Madison Memorial Building, which houses the US Copyright Office (Photo: UpstateNYer)

The battle over who controls the US Copyright Office now heads to the courts. But can ousted Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter litigate her job back? The answer is of utmost importance to the music industry and billions in IP assets — and the focus of this report.

As first reported on Digital Music News, Perlmutter is now suing the Trump Administration and various Trump officials over what she claims was an ‘unlawful’ dismissal. Perlmutter is seeking a court order to reinstate her position, arguing that Trump lacked the legal and Constitutional authority to issue the firing.

(The case, Perlmutter v. Blanche, 1:25-cv-01659, is currently being tracked in DMN Pro’s Music Industry Litigation Tracker; check this page for ongoing developments in this case).

Most of Perlmutter’s filing is focused on procedural arguments, including whether the US Copyright Office is a legislative or executive entity. Arguments over separation of powers and the limits of presidential power abound, though Perlmutter is battling a number of unfriendly precedents.

In this weekly report, we dig into those arguments and consider whether Perlmutter has a case — or whether judges will quickly dismiss the action.

Report Table of Contents

I. An Ousted US Copyright Office Chief Fights Back In Court

II. Perlmutter v. Blanche: An Overview of the Legal Arguments

III. Is This Case a Prayer? A Hard Look at the Merits of This Case – And Similar Legal Battles In Washington

IV. The Problem With a Perlmutter Victory: Strategizing Within the Music Industry Begins

V. Chronology of the Chaos: A Timeline of the US Copyright Office Meltdown – So Far

Please note: the following report is for DMN Pro subscribers only. Please do not redistribute — thank you!

Producer Deezle (Darius Harrison), who’s filed a missing-royalties lawsuit against Universal Music, posing with his Grammys from Lil Wayne’s Tha Carter III. Photo Credit: Claudio Ch Zayas

Lil Wayne producer Deezle (real name Darius Harrison) is suing Universal Music for allegedly failing to pay him millions in due royalties from Tha Carter III (2008) and more.

Deezle and his Drum Major Music Entertainment company just recently submitted the multifaceted lawsuit to a New York federal court. This time around, Universal Music Group (UMG) is the only defendant.

14 years back, however, Deezle levied a similar action against Lil Wayne himself; the involved parties settled in 2012. Despite the resolution – more on this in a moment – the producer is evidently unready to put his royalty qualms in the rearview.

As recapped in the newly filed lawsuit, after scoring a 2004 Cash Money Records producer deal and producing “Weezy Baby” on Tha Carter II (2005), Deezle went on to ink a producer agreement with Lil Wayne-founded Young Money Entertainment in late 2007.

Under the newer contract, the producer then contributed to six Tha Carter III tracks, among them “Lollipop.”

Per the plaintiffs, Young Money agreed to provide “no less than semi-annual accounting statements reflecting all royalties accrued” as part of the tie-up. Plus, Young Money’s distributor, Cash Money, was said to be compelled to account to the filing parties “directly and at the same time it” accounted to Young Money.

In terms of where Universal Music fits into the picture, stated concisely, the major has long handled Cash Money’s distribution. And Lil Wayne reportedly sold the Young Money catalog to UMG for $100 million in 2020.

Consequently, Young Money (as well as Cash Money and, in turn, UMG) is allegedly compelled to forward to Deezle and his company the appropriate “4 percent royalty rate” on the above-outlined Tha Carter III efforts.

Unsurprisingly, in light of the just-levied complaint, these payments have purportedly failed to come through.

“In a shocking, willful and intentional breach of the YME Producer Agreement,” the plaintiffs summed up, “YME failed to [account to] Harrison pursuant to the YME Producer Agreement and UMG has breached the agreement by failing to report and pay royalites [sic] for over a decade.”

Additionally, regarding the aforesaid 2004 Cash Money producer pact, Deezle has pointed to allegedly unpaid royalties for his six credits on Birdman’s Fast Money (2005), besides the “Shorty Bounce” track Lil Wayne recorded for The Longest Yard.

Back to the previously highlighted settlement, Universal Music is said to have started “sending royalty statements to” Deezle after the prior suit’s 2012 resolution. But the major allegedly “ceased sending” those statements “[a]lmost immediately” thereafter.

“UMG administers the payments to producers, artists and songwriters relating to the masters at issue and has failed to pay Plaintiffs,” the filing parties summed up. “Plaintiffs have not been paid any producer royalites [sic] associated with the YME Producer Agreement or CMR Producer Agreement for over a decade.”

While this suit’s timing is likely to take center stage as the legal battle plays out, Deezle is seeking at least $6 million in damages for the allegedly missing royalties. And in the bigger picture, the producer has joined the likes of Iggy Azalea and Limp Bizkit in formally accusing the major of failing to pay royalties.

A nighttime shot of Seoul, South Korea. Photo Credit: Yohan Cho

YouTube looks to have resolved a bundling-focused investigation in South Korea, where the platform reportedly intends to launch its Premium Lite subscription.

Local outlets shed light on the resolution, which will seemingly end a years-long Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) probe. As we reported last month, the investigation centered on YouTube Premium’s music streaming market impact.

At present, Premium (offering ad-free access to YouTube proper and Music) is available for $10.87/₩14,900⁠ per month in South Korea, where close to 90% of the population actively uses YouTube. That’s compared to $8.75/₩11,990⁠ per month for Music, and unsurprisingly, many have opted to pay the extra $2 monthly for across-the-board viewing without ads.

But according to critics and the KFTC, this model means YouTube’s leveraging its video-sharing dominance at the expense of on-demand streaming platforms. With little incentive for Premium subscribers to utilize different music services, the likes of Melon and more have reportedly suffered material market-share slips in recent years.

And it’s safe to say that the competitive landscape is also compelling international players to adapt. Having previously offered only paid plans in South Korea, Spotify embraced an ad-supported tier in October 2024.

Now, however, the YouTube Music rivals may catch something of a break with the rollout of Premium Lite.

Per BusinessKorea, the KFTC has signed off on a YouTube proposal under which Lite would go live in the nation of 52 million. Technically resurrected last year, Lite costs less than Premium but excludes Music and doesn’t afford ad-free access to music videos on YouTube itself, to name a couple differences.

According to the same outlet, Lite will operate alongside Premium; at least in theory, YouTube diehards might migrate from Premium to Lite and then turn elsewhere for music streaming if so inclined.

On the other hand, some have acknowledged the distinct possibility that the cheaper plan will help YouTube entrench its already-advantageous position in South Korea. And as described by The Chosun Daily, certain domestic streaming players are criticizing the resolution as ineffective when it comes to reversing the above-outlined market-share trends.

In any event, this resolution will further see YouTube put up $21.89 million (₩30 billion) for a fund benefiting “consumer welfare” as well as the South Korean music industry.

Separately, the aforementioned Spotify is among the platforms still grappling with KFTC investigations of their own.

Fired Copyright Office head Shira Perlmutter, who’s challenging her dismissal in a lawsuit. Photo Credit: USCO

Axed Copyright Office head Shira Perlmutter is suing the Trump administration over her “blatantly unlawful” dismissal – and seeking, among other things, a court order allowing her to remain in the post.

Perlmutter submitted that straightforward complaint yesterday, after she was fired as Register of Copyrights earlier in May. One component of a wider Library of Congress and Copyright Office showdown – more on this in a moment – Perlmutter’s ordered exit arrived days following the firing of Librarian of Congress Carla Hayden.

In turn, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche (one of multiple defendants in the action) was named as Hayden’s replacement on an acting basis. From there, as described by Perlmutter’s action, Blanche “sent two Justice Department officials to the Library of Congress” to begin as the acting Deputy Librarian and acting Register.

Specifically, those DOJ officials are Associate Deputy AG Paul Perkins, tapped to serve as the acting Register of Copyrights, and Blanche’s Deputy Chief of Staff, Brian Nieves (acting Deputy Librarian).

But as the plaintiff sees things, President Trump doesn’t have the “authority to name a temporary replacement Librarian of Congress, much less name a high-ranking DOJ official whose presence offends the constitutional separation of powers.”

“In short, the President’s attempt to name Mr. Blanche as acting Librarian of Congress was unlawful and ineffective, and therefore Mr. Blanche cannot remove or replace Ms. Perlmutter,” the filing party summed up of her position.

Meanwhile, though Perlmutter’s complaint contains several requests for relief, the most noteworthy is that mentioned above, concerning her staying aboard as Register.

The court should “[e]nter a preliminary and permanent injunction ordering that Plaintiff Shira Perlmutter may not be removed from her office as Register of Copyrights and Director of the U.S. Copyright Office,” the legal text spells out.

Regardless of how Perlmutter’s legal challenge unfolds, it’s safe to say that the broader battle for Copyright Office control involves more than a few moving parts.

In its latest weekly report, DMN Pro broke down the multifaceted situation, which is still replete with unknowns when it comes to policy and, in turn, the optimal approach to lobbying.

Besides the legal questions (and lawsuit) surrounding the shakeup, it remains to be seen whether the aforementioned DOJ officials will stick around in their new posts or soon make way for non-acting replacements.

The timing here is certainly important. Despite the widespread idea that “tech bros” facilitated the Copyright Office and Library of Congress overhaul – Perlmutter’s firing directly followed the release of an AI training report – evidence suggests that the acting replacements are hardly Big Tech proponents.

Photo: Krivitskiy

For those trying to make sense of the post-apocalyptic hell-scape known as the US Copyright Office, we wish you the best.

What started as a tech bro ambush has shifted into an all-out war for control over the US Copyright Office — and the critical policy direction that comes with it. It’s not entirely clear why former US Copyright chief Shira Perlmutter was abruptly fired, though widespread conjecture pointed to the handiwork of tech bro operators like Elon Musk and David Sacks — not to mention the very powerful cadre of pro-AI, Trump-allied tech titans.

The theory sounds logical enough, but why can’t they finish the deal?

As recently-fired Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter launches her legal counterattack against the Trump Administration, we’re guessing the White House will forge ahead with their chosen replacements at the Copyright Office and its umbrella org, The Library of Congress.

But wait: the White House’s interim picks aren’t very pro-AI or pro-tech, raising serious questions about the tech bro puppet master theory. If Musk & Co. directed the dismissal of the more pro-copyright Perlmutter, why aren’t more AI-friendly replacements being named?

Tossing another perplexing incident into the riddle: Trump himself ‘re-truthed’ a rather anti-tech post on Truth Social — from legal ally Mark Davis, who has sharply questioned the copyright-be-damned mantra of the AI class.

As we head into the weekend, some top-ranking Department of Justice officials are assuming positions at both the Library of Congress and US Copyright Office. But is that how this works?

A key argument in Perlmutter’s legal filing is that the White House and Department of Justice lack any authority to fire the head of the Copyright Office. Instead, the head of the Library of Congress has the sole authority to appoint and dismiss the Register of Copyrights, though it should be noted that the President does appoint the Librarian of Congress with Congress’ consent and has the power to remove the Librarian as well.

Perhaps this is procedural quibbling, but it raises the question: will a federal judge issue an injunction and restore Perlmutter to her former post?

If so, get ready to crank the mayhem meter to 11. But will the Trump Administration simply seek another method to dispose of Perlmutter if a judge steps in?

Perhaps the more vexing question for the music industry is whether a restored Perlmutter will have anything close to her previous influence. Shaping copyright policy with a Director-under-attack seems dicey at best, with one policymaker telling DMN that Trump-appointed, pro-copyright people might be the best outcome here.

But who might those people be?

Besides the legal questions (and lawsuit) surrounding the shakeup, it remains to be seen whether the aforementioned DOJ officials will stick around in their new posts or make way for non-acting replacements.

Meanwhile, getting far less attention is a pernicious piece of pro-AI legislation in ‘The One Big, Beautiful Bill.’

‘The One Big, Beautiful Bill’ recently passed the House by the narrowest of margins before heading to the Senate. And buried with the voluminous Bill — at least as currently written — is a dastardly 10-year moratorium on state-led AI regulations. That’s right: by law, states would be prevented from enacting AI regulations of any size or flavor.

It’s a big, beautiful bonus for AI megaliths like Alphabet, Meta, and OpenAI, with pesky regulations off the table for a full-blown decade.

As one might expect, state attorneys general are arguing that the moratorium would be “sweeping and wholly destructive of reasonable state efforts to prevent known harms associated with AI.” In a recent open letter to Congress, they point out that the absence of federal protections means states are often a first line of defense against technological harms—including those impacting personal identity, privacy, and creative rights.

On the AI side, the argument is that over-regulation will kill technological development and competitiveness with rivals like China. Of course, the ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’ still has a gigantic Senate hurdle, and plenty of changes are likely to occur. Can pro-copyright forces — not to mention state AGs — remove or soften the 10-year provision?

Sadly, this isn’t the best of times for copyright defenders like the NMPA, RIAA, and others.

The Trump Administration has its copyright defenders and big tech challengers, but can music’s well-heeled lobbyists steer this ship towards a zone of content protection and compensation? Part of the problem is Hollywood, which is ardently anti-Trump and, well, Californian.

That anti-Trump energy has certainly dominated the music side as well. However, DMN keeps hearing that the music industry would be wise to fire up its Nashville contingent, including its Red State superstar musicians, to shift the discussion. Incidentally, that includes Trump pals like Kid Rock, who flanked the president during his ratification of the momentous Music Modernization Act during the first term.

Perhaps it’s time to roll out that game plan again in the more critical battle against AI?

More as this chaotic situation develops.

Photo Credit: Chief Fashionista / CC by 2.0

Young Thug has ignited controversy over his take on Kid Cudi’s testimony during Diddy’s sex trafficking and racketeering trial in New York.

The Atlanta rapper posted “Dam cudi a rat lol” on X/Twitter shortly after Kid Cudi’s appearance in court. The rapper quickly deleted the message, but it has sparked controversy in the hip-hop community over the ethics of testifying in criminal cases involving fellow artists. Kid Cudi—real name Scott Mescudi—took the stand yesterday to deliver testimony about Diddy’s actions.

Prosecutors believe Cudi’s testimony was necessary in seeking to establish a pattern of violence and intimidation by Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs. During his testimony, Cudi spoke of several events involving the rap mogul. He testified that in 2012, his Porsche was destroyed in a Molotov cocktail attack that he believed to be a warning from Diddy. Cudi says the warning was due to his brief relationship with Cassie Ventura, Diddy’s ex-girlfriend and another witness at the trial.

Kid Cudi described receiving a call from his dog sitter about the car being on fire and later saw photos showing the top of the Porsche had been cut into for the Molotov cocktail to be placed. Cudi also alleges that Diddy broke into his Los Angeles home in 2011 after discovering that Cudi was dating Cassie Ventura. During that break-in, Cudi said his dog was confined to the bathroom and Christmas presents were left opened in the kitchen.

Young Thug’s ‘rat’ comments underscores ongoing tensions in the hip-hop community over the code of silence and what is perceived as ‘snitching.’ The rapper himself was recently released from prison after a RICO case and has previously criticized artists who co-operate with the authorities in any capacity. Young Thug also criticized fellow rapper Gunna for co-operating with authorities during the YSL RICO case, in which Gunna accepted a plea deal.

Photo Credit: Kid Cudi by Sellahremy / CC by 3.0

Kid Cudi was called to testify at Diddy’s federal trial over an attack in which his Porsche was allegedly blown up by the disgraced music mogul.

Scott Mescudi, better known as Kid Cudi, was called as a witness to testify during day nine of Sean “Diddy” Combs’ federal sex trafficking and racketeering trial. Cudi described his reaction when a Molotov cocktail blew up his Porsche convertible, which prosecutors say was at the direction of Combs.

“What the f—,” the rapper recalled, after he received a call from his dog-sitter in 2012. “She told me my car was on fire,” he said. “I immediately went to my house.”

Cudi said that while on his way home, he received a text from his friend with a picture of the damaged Porsche. “The top of my Porsche was cut open, and that’s where they inserted the Molotov cocktail,” he said, explaining that the car was beyond repair.

Cassie Ventura, the trial’s star witness and Combs’ ex-girlfriend, was dating Mescudi at the time the rapper’s car was destroyed. She previously testified that Combs became jealous and allegedly threatened to have the car blown up. Mescudi did not mention Combs in connection with the car’s destruction during his testimony.

Ventura’s troubled on-again, off-again relationship with Combs was at the heart of Mescudi’s testimony. He also recalled an incident in which he received a phone call from a “scared” Ventura in the early hours of the morning in December 2011. She asked Mescudi to pick her up, and that Combs had found out about their relationship.

Combs had allegedly obtained Mescudi’s home address, and she was afraid he would show up or send someone to cause problems at her new boyfriend’s house. Mescudi said he was confused, because he believed Combs was no longer a part of Ventura’s life. Nevertheless, he said he picked her up as requested and took her to a hotel.

At the hotel, Mescudi received a phone call from Combs’ employee and Ventura’s friend, Capricorn Clark. Clark told him Combs and an associate physically forced her into a car and drove to Mescudi’s home. Allegedly, Clark said she was calling from the car, while Combs was actively inside his house.

Mescudi said he rushed home and called Combs on the way. Combs allegedly said they needed to talk, and that he would be waiting for Mescudi when he arrived. But when he got home, Mescudi said no one was there. Mescudi then told the court during cross-examination that he left his front door unlocked and there were no signs of forced entry, nor any damages to his property. The only signs someone had been there were Mescudi’s dog locked in the bathroom and unwrapped Christmas presents on the kitchen counter.

The rapper said he filed a police report about the break-in. He told the court he spent the holiday with Ventura’s family, and Combs tried to contact him several times. Mescudi said he would not take Combs’ calls, simply telling him, “You broke into my house. You messed with my dog. I don’t want to talk to you.”

Mescudi’s relationship with Ventura ended shortly after the holidays in 2011, mostly because he said he was concerned for his safety. Then, in January 2012, he received the phone call from his dog-sitter about his Porsche being on fire. Although DNA was taken from the scene, no one was ever charged with setting the car on fire. Nevertheless, Mescudi told the court he believed Combs was involved.

Combs and Mescudi eventually met to discuss their differences at SoHo House in Los Angeles, where the latter says the former maintained a calm demeanor. Mescudi said Combs denied knowing anything about the car, but that he didn’t believe him.

Combs is charged with sex trafficking, racketeering, and transportation to engage in prostitution. He has pleaded not guilty, and his federal trial continues.

Photo Credit: US Copyright Office

It looked like a quick solution to a nagging roadblock for AI’s tech bros. But gutting the US Copyright Office and its IP protections is proving trickier than originally planned. Here’s the latest in the fast-moving and quickly-shifting battle over control of IP’s most important government agency.

Just one week after a shocking shakedown at the US Copyright Office and Library of Congress, things might be going sideways for the tech bros. Suddenly, the premise that Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter was fired at the whim of tech bros is coming under question. Or, perhaps Elon Musk and associates – including White House AI and Crypto Czar David Sacks – are exerting far less influence over this situation than originally imagined.

Enter the appointed replacements, none of whom are ardently pro-AI, to say the least. According to details now confirmed by the Department of Justice, Trump allies Paul Perkins, Brian Nieves, and Todd Blanche are filling key roles at the Library of Congress and USCO – at least for now.

A huge question is whether these appointees will stick around, or whether they are merely transitional figures. But aside from the Constitutional questions surrounding Trump’s appointed replacements, an interesting question surrounds the philosophies of all three — in particular their tough attitudes towards tech.

Chili’s parent Brinker International has finalized agreements in principle to settle infringement complaints from the Beastie Boys and Universal Music. Photo Credit: Saiflee100

Copyright conflicts resolved: Chili’s parent Brinker International has officially moved to settle a pair of infringement actions centering on social media promo videos.

Counsel for Brinker and each of the plaintiffs just recently informed the court (or more specifically courts) of the settlements in principle. Both actions, one filed by the Beastie Boys, the second levied by Universal Music, kicked off last year.

And as noted, the similar complaints revolve around the defendant’s alleged infringement of protected music in adverts. As many know, this type of litigation – which has hit energy drink companies, NBA teams, AHL teams, Marriott (though the company quickly settled), and a number of others yet – is increasingly common today.

But now, it looks as though there will be two fewer suits to track here. Beginning with the surviving Beastie Boys members’ comparatively concise claim, alleging the unauthorized use of “Sabotage,” a May 7th mediation session is said to have delivered a settlement agreement in principle.

As things stand, the appropriate parties say they’re finalizing the resolution’s particulars and intend to formally move for dismissal by July 7th.

Shifting to Universal Music’s comparatively sweeping action – alleging the infringement of a variety of recordings and compositions – a separate May 7th mediation also brought about a settlement in principle. Like in the Beastie Boys v. Brinker’s battle, the major and the Chili’s operator plan to put the finishing touches on the resolution by July 7th.

It probably doesn’t need saying given that the settlements aren’t yet wrapped, but the exact terms at hand are unclear. However, it’ll certainly be worth keeping an eye on the once-off legal expenses identified in Brinker (NYSE: EAT) earnings reports moving forward.

Closer to the present, recent months have brought several additional infringement showdowns involving social platforms, where, in general, song libraries are pre-cleared for personal but not commercial use.

Unsurprisingly, in light of the above-described litigation volume in this area, it’d take quite a while to provide updates on each case. Just in passing, Crumbl is expected to answer Warner Music’s infringement suit by June’s end; WMG’s even newer action against Designer Shoe Warehouse is still in its early stages.

Bringing the final major into the fold, then, Sony Music is alleging largescale infringement on the part of the University of Southern California, which now has until June 6th “to file a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and for improper venue,” the docket shows.

Universal Music Group is firing back against the copyright-recapture lawsuit filed by Salt-N-Pepa. Photo Credit: David Burke

Let the copyright-recapture battle intensify: Universal Music is firing back against Salt-N-Pepa’s newly submitted lawsuit. Meanwhile, the hip-hop group has redacted sensitive details from its action.

We broke down the straightforward-enough suit at length moments after its filing. Long story short, Section 203 of the Copyright Act is said to allow certain entertainment professionals (not solely musicians) to terminate copyright transfers executed under non-work-for-hire agreements more than 35 years ago.

Translation: Some legacy acts (and a few actors) are moving to assume ownership of IP covered by decades-old agreements. Unsurprisingly, the increasingly common step isn’t sitting right with the majors and others, which have opposed the maneuver in no uncertain terms.

(Nevertheless, the likes of Dwight Yoakam and Southside Johnny have quietly settled recapture complaints levied against the majors.)

Returning to Salt-N-Pepa’s allegations, the original action, we previously noted, features as exhibits copies of the relevant agreements as well as related communications with Universal Music execs.

UMG brass in one such letter seemingly argued that Salt-N-Pepa’s sought terminations were both time-barred and invalid because members Cheryl James and Sandra Denton hadn’t themselves transferred the copyrights under the appropriate contracts.

Another document, dated July 2024, looks to outline terms under which Universal Music would continue exploiting the contested works while the recapture showdown unfolded. Last month, push evidently came to shove, and UMG when replying to another recapture letter said it’d halted “all U.S. exploitation of the” recordings at issue.

Bearing these points in mind, the major in responding to the action described the complaint’s exhibits as indicative of “repeated attempts to resolve this matter amicably.”

“As indicated by Salt-N-Pepa’s own legal filings,” a UMG spokesperson told DMN, “Universal Music Group has made repeated attempts to resolve this matter amicably, including offers to enter into a mediation, ever since the artists served an invalid termination notice.

“Although we had no legal obligation to do so, we still sought to find a way to improve the artists’ compensation and pay them directly, even after they had sold their royalty streams to a third party.

“Clearly, the artists’ legal counsel thinks they can use the threat of negative media coverage to achieve their unreasonable demands. Despite this, and consistent with our longstanding practice, we remain committed to working towards an amicable resolution,” the rep concluded.

Time will, of course, tell whether that amicable resolution materializes. Closer to the present, the presiding judge has now granted Salt-N-Pepa counsel’s mentioned redaction request.

Unfortunately, evidence suggests that the approval is too little, too late; the green-lit redactions seemingly pertain to Social Security numbers that the original complaint already revealed in full.

A live performance from Abby Anderson, one of the many artists publicly backing the No Fakes Act.

It’s time for Congress to pass the No Fakes Act – at least according to 21 Savage, Billy Idol, Deadmau5, Joe Walsh, Lainey Wilson, and a number of others who are backing the bill ahead of a Senate hearing today.

Just shy of 400 artists and actors signed a petition in support of the legislation, which, designed to tackle AI deepfakes, would establish bolstered voice and likeness protections. Originally introduced in 2023, the bipartisan No Fakes Act resurfaced in Congress last month with 40% more pages than its initial iteration.

As we summarized then, the extra words pertain to updated liability exclusions, penalties for online services as well as individuals, and subpoena particulars, to list a few elements. Besides growing in the length department, the bill is finding new proponents this time around.

Continued industry endorsements – RIAA head Mitch Glazier and country star Martina McBride will testify at this afternoon’s hearing – are now accompanied by backing from YouTube, the Walt Disney Company, and OpenAI.

Stated differently, with music-space giants and tech companies alike throwing their weight behind the measure, the odds of passage seem better than ever. Still, when it comes to maximizing the chances of a successful legislative journey, it makes sense to emphasize the bill’s creative-sector positioning.

Enter the aforementioned Human Artistry Campaign petition touting the No Fakes Act, which is supported by talent from CAKE to Lee Greenwood and Luis Fonsi to Lamb of God.

Common, Reba McEntire, Elvis Costello, Peter Frampton, the Black Keys’ Patrick Carney, Steven Tyler, and Mary J. Blige represent some of the numerous other signers. Though many of these individuals are music professionals, actors such as Jack Nicholson and an apparently ticked off Scarlett Johansson also added their names to the petition.

“This diverse coalition of artists, actors and creatives who know the importance of protecting these individual qualities as well as the support from leaders in both political parties on Capitol Hill, highlights how vital the NO FAKES Act is to preventing AI-generated deepfakes and fraud from exploiting who we are,” Human Artistry Campaign senior advisor Moiya McTier added in part.

Now, days after President Trump signed the Take It Down Act into law, all eyes are on the initially highlighted Senate hearing, dubbed “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: AI-Generated Deepfakes in 2025.”

On top of the above-noted appearances from Glazier and McBride, the Capitol Hill outing is set to feature remarks from YouTube global music publishing senior counsel Suzana Carlos.

Photo Credit: Wesley Tingey

Part I of this article discussed the different type of works and copyright rights in music. In Part II, we discussed different types of music licenses. In this final part of the article, we’ll discuss what happens when someone does not have a license to use the musical work or sound recording and the use is not otherwise allowed by the law. This is known as copyright infringement.

When is a Musical Work or Sound Recording Infringed?

Anyone who, without the authorization of the copyright owner, engages in an act that is covered by one or more of the exclusive rights of a copyright owner is an infringer of copyright unless:

1. The musical work or sound recording is not protected by copyright (for example, if it’s in the public domain); or
2. The act is permitted by an exception in copyright law.

In other areas of law, in order to be culpable, the actor must have had knowledge or intent to do the wrongful act. Not so in copyright. Copyright infringement is determined without regard to the intent or the state of mind of the infringer. In other words, it makes no difference whether the infringer knew what they were doing constituted copyright infringement. The only time that the actor’s state of mind may come into play is when a court is determining how much money in to award to a copyright owner in damages for the infringement.

How To Prove Copyright Infringement

Courts usually require a copyright owner to prove that they owned the copyrighted work, and the defendant violated one of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner. In a case where infringement of the reproduction right is alleged, since there is seldom direct evidence of the offending act, a copyright owner may prove infringement through circumstantial evidence establishing that: (1) the defendant had access to the original work, and (2) the two works are substantially similar.

It is not necessary that the entire musical work or sound recording be copied for an infringement of the reproduction right to occur, nor that the copying be literal. All that is necessary is that the copying be substantial and material and that protected expression is copied. Likewise, the similarity between the two works must also be a similarity of protected elements, not unprotected elements. For example, in music, this means that copying of common musical ideas like chord progressions or basic scales will not qualify as copyright infringement, but copying of more unique melodies might.

The portion taken by the alleged infringer must also be more than a trivial amount to qualify as infringing. In music, this issue usually arises in the context of sampling. In most instances, a license is needed to use a sample of another song in your song. Typically, sampling (without a license) is only permissible in very limited circumstances, where the quantity and quality of what is taken is considered to be insignificant. 

Remedies for Copyright Infringement

If one or more of the exclusive copyright rights of the owner of a musical work or sound recording have been infringed and the copyright owner wishes to seek monetary damages and profits, attorneys’ fees, and/or an injunction, they can initiate a lawsuit in federal court against the alleged infringer for civil copyright infringement. Before a copyright owner can initiate a copyright infringement suit in federal court, they must have applied for a copyright registration with the U.S. Copyright Office for the work at issue in the case and the Office must have rendered a decision om the copyrightability of that work by either issuing a registration or rejecting the application on copyrightability grounds. 

The various remedies for copyright infringement in federal court are available to copyright owners who registered their works in a timely fashion. These remedies are explained in detail below.

• Injunctions: In federal court, a copyright owner may seek a preliminary or permanent injunction to prevent or restrain the infringer from continuing the infringement. Courts often grant permanent injunctions where liability is established and there is a threat of continuing infringement.
• Damages: At any time before final judgment is rendered, a copyright owner may elect to recover either (i) actual damages and profits of the infringer or (ii) statutory damages (i.e., damages determined by the statute, here the Copyright Act). Actual damages may be awarded in the amount of the copyright owner’s losses plus any profits of the infringer attributable to the civil copyright infringement. Statutory damages are only available when the copyright owner registers their work with the U.S. Copyright Office either (1) within three months of publication of the work, or (2) before the infringement starts. Statutory damages in federal court may be awarded in an amount between $200 and $150,000 per work infringed, with the former available only for “innocent infringers” and the latter available in cases of willful infringement. Remember, intent is not necessary to prove infringement, but it is factored into a court’s analysis on damages. 
• Court Costs and Attorneys’ Fees: Federal courts have discretion to allow the recovery of full court costs by or against any party, including the awarding of reasonable attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party under certain circumstances. However, plaintiff copyright owners cannot be awarded attorneys’ fees unless they have timely registered their works with the U.S. Copyright Office.
• Impoundment and Destruction: Federal courts may order the impounding of infringing goods at any time an action is pending. As part of a final judgment, the court may also order the destruction or any other reasonable disposition of the infringing goods.

An Alternative to Federal Court—the Copyright Claims Board (CCB)

The Copyright Claims Board (CCB) is a voluntary alternative to federal court for resolving certain types of small copyright disputes. The total monetary damages that can be awarded by the CCB is limited and cannot exceed $30,000 in one case and $15,000 per work. The CCB also cannot issue injunctions. However, if the parties reach an agreement where one party agrees to cease a particular conduct, the CCB can include a requirement in its final determination that the party abide by the agreement to cease the conduct. As a general rule, at the CCB, parties must pay their own attorneys’ fees and court costs. The CCB is often used instead of federal court where the infringement is not a large amount and/or the copyright owner may not be able to afford the cost of litigating in federal court.

Conclusion

Obviously, there is much more that we could discuss when it comes to music copyright. After all, there are many books written on the topic. Hopefully, the information provided in the three-part series offer a strong foundation for you to understand your basic rights and how to license your music to someone and what to do if they use it without your permission. It may have also sparked an interest to learn even more about music copyright. 

If you’re still looking for more information, here are few additional resources from the U.S. Copyright Office that we’d recommend:

• What Musicians Should Know about Copyright
• How Songwriters, Composers, and Performers Get Paid
• Musical Works, Sound Recordings & Copyright
• Sampling, Interpolations, Beat Stores, and More: An Introduction for Musicians Using Preexisting Music

If that’s not enough, two other books you might find helpful include All You Need to Know About the Music Business by Donald S. Passman, which includes information about the legal financial and practical information about music copyright and is considered by many to be the industry bible on music copyright; and Music Money and Success by Jeffrey and Todd Brabac, which includes detailed information about licensing and royalties. 

And don’t forget to join the Copyright Alliance’s FREE Creator Membership to continue your educational journey on how to protect your creative work.

The jury verdict in favor of Epic Games, which has prevailed in a marathon patent infringement lawsuit centering on the technology behind Fortnite concerts from Travis Scott and Ariana Grande. Photo Credit: Digital Music News

Four years and one week-long trial later, Epic Games has triumphed in a patent infringement suit involving Fortnite concerts from Travis Scott, Ariana Grande, and others.

The jury just recently sided with Epic, which a company called Utherverse Gaming sued back in June 2021. Letting this initial complaint take the wheel for a moment – and keeping the focus on brass-tacks details – the plaintiff said it’d assumed ownership in 2020 over several patents.

As laid out by the filing party, three of the patents concerned “multi-instance, multi-user animation platforms,” with another describing tech purportedly allowing “for massively populated virtual worlds in which participants can share the same experience without overcrowding.”

Citing, among other things, Scott’s mentioned 2020 Fortnite show, the plaintiff maintained Epic had “utilized the claimed inventions of the Asserted Patents to host repeatable, large-scale events for multitudes of participants.”

That refers specifically to “the software that when executed on a server enables many Fortnite participants to experience the same virtual worlds for virtual social events and concerts,” according to the document.

Unsurprisingly, in light of the newly concluded trial, Epic refuted the allegations – including by firing off counterclaims challenging the patents’ validity and more.

When all was said and done, the trial and the jury’s assessment boiled down to whether Epic had infringed one patent, “Method, System and Apparatus of Recording and Playing Back an Experience in a Virtual Worlds System,” in its Grande and Scott concerts.

In the jury’s eyes, neither of those digital happenings constituted infringement of the claims within the central patent, the verdict form shows.  

But the jury also found – perhaps, given the presence of some clarifying markings, after a bit of debate – that Epic hadn’t proven the patent claims to be “invalid as obvious based on the prior art.”

Close but no cigar: Another page from the jury’s verdict form. Photo Credit: Digital Music News

(On the debate front, it evidently wasn’t a good sign for the plaintiff when the already-deliberating jury asked the presiding judge if unanimous verdicts were required. “The jury must be unanimous when it answers any individual question on the verdict form,” the court reiterated in response.)

Lastly, on the same form, the jury determined Epic had proven one of the patent’s relevant claims “involved only technology that a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider to be well-understood, routine, and conventional as of” 2014.

With that, the jury necessarily left blank the verdict form’s damages page, including a section for a percentage-royalty obligation.

Photo Credit: David Burke / CC by 2.0

Salt-N-Pepa is suing Universal Music Group for the rights to their catalog, claiming the label is holding their music hostage.

Cheryl James and Sandra Denton of the legendary hip-hop group Salt-N-Pepa are suing Universal Music Group (UMG) for the rights to their catalog, which includes hits like “Push It,” “Shoop,” and “Whatta Man” featuring En Vogue. The duo claim the label is holding their music “hostage” and will not acquiesce to their request to invoke termination rights, by which songwriters can end their publishing agreements and regain their copyrights.

In a 166-page lawsuit filed Monday in New York, Denton and James state they “will not tolerate disrespect” from the label. The pair assert that they “not only transformed the genre but created, recorded, and performed some of the most famous hits of the twentieth century.” As the “First Females of Rap,” they were instrumental in “paving the way for subsequent generations of powerful and commercially successful female rap and hip-hop artists.”

According to the lawsuit, Salt-N-Pepa’s catalog has generated an estimated $1 million in the past five months in synchronization licenses alone, despite “little to no marketing efforts” on the part of UMG. The label has held a copyright grant since 1986, which has “given UMG the right to exploit Plaintiffs’ master recordings and retain a portion of all monies earned by Plaintiffs from the commercial exploitation of their work.”

Denton and James attempted to exercise their rights to termination of their contract with UMG under Section 203 of the Copyright Act of 1976, which allows songwriters to terminate copyright grants after 35 years.

But UMG has “refused to honor Plaintiffs’ Notices of Termination.” Instead, “UMG has indicated that it will hold Plaintiffs’ rights hostage even if it means tanking the value of Plaintiffs’ music catalog and depriving their fans of access to their work.” The lawsuit cites instances in which UMG removed Salt-N-Pepa songs from streaming platforms and made their music “unavailable for commercial exploitation in the US.”

Denton and James are seeking a jury trial. The duo is seeking both actual damages for money lost and punitive damages to be determined at trial. According to the filing, the actual damages alone could “well exceed $1 million.” They are also asking the court for a permanent injunction confirming their rights to their catalog.

UMG’s attorneys, in letters included as exhibits in the lawsuit, that they have pushed for mediation in order to reach a “mutually acceptable resolution.” However, lawyers for UMG also claim that Denton and James were not personally parties in the 1986 agreement that covered their initial albums. Further, there is “no evidence” that they ever granted the label copyright that could now be reclaimed.

According to UMG, the recordings were “works made for hire,” which would make them ineligible for the rights to be reclaimed. But Salt-N-Pepa’s lawsuit asserts that the pair’s agreements with the label very clearly state that they were not.

The lawsuit comes ahead of Salt-N-Pepa’s induction into the Rock N’ Roll Hall of Fame on November 8. The group was the first female rap ensemble to win a Grammy in 1995, and in 2021, they received a lifetime achievement Grammy award.

A live performance from Ed Sheeran, whose legal team is urging the Supreme Court to reject a cert petition in a marathon ‘Thinking Out Loud’ copyright dispute. Photo Credit: Mark Kent

Ed Sheeran is firing back against a Supreme Court cert petition in one of multiple “Thinking Out Loud” copyright suits. As the artist and his team see things, reversing the courts’ prior decisions could set the stage for a tidal wave of speculative infringement actions.

Defendants including Sheeran just recently made their position clear in a 31-page brief opposing an appeal from Structured Asset Sales (SAS). The latter has an interest in the Marvin Gaye hit “Let’s Get It On” and, alleging unauthorized overlap with the aforementioned Sheeran track, fired off a related infringement suit the better part of a decade ago.

Technically, this marathon legal battle is distinct from the similar complaint spearheaded by the estate of “Let’s Get It On” writer Ed Townsend. An appellate court closed out 2024 by denying a rehearing request in the SAS action – evidently laying the groundwork for the filing party to take the matter to the Supreme Court.

As we previously explored in greater detail, the confrontation centers specifically on protectable elements of deposited works under the Copyright Act of 1909.

Ultimately amended by the 1976 Act, the more than century-old copyright law required “two complete copies of the best edition” of a published work (meaning sheet music here) to be deposited with the Office to receive protection.

The 1976 update officially brought recordings into the fold (effective in 1978, that is) for compositional deposit copies, but “Let’s Get It On” was registered in 1973. And while it probably doesn’t need saying given the nearly eight years of litigation at hand, the point proved important.

Though the complaint alleged infringement of certain elements (like the bass line) contained in the “Let’s Get It On” recording, the courts in many more words found that the claims must be confined to the actual handwritten deposit copies.

“The Copyright Office has claimed that the 1909 Act registration deposit strictly delimits the scope of copyright in a work,” SAS vented in its initial cert petition. “In fact, nothing in that Act states that the deposit defines scope—no court ever limited a copyright based on a deposit for over 100 years until Led Zeppelin.”

Letting the brief from Sheeran and his counsel take the wheel, then, the purportedly “plain wrong” Structured Asset Sales is allegedly overlooking more than a century of well-established precedent.

“For over a century,” Team Sheeran wrote, “as evidenced by consistent case law and even by copyright treatises, there has been nothing ‘unsettled’ about the scope of copyright protection for musical works being limited to what is literally expressed in the ‘complete copies’” deposited with the Copyright Office under the 1909 Act.

“The self-serving free-for-all Petitioner posits would foment vast uncertainty and encourage rampant speculation, decades after the fact (and, in many cases, such as this one, long after the death of the composer in question), regarding the composer’s supposed intentions,” Sheeran and others continued.

“It would expand copyright infringement litigation to encompass elements appearing nowhere in deposited sheet music under the 1909 Act, nor in deposited recordings under the 1976 Act, so long as an expert is willing to suggest that such elements can be implied,” the respondents drove home.

Photo Credit: DiFronzo / CC by 2.0

In a significant ruling for the music industry and artists’ social media practices, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has definitively dismissed a copyright infringement case levied against Lil Nas X over Instagram photos.

The lawsuit was brought forth by photographer Rodney Woodland, who alleged that Lil Nas X had posed similarly to several of his copyrighted images on Instagram. The case initially survived a motion to dismiss in district court, raising concerns across the industry about the legal risks associated with sharing images on social media accounts.

Woodland’s photos were posted between August 2018 and July 2021 and received between eight and seventy-five likes. Meanwhile, Lil Nas X’s photos were posted between March and October 2021 and received hundreds of thousands of likes on the platform.

The United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed Woodland’s claims, including copyright infringement, declaratory relief, accounting, and unjust enrichment. The court found that Woodland failed to prove that Lil Nas X had previously viewed his photos on Instagram and that the photos Lil Nas X posted were not substantially similar to Woodland’s photos.

The appeals court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s dismissal, putting the issue to bed. Judges agreed that Woodland did not plausibly allege that Lil Nas X had viewed Woodland’s content and the mere fact that they shared a platform (Instagram) was not enough evidence.

Additionally, the court found that Woodland failed to show that Lil Nas X appropriated the poses and composition of the photos from Woodland. The Copyright Act only protects the selection and arrangement of individual elements in photos—with the court finding that the photos in question were not similar enough to be considered copyright violations. Many of the poses featured in both photographs are common photo poses used by hundreds of photographers who pose subjects for their work.

More than 300 music industry lawsuits updated daily. US-based jurisdictions with global cases coming soon.

The Robert F. Kennedy Building, which serves as the DOJ headquarters. Photo Credit: ajay_suresh

Live Nation is reportedly grappling with yet another wave of Justice Department scrutiny. Now, a reported criminal antitrust probe is zeroing in on alleged refund-related ticketing collusion during the early days of the pandemic.

This possible probe just recently entered the media spotlight and was confirmed by Live Nation. At the time of writing, however, the DOJ itself didn’t appear to have publicly commented on the matter. Consequently, we don’t have an abundance of information with which to work.

But as described by Bloomberg, the ongoing investigation revolves around whether the Ticketmaster parent and AEG Presents in early 2020 “illegally colluded on refund policies for canceled concerts and dealt with artists to limit losses.”

Per the same outlet – which, potentially setting the tone for subsequent reports, opted to prioritize the probe’s significance for Live Nation as opposed to AEG – prosecutors have considered levying charges against Live Nation and CEO Michael Rapino.

Of course, charges aren’t necessarily forthcoming; on the other hand, that the DOJ is turning back the clock half a decade isn’t exactly a good sign for the targeted companies. Though we’ll have to see what the future holds here, Live Nation EVP of corporate and regulatory affairs Dan Wall attempted to get in front of the subject with a prompt statement.

(DMN reached out to AEG Presents for comment but didn’t immediately receive a response.)

“‘While Live Nation contributed to this industry effort in good faith,’” Wall reportedly communicated in part, “‘we set our own unique policies and refund terms to support fans and artists. We did not collude with AEG or anyone else. We are proud of our leadership during those trying times, and if any charges result from this investigation, we will defend them vigorously.’”

Closer to the present, it’s safe to say that the administration change, contrary to the prevailing sentiment beforehand, hasn’t brought any regulatory relief whatsoever for Live Nation.

Most tellingly, the Justice Department antitrust suit seeking to separate the promoter from Ticketmaster is still in full swing. Then there’s a different DOJ and FTC inquiry, initiated earlier in May in response to a late-March executive order, centering on “unfair and anticompetitive” live/ticketing practices.

For the latter, companies, members of the public, and others can submit comments until July 7th. Apparently, one has the option of weighing in anonymously; the appropriate docket displayed 68 remarks, many far from positive and pertaining to Live Nation despite the inquiry’s more general scope, at the time of writing.

Especially important in light of these details is the Senate’s fresh bipartisan focus on the Live Nation/Ticketmaster agreement with Fanatics.

With all that said, the market doesn’t seem too concerned; Live Nation stock (NYSE: LYV) rose 1.6% during today’s trading to $147.68 per share. The price represents a 14% increase since 2025’s start and a 53% spike from mid-May 2024.

Anthropic counsel has apologized for a citation ‘hallucination’ in an expert testimony submitted as part of a copyright battle with music publishers. Photo Credit: Igor Omilaev

Time to lay off the use of AI in legal documents? Amid a high-stakes copyright battle with music publishers, Anthropic attorneys have apologized for an apparent citation “hallucination,” pinning the blame mainly on Claude.

We broke down the citation crisis after counsel for the music publisher plaintiffs formally voiced related concerns to the court. Anthropic data scientist and expert witness Olivia Chen, the publishers maintained in more words, had seemingly referenced a non-existent academic paper.

Unsurprisingly, the serious allegation prompted the presiding judge to order an explanation on the part of Anthropic. And this explanation arrived in the form of a declaration from Latham & Watkins associate Ivana Dukanovic.

The way Dukanovic tells the story, an internal investigation confirmed “that this was an honest citation mistake and not a fabrication of authority.”

Running with the point, the Anthropic attorney indicated that the relevant American Statistician citation “includes an erroneous author and title, while providing a correct link to, and correctly identifying the publication, volume, page numbers, and year of publication of, the article referenced.”

So what happened? Well, according to the same declaration, Claude took some liberties when citing not just the American Statistician article, but other sources used in Chen’s testimony.

“After the Latham & Watkins team identified the source as potential additional support for Ms. Chen’s testimony,” Dukanovic penned, “I asked Claude.ai to provide a properly formatted legal citation for that source using the link to the correct article.

“Unfortunately, although providing the correct publication title, publication year, and link to the provided source, the returned citation included an inaccurate title and incorrect authors,” she continued.

Claude is also said to have fumbled with “additional wording errors” in different citations. Though so-called AI hallucinations aren’t exactly rare – including in legal settings – the situation certainly draws attention to the law firm’s review approach.

“During the production and cite-checking process for Ms. Chen’s declaration,” Dukanovic weighed in here, “the Latham & Watkins team reviewing and editing the declaration checked that the substance of the cited document supported the proposition in the declaration, and also corrected the volume and page numbers in the citation, but did not notice the incorrect title and authors, despite clicking on the link provided in the footnote and reviewing the article.”

These remarks may raise more questions than they answer. Chief among them: If one has to make all sorts of corrections to AI-powered legal citations, wouldn’t it be preferable to tackle the process without consulting a chatbot?

And at the risk of throwing salt on the imaginary-citation wound, it’s safe to say the reviewing team’s performance left something to be desired.

But as the (incorrectly) cited article actually exists, the “embarrassing and unintentional mistake” doesn’t mean “Chen’s opinion was influenced by false or fabricated information,” per the text.

“We have implemented procedures, including multiple levels of additional review, to work to ensure that this does not occur again,” added Dukanovic.

DMN asked Claude about the episode, and even it advised against using LLMs for legal citations.

“Regarding citation hallucinations more generally – this is a known limitation of large language models like myself,” Claude responded. “When asked to provide citations, if I don’t have perfect recall of specific sources, I might generate what seem like plausible citations based on my training patterns rather than accurate bibliographic information.

“For any situation requiring accurate citations, the best practice would be to use dedicated academic search tools and databases rather than relying on an AI system to recall specific publication details from memory,” Claude continued.

Cover of the US Copyright Office’s latest update of ‘Copyright and Artificial Intelligence,’ pre-released just prior to Shira Perlmutter’s firing. The report’s recommendations may be getting shelved.

The music industry is battling another flurry of AI-related developments, with few positive developments for IP owners and creators. Here’s a look at the latest tumult in the AI world — and the industry’s possible next steps.

Those in the music industry hoping for an ‘ethical AI’ future were dealt serious blows over the past week, with concepts like permission-based training, fair use limitations, and creator compensation potentially tossed out the window. This DMN Pro Weekly report examines what just happened at the US Copyright Office, the latest proposed legislation surrounding AI training, the political underpinnings at work, and possible next steps for music publishers, label groups, IP owners, and artists.

Table of Contents

I. What Just Happened at the US Copyright Office – And What It Might Mean for the Music Industry

II. Unfettered AI: Will the Tech Bros Get Their Way?

III. Hollywood’s Hate Affair With DC: Can the Music Industry Chart a Different Path?

IV. The Music Industry Mafia, v2.0: How a Self-Regulating Industry Can Address AI Problems

The following report is for DMN Pro subscribers only. Please do not redistribute. Thank you!

Photo Credit: Ian Hutchinson

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has issued a formal warning to StubHub over the secondary ticket market’s slow rollout of all-in pricing.

The FTC’s rule requiring ticket sellers to display the total price of tickets upfront went into effect on May 12. The regulation applies to all ticket sellers, both primary and secondary. Ticketmaster was compliant on the rollout date, while secondary market SeatGeek issued its update on May 9 ahead of the deadline. But StubHub dragged its feet—with the mobile app only—to take advantage of the NFL 2025 schedule.

StubHub updated its website to comply with the all-in pricing requirement, but 48 hours after the deadline the mobile app failed to show the total price. The FTC notes that a significant portion of customers purchase tickets for upcoming events on their mobile devices—meaning StubHub was taking advantage of its mobile user base.

The FTC highlighted how StubHub’s non-compliance came at a time when the NFL’s 2025 schedule dropped. That always results in a high volume of traffic and sales. By not including all fees upfront, StubHub gained an unfair competitive advantage during one of the busiest ticket-buying periods of the year. Chris Mufarrige, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection doesn’t buy the excuse that the mobile roll-out took longer.

“Companies have had sufficient time to prepare for these changes and update their advertising to ensure the total price of each product or service is appropriately disclosed,” Mufarrige said. “As this letter shows, the Commission will not allow companies to circumvent the rule to gain a competitive advantage.”

While the FTC did not issue an immediate penalty for the slow-walked rollout, it did put StubHub on notice that further non-compliance could result in enforcement action—including fines. The FTC also took this opportunity to alert other ticketing platforms that it would be monitoring them to ensure industry-wide adherence to the new transparency rules. Violations of the all-in pricing rule could result in civil penalties of up to $53,088 per violation.

Photo Credit: U.S. Attorneys SDNY

Cassie Ventura, the R&B singer and former partner of Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs, delivered testimony on May 14th in the rap mogul’s ongoing trial. The testimony revealed a jaw-dropping $20 million payment to settle her civil lawsuit.

In a dramatic moment that closed her second day on the witness stand, Ventura confirmed for the first time that Diddy and his companies paid her $20 million to settle the civil lawsuit she filed in November 2023.

The $20 million settlement is a figure that was previously undisclosed to the public and was revealed during Ventura’s direct examination by prosecutors in Manhattan. Ventura stated unequivocally that the payment came from Diddy and his associated companies, bringing to light the substantial financial agreement that led to the swift dismissal of her civil lawsuit just one day after it was filed.

Ventura’s lawsuit accused Combs of a decade-long pattern of physical abuse, sexual assault, and coercion. Those allegations include that Combs drugged her, forced her into sexual encounters with male prostitutes, and orchestrated what he dubbed ‘freak-offs’—drug-fueled sex parties that he directed and filmed. That initial civil action and its swift settlement sparked a wave of additional lawsuits and triggered a federal criminal investigation that led to Combs’ arrest on charges including sex trafficking and racketeering.

While on the stand, Ventura recounted harrowing details of her relationship with Diddy from 2005 to 2018, describing incidents of rape, beatings, and psychological manipulation. She testified that the abuse left her feeling ‘disgusting’ and ‘humiliated’ and explained her decision to testify as a desire to “do what is right” after years of trauma.

Ventura’s testimony is central to the prosecution’s case, providing firsthand accounts of the alleged abuse and the circumstances that led to criminal charges against the rap mogul. The revelation of the $20 million settlement underscores the gravity of her claims and the high stakes involved in the trial. If convicted, Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs could face a life sentence in prison.

Cross-examination by the defense team is expected to focus heavily on her credibility and the nature of Cassie’s relationship with Combs. Defense attorney Marc Agnifilo has indicated that infidelity and related text messages will be central topics, aiming to portray the relationship as mutually damaging rather than one-sidedly abusive. The defense’s questioning is anticipated to last through at least Friday, as the defense attempts to poke holes in Cassie’s testimony.

In Part I of our Understanding Copyright in Music series, we explored the different types of works and copyright rights in music. In Part II we’ll discuss different types of music licenses.

There are many kinds of music licenses. What and how you license will depend on the type of work you are licensing—whether it is a musical work or sound recording (or both)—and what kinds of uses you are allowing the licensee to do with your work. Below is a list of several types of music licenses and how they are used:

Public Performance License

A public performance license grants someone permission to play a song in public, whether to a live or online audience. Recall that a performance is considered “public” when the work is performed in a public place, at a place where a substantial number of persons outside a normal circle of friends and family are gathered, or is transmitted to the public. If someone wants to publicly perform a musical composition, they must obtain a public performance license to do so. 

The owners of the public performance right in the underlying musical work typically authorize a Performance Rights Organization (or PRO), such as ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, and GMR, to license these rights. As discussed in Part I, owners of sound recordings only have a public performance right when the performance occurs by means of a digital audio transmission. That right is administered by Sound Exchange. But no license would be required when the transmission of the sound recording is by a terrestrial or other non-digital transmission, for example over broadcast radio. 

Mechanical License 

A mechanical license grants someone permission to reproduce and distribute a copy of a musical work and is required when someone wants to create and distribute copies of a song—whether in physical or digital form or whether it’s a recording of an original song or a cover version. This is because in all these examples, the musical work is being copied or a copy of it is being distributed. For example, if someone wants to use the musical work in a CD, a vinyl record, or a digital download of a song, they’ll need a mechanical license.

The Mechanical Licensing Collection (MLC) administers blanket mechanical licenses for musical compositions to eligible digital streaming and download services. A “blanket license” is a single license that allows the licensee to use any musical work in a catalogue. In the case of The MLC, the blanket license covers all musical works in the United States. The alternative to a blanket license is song-by-song licensing, which requires a licensee to obtain a license for every song they want to use on an individual basis. The blanket license covers interactive streams, limited downloads, and permanent downloads. The MLC does not administer public performance licenses for musical compositions (including for digital radio, or “non-interactive” streaming), and does not administer any rights for sound recordings.

Other organizations also administer mechanical licenses for other uses. For example, the Harry Fox Agency issues licenses for creating and distributing cover songs. Mechanical licenses can also often be obtained directly from the music publisher.

Print License

A print license is a license that allows someone to rearrange, print, or display the music notes or lyrics of a musical work in print. This type of license is required to reproduce or display sheet music or lyrics of a song in printed form. The difference between a mechanical license and a print license is that a mechanical license covers audio reproductions, while a print license covers printed reproductions.

Synchronization (“Sync”) License

A synchronization license (“sync” license) is a license that allows someone to use a musical composition along with a video in an audio-visual work. For example, a songwriter or music publisher would grant a sync license to someone who wants to use a song in a video format, such as a movie, TV show, advertisement, or video game. It would not give them the right to use a sound recording of that musical composition. In order to use the sound recording in the audiovisual, the licensee would also need to obtain a master use license from the owner of the sound recording rights. 

Master Use License

A master use license is a license that allows someone to use a particular sound recording in, for example, a movie, television show, or advertisement. Master use licenses are usually available from the record label. Many of the licenses listed above are particular to and only apply to the musical work. The master license is different in that it a license that someone gets from the owner of the master recording of the sound recording. 

Understanding Licenses is Important to Getting Compensated and to Protect Your Music

Understanding your rights and the various types of music licenses is important since the terms of those licenses will specify what rights you are licensing and how someone is allowed to use your musical work or sound recording. These licenses will also specify how much and when you will be paid for allowing such use (i.e., your royalties) and for how long these payments will continue, as well as many other aspects that govern the relationship between you, the music licensor, and the person or entity who is using your music, the licensee.

Don’t stop your copyright education here! Be on the lookout for Part III of our Understanding Copyright in Music series, and also be sure to check out Copyright Alliance’s FREE Creator Membership for additional educational resources.

SoundCloud CEO Eliah Seton, who’s responded to the ongoing controversy about his platform’s AI training policies. Photo Credit: SoundCloud

Amid pushback targeting an AI-focused update to his platform’s terms of use, SoundCloud CEO Eliah Seton has responded to the controversy. But critics say a new TOS adjustment doesn’t go far enough to protect artists.

The SoundCloud head addressed the fiasco in a more than 650-word open letter today. This lengthy follow-up arrives on the heels of criticism from artists as well as a few not-so-helpful statements from the company.

As we previously recapped, an early 2024 update (which, presumably implemented sans email notification, just recently entered the media spotlight) to SoundCloud’s terms compelled artists to “explicitly agree that” their music uploads “may be used to inform, train, develop or serve as input to artificial intelligence or machine intelligence technologies.”

The company subsequently claimed it hadn’t actually trained or allowed training on protected works – albeit while leaving the door open for related initiatives down the line.

Enter the response from Seton, who maintained once more that SoundCloud hadn’t “used artist content to train AI models” or authorized “third parties to scrape or use artist content from SoundCloud to train them either.”

In keeping with the Musiio owner SoundCloud’s prior remarks, the exec described the relevant TOS clause as an effort to power “smarter recommendations, search, playlisting, content tagging, and tools that help prevent fraud.”

“More broadly,” the CEO deflected, “we use AI to identify emerging talent, personalize the platform experience, and support real-time customer service, all designed to support human artists and engage real fans.”

Getting to the heart of the matter, Seton then acknowledged that the February 2024 TOS section “was too broad and wasn’t clear enough.”

Running with the point, the four-year SoundCloud higher-up confirmed a fresh terms update that looks as though it may put the kibosh on certain “opt-out” requirements. The latter would leave it up to artists and rightsholders to proactively exclude their work from on-platform training.

Instead, the adjusted TOS, which Seton disclosed in full, would seemingly mean that artists would have the chance to expressly consent to some types of AI training beforehand. Nevertheless, even the modified language doesn’t close the aforementioned training door altogether.

“We will not use Your Content to train generative AI models that aim to replicate or synthesize your voice, music, or likeness without your explicit consent, which must be affirmatively provided through an opt-in mechanism,” the proposed alteration reads in part.

“For the avoidance of doubt,” the important text continues, “neither SoundCloud nor any third party is allowed to use, copy or reproduce any Content delivered to the Platform under separate agreements…for the purposes of informing, training developing (or as input to) artificial intelligence technologies without authorization from the applicable rightsholders.”

For artists and rights owners whose music is on SoundCloud, the development isn’t exactly reassuring. It also highlights the growing need to store and manage music collections independently, instead of relying on downstream platforms and hubs like SoundCloud.

That’s increasingly the focus at platforms like OmMuse, whose platform offers catalog storage, protection, security, and accessibility from a consolidated hub. That shifts the control back to artists, who can distribute — or not distribute — depending on the situation.

“For music professionals, storage is more than just space—it’s about accessibility, security, and creative workflow,” Vivek Patel, CEO of OmMuse, told DMN. “The right system ensures that files are organized, protected, and instantly available.”

On X, Fairly Trained CEO Ed Newton-Rex (whose TOS discovery set the training controversy in motion) took issue with the “aim to replicate” stipulation.

“SoundCloud have changed their terms on AI in response to user backlash, but the change doesn’t go nearly far enough,” Newton-Rex wrote.

“Their new terms will say they won’t train gen AI models that replicate your voice / style,” he continued. “But they leave the door open to the much more likely gen AI training: models trained on your work that might not directly replicate your style but that still compete with you in the market.

“If they actually want to address concerns, the change required is simple. It should just read ‘We will not use Your Content to train generative AI models without your explicit consent,’” the former Stability AI exec proceeded.

The way Newton-Rex sees things, if SoundCloud decides to leave the fresh terms “unchanged” from here, “we can only assume” the new approach “is intentional.”

Suffice to say that the multifaceted issue won’t be going away anytime soon. For SoundCloud in particular, future AI announcements, pertaining to training or not, will be closely scrutinized. And it remains to be seen how different DSPs will approach training moving forward.

Photo Credit: Anthropic

The high-profile copyright lawsuit between major music publishers and Anthropic’s chatbot Claude just took a dramatic turn. Anthropic’s legal counsel is accused of submitting a court filing containing AI-generated hallucinations to an academic citation that does not exist.

Today a federal judge in San Jose ordered Anthropic to address allegations that one of its expert witnesses referenced a non-existent academic paper in the company’s court filing. The citation is purportedly from the journal American Statistician and was included in the filing to bolster Anthropic’s argument that the reproduction of copyrighted song lyrics is a “rare event.”

Attorneys representing Universal Music Group, Concord, and ABKCO discovered that the cited article from the court filing does not exist. Upon checking with both the alleged author and the journal, the plaintiffs confirmed the citation was a complete fabrication. Attorney Matt Oppenheim, who represents the music publishers, suggested that expert witness Olivia Chen relied on Anthropic’s own AI tool Claude to generate both the argument and supporting authority.

Oppenheim stopped short of accusing Chen of deliberate misconduct, but he emphasized the seriousness of submitting a court document citing AI-generated falsehoods in court. Meanwhile, Anthropic’s legal team has characterized the incident as an accidental citation mistake, noting the incorrect citation seemed to reference the correct article but linked to a different one entirely.

Music publishers allege that Anthropic unlawfully used lyrics from hundreds of songs from Beyoncé to The Rolling Stones to train Claude—and that Claude often returns the lyrics verbatim in response to certain user prompts. This isn’t the first time AI-generated hallucinations have ended up in court, either.

One of the first incidents was the Mata v. Avianca case in New York in 2023. Two New York attorneys representing a plaintiff in a personal injury suit against Avianca Airlines used ChatGPT to generate their legal research. The AI produced several non-existent cases, which the attorneys cited in their filings. After a judge discovered those fabrications, he issued a $5,000 sanction against both.

At least seven cases across the United States have seen courts question or discipline lawyers for submitting AI-generated hallucinations in their legal filings.

The House of Lords chamber, where an amendment to the UK’s heavily debated AI bill has passed 272-125.

One much-publicized opposition campaign later, the UK AI bill, including a controversial “opt-out” approach to generative model training, has suffered a setback.

That’s according to outlets from across the pond, which have described a new amendment to the proposed law as “a heavy defeat” for the government. As we previously noted, said law as written would have given gen AI developers the green light to train their models on protected works without prior permission.

Instead, it’d be up to rightsholders themselves to “opt out” of training. While the government painted the system as part of a “blueprint to turbocharge AI,” the majors, Merlin, and a multitude of artists criticized the measure as a serious blow to the creative community.

Now, the tidal wave of pushback, including op-eds, a silent album, and an Elton John- and Paul McCartney-signed letter, looks to have delivered the industry’s desired result.

As described by The Independent, politician (and film director) Beeban Kidron in more words criticized the proposed law as enabling tech giants to steal protected media and then undercut creatives. A related amendment to the bill is said to have passed in a 272-125 House of Lords vote.

Digging into the amendment itself, the suggested change would empower copyright owners to obtain “information regarding the text and data used in the pre-training, training, fine-tuning and retrieval-augmented generation in the AI model, or any other data input to the AI model.”

Additionally, AI developers would be compelled to “provide an effective mechanism to allow copyright owners to identify all individual works that they own that are used” in training, per the amendment.

And the same owners would reportedly have to approve beforehand – not proactively opt out of – training usages. The text describes several other obligations for AI developers (including in relation to bots) as well.

Seemingly every gen AI business operating in the UK will be on the hook under the amendment as written; the requirements would apply to any model that “has a significant number of United Kingdom users” or that counts the UK as one of its “target markets,” the document shows.

As for where the legislation goes from here, the amended bill is on its way to the House of Commons “for further debate,” according to The Indian Express.

Stateside, the battle over AI training is as heated as ever, referring both to high-stakes legislative proposals and ongoing suits. Even individual platforms like SoundCloud are finding themselves at the center of training debates.

And while it happens to be a key argument from the AI side, evidence strongly suggests that developers based in countries with less robust IP protections are, in fact, training their models on protected works. Put differently, there are more than a few angles to consider when it comes to the unprecedented technology’s ongoing fallout.

SoundCloud says it hasn’t used music uploads to train generative AI models. But related debates are ongoing after the platform seemingly left the door open to training undertakings down the line. Photo Credit: SoundCloud

Is SoundCloud using your music to train generative AI models? The company says it “doesn’t allow AI training or scraping with music on our platform,” but questions remain in light of a controversial terms of service update.

Former Stability VP of audio Ed Newton-Rex, a longtime musician who’s currently the CEO of Fairly Trained, recently posted about that update on social media. Added in February 2024, per Newton-Rex and SoundCloud itself, the relevant text authorizes the platform to use uploads “to inform, train, [and] develop” AI.

“You explicitly agree that your Content may be used to inform, train, develop or serve as input to artificial intelligence or machine intelligence technologies or services as part of and for providing the services,” the terms read.

The next paragraph elaborates that “neither SoundCloud nor any third party” can use or reproduce uploaded media “for the purposes of informing, training developing (or as input to) artificial intelligence technologies without authorization from the applicable rightsholders.”

Despite the latter line, which seemingly leaves the door open for AI training should uploaders fail to opt out, the text isn’t sitting right with artists. Moreover, SoundCloud (which isn’t a stranger to artificial intelligence) left the same door open when responding to the controversy.

Here, the Berlin-based platform maintained that it had “never used artist content to train AI models” and hadn’t allowed “third parties to scrape or use SoundCloud content from our platform for AI training purposes.”

“The February 2024 update to our Terms of Service was intended to clarify how content may interact with AI technologies within SoundCloud’s own platform,” the Musiio owner emphasized on X. “Use cases include personalized recommendations, content organization, fraud detection, and improvements to content identification with the help of AI Technologies.”

When closing out the message, however, SoundCloud said it would “keep our community informed every step of the way as we explore innovation and apply AI technologies responsibly.” And subsequently, communications head Marni Greenberg indicated that “clear opt-out mechanisms” would accompany any future decision to train AI models on user uploads.

“Should we ever consider using user content to train generative AI models,” Greenberg relayed on this front, “we would introduce clear opt-out mechanisms in advance—at a minimum—and remain committed to transparency with our creator community.”

Unsurprisingly, the suggestion that SoundCloud may potentially “consider using user content to train generative AI models” elicited a number of less-than-enthusiastic responses.

Just scratching the surface, many on X criticized SoundCloud for (among other things) possibly deciding against an opt-in model.

“The ‘opt-out’ they commit to in this new statement would be totally unfair on artists, shifting the burden onto them to tell SoundCloud not to train on their music,” Newton-Rex wrote. “Most would miss the chance. Opt-outs are designed to gather as much content as possible for training.”

Driving home his dissatisfaction, Newton-Rex committed to “[d]eleting my SoundCloud” profile, which appeared to still be live on the service at the time of writing.

The decision might be a bit premature at this stage of the game – especially given that some AI companies are alleged to have already trained on protected works without permission. But it’ll be worth closely monitoring the situation (referring not only to SoundCloud’s terms, but those of different DSPs) moving forward.

Photo Credit: The Come Up Show / CC by 2.0

With the ugly Drake v. Universal Music defamation lawsuit – and the discovery process – moving forward, both sides have requested and received a protective order covering “highly confidential or proprietary business information.”

The presiding judge signed off on that protective order this afternoon, on the heels of Universal Music’s firmly worded attempt to dismiss the amended complaint. By now, most are at least generally familiar with the high-stakes legal battle and Drake’s “Not Like Us” defamation qualms.

Less widely known, however, are Team Drake’s aggressive discovery demands. As we reported early last month, the plaintiff and his counsel disclosed plans to seek copies of “all” Kendrick Lamar’s UMG contracts, an abundance of internal communications between UMG execs, and a whole lot else.

Against this backdrop, the major label and the Toronto-born artist agreed that their dispute “is likely to involve the production of certain categories of highly confidential or proprietary business information, specifically, previously undisclosed contracts and information regarding business relationships with non-parties to this litigation.”

In the same letter to the judge, a Drake attorney noted that her side and Universal Music alike had proposed “certain, limited changes” to the court’s protective-order model.

Unfortunately for the public, the now-approved order will therefore provide each side with considerable room to label pretty much any contract-related document “attorneys’ eyes only.”

For Universal Music, the attorneys-only designation is expressly allowed when it comes to professional “relationships with other recording artists or non-parties to this litigation.”

That includes but isn’t limited to “confidential financial or payment information, revenue reports, royalty rates, licensing rates, and any other commercially sensitive documents,” the legal text spells out.

On the opposite side of the equation – and perhaps more interestingly – Drake and his attorneys can slap the mentioned designation on “any documents identifying confidential or proprietary business information regarding Plaintiff’s business relationships with non-parties to this litigation.”

As to where things go from here, the discovery wheels are certainly in motion – though assuming a resolution doesn’t materialize, they’ll remain that way for a while yet before an anticipated three-week trial initiates.

Just scratching the scheduling surface, an order last month set a tentative February 13th, 2026, wrap date for fact discovery, compared to a May 29th, 2026, cutoff for expert discovery.

Closer to the present, Kendrick Lamar (who’s technically not a party to Drake’s UMG complaint) is now facing a separate lawsuit, filed this time by Rodney O, over a Drake diss track.

Photo Credit: Live Nation

Live Nation has formally petitioned the US Supreme Court to appeal a ruling that prevents the company from forcing arbitration in a massive consumer antitrust lawsuit.

In a petition filed on May 5, Live Nation asks the court to consider its appeal after the Supreme Court upheld a lower court’s decision to strike down “unconscionable” arbitration provisions in Ticketmaster’s terms of use. Live Nation argues that California and the Ninth Circuit Court’s decisions have singled out its arbitration agreement improperly, in conflict, they allege, with federal law and precedent.

Live Nation is seeking reversal in two key areas. Largely, it insists that all forms of arbitration, including “mass arbitration,” deserve protection under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Secondly, it challenges the application of California’s “arbitration-specific” severability doctrine—which Live Nation asserts violates the FAA’s core principle in placing arbitration agreements on equal footing with other contracts.

It’s the latest major move in the massive consumer-led antitrust lawsuit that claims Live Nation and Ticketmaster unfairly dominate the ticketing industry. Recently, US District Court Judge George H. Wu denied Live Nation’s motion to dismiss the case, pointing out plausible allegations of market sway and unfair business practices.

Live Nation’s partnership with a relatively new arbitration service—New Era ADR—has raised questions about procedure, which consumers called “extremely unconscionable” and one-sided. The Ninth Circuit Court agreed and upheld Judge Wu’s earlier ruling that Live Nation’s terms forced claimants into mass arbitration, which lacks many of the safeguards associated with traditional arbitration.

According to Live Nation’s petition, the FAA covers all types of arbitration, and the Ninth Circuit’s refusal to enforce its agreements violates Supreme Court precedent. Further, it challenges the way California courts invalidate arbitration agreements as “unduly hostile,” citing a series of decisions in California where arbitration contracts were invalidated at higher rates than others.

Currently, the consumer antitrust lawsuit continues under Judge Wu in California, with discovery and pretrial proceedings underway. A separate antitrust action filed by the US Department of Justice and 39 states and the District of Columbia is heading to trial in March 2026. Live Nation hoped to delay the consumer suit until after the government’s trial, but Judge Wu denied their request.

Photo Credit: Ashley King / Ticketmaster website

Ticketmaster’s long-criticized ticket pricing with tacked on fees is finally getting a nationwide overhaul, but only after heavy government intervention. The ticketing giant rolled out its ‘all-in pricing’ across the United States starting today.

That means consumers will see the full ticket price—including mandatory fees—up-front, rather than being blindsided when checking out. The move comes in response to mounting pressure from both the FTC and the TICKET Act winding its way through Congress.

For years, music fans and professionals have decried Ticketmaster’s use of opaque pricing, where advertised tickets could balloon as much as 50% with added fees. These ‘junk fees’ have been a significant source of consumer frustration for live music events and contributed to a high number of abandoned checkouts.

It’s estimated that up to 50% of customers abandon their purchase once they see the final price at checkout. Meanwhile the FTC estimates that hidden fees and the lack of transparency in pricing has cost Americans 53 million hours collectively in hunting for actual ticket prices.

The new all-in pricing model, mandated by the FTC and reinforced by the TICKET Act in Congress, aims to restore consumer trust and level the playing field for ticket buyers.

“This consensus legislation will end deceptive ticketing practices that frustrate consumers who simply want to enjoy a concert, show, or sporting event by restoring fairness and transparency to the ticket marketplace,” House Representatives Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Frank Pallone (D-NJ), and Gus Bilirakis (R-FL) said in a joint statement at the passing of the TICKET Act.

While all-in pricing is a step towards transparency, it’s a government-forced concession from a company that has long profited from consumer confusion. It also does nothing to limit the amount of tacked on fees and groups all fees into one category—resulting in less transparency in terms of who benefits from the collected fee. Ticketmaster controls over 70% of the market for tickets to live events and has 80% of the market share for concerts since 1995.

Photo Credit: Shira Perlmutter, the 14th Register of Copyrights, by David Rice

Donald Trump fires Shira Perlmutter, who leads the US Copyright Office, just after the release of a three-part report on artificial intelligence.

President Trump has fired Shira Perlmutter, who heads the US Copyright Office as the 14th Register of Copyrights. The news was reported by several outlets and confirmed by Democratic Representative Joe Morelle on the Committee for House Administration.

Perlmutter took her position back in 2020 during the first Trump administration, and was appointed by Librarian of Congress, Carla Hayden. Hayden was also fired by Trump this week.

“Donald Trump’s termination of Register of Copyrights, Shira Perlmutter, is a brazen, unprecedented power grab with no legal basis,” said Morelle. “It is surely no coincidence he acted less than a day after she refused to rubber-stamp Elon Musk’s efforts to mine troves of copyrighted works to train AI models.”

Morelle also linked to a pre-publication draft of a US Copyright Office report released last week—the third part in a longer report—that focuses on copyright and artificial intelligence. The report outlines that, while each case’s outcome cannot be pre-judged, there are limitations on the amount that AI companies can count on “fair use” as a defense when training their large language models (LLMs) on copyrighted work.

“Making commercial use of vast troves of copyrighted works to produce expressive content that competes with them in existing markets, especially where this is accomplished through illegal access, goes beyond established fair use boundaries,” the report reads, pointing out that research and analysis use cases would probably still be allowed.

Further, the Copyright Office suggests that government intervention would be “premature at this time,” but hopes that “licensing markets” where AI companies pay copyright holders for access to their content should continue to develop. “Alternative approaches such as extended collective licensing should be considered to address any market failure.”

AI companies, including OpenAI, are under fire with numerous lawsuits accusing them of copyright infringement. OpenAI has asked the US government to codify a “copyright strategy” that would provide AI companies with extra wiggle room regarding fair use. The Copyright Office’s recent report suggests that won’t be happening the way the companies may have hoped—but Trump may hope to change that with his onslaught of firings.

“Now tech bros are going to attempt to steal creators’ copyrights for AI profits. This is 100% unacceptable,” wrote attorney Mike Davis on a post on Trump’s Truth Social, linking to CBS News’ coverage of the firing. Strangely, Trump “ReTruthed” the post, despite the fact Davis appeared to be criticizing the move.

“Tech bro” and Trump ally Elon Musk is both a co-founder of OpenAI and that of a competing company, xAI, which is merging with the former Twitter. He has expressed support for Square founder Jack Dorsey’s call to “delete all IP law.”

Photo Credit: Tingey Law

Attorneys for Sean “Diddy” Combs plan to claim there was mutual violence between Combs and ex-girlfriend Cassie Ventura, who is expected to testify as a star witness for the prosecution.

Defense attorney Marc Agnifilo told US District Judge Arun Subramanian during a hearing that he plans to show there was mutual violence between Sean “Diddy” Combs and Casandra “Cassie” Ventura. Ventura is expected to testify against Combs as a star witness for the prosecution.

Judge Subramanian seemed reluctant to allow the defense to introduce evidence of alleged violence on Ventura’s part, but said he would rule on the issue on Monday. A jury of 12 New Yorkers is also set to be finalized on Monday ahead of opening statements.

Initially, jury selection was due to wrap on Friday, but Judge Subramanian pushed it back to Monday over concerns that jurors might drop out over the weekend if the panel was finalized as originally planned. On Monday morning, a pool of 45 prospective jurors will be narrowed down to 12, with six alternates. This phase is expected to last less than an hour, with opening statements set to follow.

The 55-year-old Combs has pleaded not guilty to one count of racketeering conspiracy, two counts of sex trafficking, and two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution, all of which are felonies. If he is convicted, he could face life in prison. He has been held without bail in a federal facility in Brooklyn since his arrest in September.

As the trial gears up, Judge Subramanian admonished lawyer Mark Geragos—notably not on Combs’ defense team—for referring to the prosecutors in the case as a “six-pack of white women” in comments on a podcast last week. In a May 2 episode of “Two Angry Men,” a podcast he co-hosts with TMZ founder Harvey Levin, Geragos remarked that the racial and gender composition of the prosecution team was “interesting.”

“That’s something that you shouldn’t, that no one should be saying as an officer of the Court and a member of the bar,” Judge Subramanian told Geragos on Tuesday before jury selection resumed. “Referring to the prosecution in this case as a six-pack of white women is outrageous.”

While Geragos is not representing Combs in the trial, his daughter, Teny Geragos, is one of Combs’ defense attorneys. He asserted he was not trying to interfere with the case, but that defendants had a right to respond to “negative pre-trial publicity.”

“When you’ve got a Black man who’s being prosecuted, and the client feels like he’s being targeted, it’s […] an observation,” said Geragos.

Prosecutor Christy Slavik remarked that with millions of subscribers to Geragos’ podcast, “the danger of [his] statements infecting the jury pool, I think, is very serious.”

Subramanian concluded that he will be monitoring comments made on the podcast as the trial continues.

Photo Credit: taylordabrat / reddit

Universal Music Group has motioned to dismiss Drake’s amended defamation lawsuit. The label calls the action ‘legal blather’ and insists the nature of rap battles would forever be changed should the lawsuit proceed.

UMG says Drake’s claims in the amended complaint are “astonishing” and that Drake’s lawsuit is an attack on the commercial and creative success of the artist who defeated him in a rap battle, “rather than the content of Lamar’s lyrics.” Drake argues that the company promoted, published, exploited, and monetized allegations that were false and dangerous.

“UMG did so not because it believes any of these false claims to be true, but instead because it would profit from damaging Drake’s reputation,” the complaint reads. UMG’s motion to dismiss directly addresses this claim, stating: “Drake was pleased to use UMG’s platform to promote tracks leveling similarly incendiary attacks at Lamar, including that Lamar engaged in domestic abuse and that one of Lamar’s managers is the true father of Lamar’s son.”

UMG says Drake only took issue with the content of the lyrics after he lost the famous rap battle. Speaking on the history of rap battles, UMG writes “Like all of the recordings in the feud, and like the many notorious diss tracks throughout rap’s history, ‘Not Like Us’ consists of a series of hyperbolic insults. But now, after losing the rap battle, Drake claims that ‘Not Like Us’ is defamatory. It is not. While the complaint focuses almost entirely on ‘Not Like Us,’ it disregards the other diss tracks that surrounded ‘Not Like Us’ as well as the diss track genre, and thus, critically ignores the context of the dispute.”

“Assessed in context, as it must be, ‘Not Like Us’ conveys non-actionable opinion and rhetorical hyperbole. Indeed, diss tracks are a popular and celebrated art form centered around outrageous insults, and they would be chilled if Drake’s suit were permitted to proceed.”

UMG argues that “nowhere in the 100+ page ‘legal blather’ written by Drake’s lawyers do they bother to acknowledge that Drake himself has written and performed massively successful songs containing equally provocative taunts against other artists.” UMG alleges that Drake’s legal team is looking for evidence of “wild conspiracies as to why one song that upset Drake had massive global appeal.”

“Despite his lawyer’s attempts to silence other artists and threaten the companies that work with them, we remain committed to propelling Drake’s career while maintaining our unwavering support of all our artists’ creative expression—Drake’s included.”

The DOJ and the FTC have officially launched a public inquiry in connection with a March executive order targeting ‘unfair practices in the live entertainment market.’ Photo Credit: ActionVance

The Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission have officially launched an inquiry into “unfair and anticompetitive practices” in the live entertainment space.

The DOJ and the FTC formally announced this public inquiry today, a month and change after President Trump signed an executive order targeting “unscrupulous middlemen who sit at the intersection between artists and fans.”

As we noted then, the order gave the mentioned department and agency (besides the Treasury Department) 180 days to provide a report describing “any recommendations for regulations or legislation necessary to protect consumers” in the ticketing world.

And it’s in connection with the report that the entities are now fielding comments concerning “harmful practices” in the live sector. The public, from consumers to companies, have until Monday, July 7th to weigh in if so inclined, according to the inquiry announcement.

In addition to insights pertaining to the previously highlighted “unfair and anticompetitive practices,” the DOJ and the FTC are welcoming comments about “the competitive effects of current state and federal regulations and laws in the live concert and entertainment industry.”

“We will continue to closely examine this market and look for opportunities where vigorous enforcement of the antitrust laws can lead to increased competition that makes tickets more affordable for fans while offering fairer compensation for artists,” Assistant Attorney General Abigail Slater added in part.

Time will, of course, reveal exactly what comes of the inquiry and different components of the executive order, which also instructed the FTC to ramp up enforcement of the Better Online Ticket Sales Act (BOTS Act).

Today’s announcement underscored that the commission is “taking the lead” here. Though new charges have yet to materialize under the scalping-focused law, the FTC last month fired off a warning shot of sorts with an explainer entitled “BOTS Act compliance: Time for a refresher?”

In the bigger picture, one needn’t be a Washington insider to sense the bipartisan regulatory mood regarding crowd-based entertainment.

To name one immediate example, today’s public-comments release also reiterated that the DOJ as well as 40 state and district attorneys general are litigating against Live Nation and its Ticketmaster subsidiary over “monopolization and other unlawful conduct.”

Meanwhile, the House closed out April by overwhelmingly approving the TICKET Act (which, in a nutshell, would mandate all-in pricing for tickets), and senators from both sides of the aisle kicked off a new round of Live Nation antitrust scrutiny.

This time, the involved lawmakers (who aren’t strangers to expressing concerns about the Ticketmaster parent’s operations) are zeroing in on a Fanatics pact.

Photo Credit: DLXMedia.hu

RØDE parent The Freedman Group has announced the acquisition of Lectrosonics, a U.S. based pioneer in high-end wireless audio systems.

Founded in 1971, Lectrosonics’ UHF wireless systems are used in film, broadcast, and theater applications. The company’s Digital Hybrid Wireless technology earned an Academy Award for Scientific and Technical Achievement in 2017. This move marks a significant expansion of Freedman Group’s global footprint and manufacturing capabilities, especially in the United States.

The acquisition of Lectrosonics is a major milestone for the Australian Freedman Group. The company has grown from its origins as a family business in Sydney to become a global leader in audio technology. With Lectrosonics under its umbrella, The Freedman Group gains access to the company’s portfolio of wireless audio solutions while establishing a robust manufacturing hub in the United States. The move will enhance the group’s ability to serve the North & South American markets while responding more rapidly to the needs of their professional audio customers.

“They are without doubt the world’s leader in wireless communications for entertainment and broadcast markets,” says Peter Freedman AM, Founder & Chairman of The Freedman Group. “Being able to now offer our customers the finest sounding wireless technology in the world is, without exaggeration, something that is very special to me.”

Speaking with Forbes Australia, Freedman reveals that a major driver behind the acquisition was establishing a U.S. manufacturing hub. That hub will serve Lectrosonics, RØDE, and Mackie products for the North and South American markets. Final assembly of RØDE gear will shift to New Mexico within 90 days—overcoming tariff hurdles.

“It’s a double whammy,” Freedman said of the acquisition. “We end up with a company that’s been at the highest end in that area since the 1970s, but the best part is that it allows us now to have immediate U.S. manufacturing for everything we want.”

With the Lectrosonics acquisition finalized, Freedman says the group will pause further acquisitions to focus on integration. However, Freedman did hint that he would love to see the company listed on the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) within the next few years, estimating the group’s value at around $2 billion.

Photo Credit: Frances Gladney and Smokey Robinson by Gage Skidmore / CC by 2.0

Smokey Robinson says he is ‘appalled’ over the claims he sexually assaulted multiple housekeepers, who are now suing him.

Motown legend Smokey Robinson is staunchly denying the sexual assault allegations made against him by four former housekeepers. Robinson’s attorney, Christopher Frost, released a statement on behalf of his client, calling the claims an effort to extort money from the singer.

Robinson was accused of sexual misconduct in a lawsuit filed Tuesday by four anonymous former employees. Further, his wife, Frances Gladney, is also named in the lawsuit for her alleged role in perpetuating a toxic work environment.

“As this case progresses, the evidence (the crucial element that guides us) will show that this is simply an ugly method of trying to extract money from an 85-year-old American icon—$50 million dollars, to be exact,” said Frost. “Through this process we have seen the bizarre theatrics of [Tuesday’s] news conference, as the plaintiffs’ attorneys outlined vile false allegations against Mr. and Mrs. Robinson.”

“We will also be asking the Court to address that in their statements to the press about Mr. Robinson, the plaintiff’s attorneys have reached beyond the bounds of liberties that even lawyers are typically allowed in this context,” the attorney’s statement continues. “We will have more to say on this matter, as we fiercely defend our clients against these false allegations and work to protect their good names.”

According to the plaintiffs, during their employment between 2007 and April 2024, Robinson summoned them into a bedroom multiple times, where he forced unwanted sexual contact. They claim Gladney not only had “full knowledge” of the assaults and did nothing to stop them, but allegedly scheduled weekly nail salon appointments that would ensure Robinson was “home alone” with a housekeeper. Frances Gladney is also accused of being a bully who “screamed” at the women and called them names.

In a call with The Daily Mail, Robinson said he was “appalled” about the claims against him, but the 85-year-old then began “mumbling incoherently,” and “did not sound well.” Shortly after, he “became lucid” again, and quickly ended the call by saying, “I can’t speak about this right now.”

The four plaintiffs wish to remain anonymous and are listed only as Jane Doe in the filings. One of the accusers says she was assaulted seven times, while another said she was raped “without a condom” at least 23 times.

The lawsuit comes on the heels of Robinson’s latest album, What the World Needs Now, which was released last month.

Photo Credit: ThoroughlyReviewed / CC by 2.0

Snapchat owner Snap Inc. has finalized a broad number of licensing agreements with major music publishers, according to details tipped to Digital Music News.

The yellow ghost isn’t ghosting music publishers — according to signed agreement details shared with Digital Music News.

Per paperwork that somehow found its way to DMN’s place of business, Snapchat owner Snap Inc. is signing deals with a bevy of music publishers under deal terms structured by the National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA). And for those who enjoy counting Benjamins, this is a juicy pot of revenue of nearly $15 million over two years.

Even better for the biz: apparently, this is the latest in a string of licensing agreements involving Snap, a decision that removes the need for those pesky, multi-year lawsuits. That hasn’t been the case with X, née Twitter, which has refused to pay for music licensing and remains locked in a legal battle with major music publishers led by Bob Valentine’s Concord Music Publishing and the NMPA.

Incidentally, Snap’s more cooperative stance could be paving the way for some high-profile artist collaborations ahead. In that light, which massive artist is planning a major event with Snapchat as soon as this week? — Stay tuned.

NMPA chief David Israelite confirmed to Digital Music News that this isn’t the first deal between music publishers and Snap Inc. — far from it.

Instead, this is simply the latest re-up of a longstanding licensing agreement, meaning the terms were ironed out years ago and inked multiple times.

Shifting to the dollar amounts involved, the blanket agreement covers a two-year span and a guaranteed pot of $14,660,010. The opt-in agreement window lapsed in March after a 90-day window, and participating publishers will claim their share of the purse based on a pro-rata, market share calculation.

For Snap and its collection of properties, this deal looks all-encompassing.

Beyond the core Snapchat app, the licensing agreement also covers Bitmoji and Zenly and associated players, pages, apps, websites, tools like Lens Studio, and Messaging products — though it looks like the Snapchat kitchen sink isn’t included.

Ted Suh, Head of Music Partnerships at Snap, appears to have been quarterbacking the deal for the social media platform. Snap declined to comment on the licensing agreement.

According to the contract terms, any NMPA member publisher can jump into the agreement. In terms of who isn’t part of this opt-in deal, the language strongly suggests that the biggies have already structured separate contracts, including Sony Music Publishing, EMI Music Publishing, Kobalt Music Publishing, Universal Music Publishing Group, Warner Chappell Music, and BMG Rights Management.

For everyone else, the deal flexes the NMPA’s muscle and its representation of a broad swath of the global music publishing industry. And what about those who aren’t members of the NMPA? According to more information spilled to DMN, non-NMPA publishers will have to strike their own agreements, though we’ve also learned that Snap flat-out isn’t doing deals with them.

The NMPA opt-in itself is global in scope, with Argentina the only exception.

And in case you think we’re making up the whole ‘sign here or we’re going to court’ vibe, it’s actually spelled out in the contract.

Indeed, the agreement acknowledges that while “the parties disagree as to whether or not, under the copyright laws, Snap is required to obtain a license for Snap’s users’ use and/or exploitation of musical compositions and/or lyrics,” the participating music publishers agree “not to sue Snap or its users for the use of musical compositions or lyrics… in order to enter into the License Agreement.”

In other words, ‘we came to an understanding’ — music industry style.

A live performance from Bakar, whose viral ‘Hell N Back’ is at the center of a new copyright infringement lawsuit. Photo Credit: Tackofall099

Bakar’s viral “Hell N Back” has crashed into a massive copyright infringement lawsuit for allegedly sampling a decades-old track without proper authorization.

New York City-based Tuff City Records fired off the multifaceted complaint yesterday, naming as defendants not only Bakar, but Resnik Music Group, Sony Music UK, its Black Butter Records imprint, and others yet.

As some already know, the nearly six-year-old “Hell N Back” is still riding a wave of commercial momentum – including on TikTok, where it’s featured in millions of clips. Beyond the short-form app, the track (which Summer Walker remixed in 2023) is said to have appeared in a trailer for Disney’s Elemental and on American Idol.

Putting those pertinent details on the backburner for a moment, plaintiff Tuff City Records currently specializes in “rescuing thousands of blues, jazz, funk, soul and R&B treasures from obscurity,” its website shows.

Overall, the company owns and administers “tens of thousands of musical recordings and compositions,” per the suit. And as the filing party tells the story, that pile of IP includes a 1967 song entitled (ironically enough) “I Caught You in a Lie.”

As laid out in the action, multiple years and agreements later, full ownership of the recording (released by Robert Parker) and the composition (penned by Lee Diamond) ultimately wound up with Tuff City.

That’s a decidedly important point for the plaintiff, which believes that “Hell N Back” and its remix sample “the entire rhythm track (including all of the bass and drum sounds)” from “I Caught You in a Lie.” It probably doesn’t need saying given the suit, but the alleged usages “were not authorized by” Tuff City.

How, then, did an allegedly infringing track release via a major label imprint and rack up 900 million Spotify streams (while recording several different consumption feats to boot) before this complaint’s submission?

On the compositional side, Tuff City is placing the blame squarely on the shoulders of the aforesaid Resnik Music Group and its alleged “false claim of ownership” over “I Caught You in a Lie.”

Long story short, Resnik Music allegedly maintains that it’s the actual owner based on a series of rights transfers stemming from the above-noted Lee Diamond.

On top of allegedly securing royalties to which it’s not entitled, Resnik Music has allegedly denied the plaintiff its “opportunity to license” the composition.

“Based on their claimed ownership of the Composition,” the suit reads in part, “Defendants [Robert] Resnik and Resnik Music and their counsel have demanded that Plaintiff abandon its ownership claims.”

DMN reached out to Resnik Music for comment but didn’t immediately receive a response. However, “I Caught You in a Lie” seemingly remained available to license via Resnik Music’s website at the time of writing.

And when it comes to the relevant recordings, Tuff City (which says it “repeatedly notified” the defendants of its concerns) is pointing to alleged false representations from one Maple Gaines to Sony Music UK.

Gaines is said to have inked a related licensing deal with Sony Music UK in October 2019 – despite not owning the master, according to the suit. Consequently, “she was not authorized to enter into the agreement, and as she lacked the rights, the agreement was a nullity,” per the legal text.

Sony Music UK may not have known “that Gaines’s representations and warranties were false,” but “declined to distribute royalties [to Tuff City]…amounting to at least $47,500 as of 2023,” the suit states.

All told, Tuff City is suing Bakar, Sony Music UK, Black Butter, and Summer Walker publisher LVRN for copyright infringement, besides seeking an injunction as well as a declaratory judgement confirming that it’s “the owner of all rights in and to the” composition and the recording.

The plaintiff is also pursuing fraud claims against Resnik Music, its owner, and Gaines.

Photo Credit: Eva Rinaldi / CC by 2.0

Rapper Jayceon Terrell Taylor — aka The Game — has been court-ordered to sell his Calabasas mansion to satisfy a $7 million judgment. The years-long suit was brought by Priscilla Rainey, who says the rapper sexually assaulted her on the set of his VH1 reality TV series, ‘She’s Got Game.’

The Game denied the allegations made against him, but failed to appear in court in 2016 when the case went to trial. He also failed to attend any related hearings—leading to a default judgment against him in 2018. Rainey was awarded $1.13 million in compensatory damages and $6 million in punitive damages. Now, nearly ten years later, The Game has failed to make any payments toward the judgment.

A California judge approved Rainey’s request that the rapper be required to sell his house in Calabasas in order to finance the verdict. This attempt is what prompted The Game to respond in court, citing the home as his primary residence.

Under California law, a homestead exemption means primary residences cannot be force-sold to satisfy a legal judgment as long as the home equity is less than or equal to the exemption amount. The maximum protected equity amount is $722,507. The four-bed, five-bath property is valued at $4 million according to its Zillow listing.

The Game’s legal team argued that the property was owned by JTT Holdings, a company in which he has equity. However, the court determined that JTT Holdings is a shell company and that the mansion could be forcibly sold to cover the damages. Rainey’s legal team argued that the rapper’s transfer of ownership to his manager Cash ‘Wack 100’ Jones was a ‘bona fide gift’ and an attempt to shield the property from seizure—which the court agreed.

The court order finds that the rapper “does not have a qualifying interest in the property that would allow him to claim the homestead exemption,” so the entire balance of the home if sold could be used to satisfy the legal judgment. If the house is sold for its Zillow value, The Game will still be a few million short of satisfying the judgment.

“If the proposed sale of the dwelling is likely to produce a bid high enough to satisfy the homestead exemption and any outstanding liens or encumbrances senior to the judgment creditor’s lien while still leaving ‘some amount available to satisfy even a ‘part’ or the judgment creditor’s lien, then the court must grant the application for sale,” the documents state.

Photo Credit: Troy T

The creation and delivery of music to audiences requires collaboration between a variety of creative individuals and businesses, including songwriters, music publishers, performers, producers, and record labels. All of these creative individuals and many others play an important role in crafting and bringing music to audiences, and it’s important that each understands and appreciates their rights under U.S. copyright law. This three-part series explores those rights by discussing: (i) the different types of works and kinds of rights for music under copyright law; (ii) the different types of music licenses; and (iii) the remedies for copyright infringement.

To understand how music and those who create and distribute music are protected and compensated, one must first understand certain copyright basics, because copyright is the primary means by which songwriters, composers, artists, publishers, and other music creators are protected and compensated for their works. To understand copyright in music one must understand that there are two distinct kinds of copyrighted works in any given song—a musical work and a sound recording.

Two Types of Copyrighted Works Protected in a Song

Copyright law protects original works of authorship, including literary, dramatic, musical, audiovisual, and visual works. Examples of such works are movies, novels, songs, computer software, and photographs. Importantly, in the area of music, there are two different types of copyrighted works:

• Musical Works: These include any work that consists of musical notes and lyrics in a musical composition.
• Sound Recordings: These include any work that results from the fixation of sounds without a visual component, whether musical or spoken. This is the music you actually hear, and it includes digital downloads, music on CDs and vinyl, podcasts, and recorded speeches.

It’s important to be aware of these distinct types of copyrightable works because there are likely different copyright owners for any one given song, different kinds of music licenses, and slight differences in the kinds of rights in copyright law for these works. 

The Exclusive Rights in Musical Works and Sound Recordings

The Copyright Act grants the following exclusive rights to copyright owners of musical works and sound recordings, subject to certain limitations and exceptions:

Reproduction Right

The reproduction right grants the copyright owner of the musical work or sound recording the ability to control the making of a copy of the work. It is arguably the most important of the rights as it is implicated in most copyright infringement disputes. For example, uploading music to a website implicates the reproduction right.

Adaptation Right

The adaptation right, which is often referred to as “derivative work right,” grants the copyright owner of the musical work or sound recording the right to control the modification or adaptation of their works into new works, often referred to as “derivative works.” Derivative works include any type of editing, translating, modifying or making other types of changes to the work. An example of an activity that implicates the adaptation right includes revising the musical arrangement of a song, making a song parody, or remixing of a sound recording.

Distribution Right

The distribution right grants the copyright owner of a musical work or sound recording the ability to control the manner in which a work or a copy of a work is transferred to others, whether by sale, rental, lease, or lending. This right allows the copyright owner to not only prevent the distribution of unauthorized copies of a work (i.e., copies that infringe the reproduction right), but also allows the copyright holder to control the unauthorized distribution of authorized copies (subject to a limitation commonly referred to as first sale exception). For example, uploading a music file to a website or “lending” digital files like a sound recording would implicate the distribution right. In the digital environment, often a violation of the distribution right is accompanied by a violation of the reproduction right.

Public Performance Right

While this public performance right is one of the most important to music creators, it is also one of the most complex of the exclusive rights because it applies to musical works but not to sound recordings (but see below for more). 

A performance is considered “public” when the work is performed in a public place, at a place where a substantial number of persons outside a normal circle of friends and family are gathered, or is transmitted to the public. The public performance right vests the copyright owner of the musical work with the authority to control the manner in which a work is publicly performed. Examples of activities that implicate the public performance right include streaming music over the internet or playing music at a public event or venue.

As noted above, while owners of the musical work enjoy the exclusive right to perform their works in public, sound recording owners do not. Currently the United States is one of the few countries in the world that does not recognize a full public performance right for sound recording owners. Copyright owners of sound recording get a much more limited public performance right—the exclusive right to publicly perform the sound recording when the performance occurs by means of a digital audio transmission.

Public Display Right

The public display right applies only to musical works, not to sound recordings. It allows the owner of the musical work to control the display of the musical work to the public (as the term is defined in the paragraph above). The most common examples of a public display of a musical work would be where someone displays lyrics on a website or shows sheet music in a classroom.

Understanding Exclusive Rights Under Copyright Law in Music is Important for Compensation and Enforcement 

If any of the rights above are implicated by someone’s use of copyright-protected music, and such use is not authorized by the copyright owner of the sound recording or musical work or otherwise allowed by the law, for instance under the fair use exception, the user has infringed the copyright owner’s rights. We’ll discuss that more in Part III about music copyright infringement. 

While you are waiting for Part II and Part III, we encourage you to check out the Copyright Alliance’s FREE Creator Membership, which provides a wealth of education resources for you to explore on copyright law.

Photo Credit: Smokey Robinson by Dwight McCann / CC by 2.5

Four anonymous women and former housekeepers of Smokey Robinson are suing the singer with allegations of sexual assault and rape.

Motown singer-songwriter Smokey Robinson is being accused of sexual assault and rape, leading to a hostile work environment, in a lawsuit filed by four of his former housekeepers. All four women, listed anonymously as Jane Does, accuse Robinson of unwanted sexual behavior and abuse. His wife, Frances Gladney, is listed as a defendant alongside him in the $50 million lawsuit.

The 85-year-old Robinson is accused of sexual assault, battery, false imprisonment, and gender violence at his Los Angeles home, beginning as early as 2007 and lasting until 2024. The four women also allege labor violations, claiming they were not paid properly before they quit their jobs.

The lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, also names Robinson’s wife, Frances Gladney. It alleges that she screamed at the plaintiffs with “ethnically pejorative words and language.” Further, they claim Gladney covered up the ongoing abuse they suffered by her husband.

Jane Doe 1 accuses Robinson of raping her and committing other unwanted sexual acts at least seven times after calling her to a bedroom. The final occurrence took place on February 17, 2024—just two days before Robinson’s 84th birthday. The other plaintiffs accused Robinson of similar offenses; Jane Does 2 and 3 each allege at least 20 instances of assault.

“Obviously, no amount of money can compensate these women for what Mr. Robinson subjected them to,” said attorney John Harris. “But given the gravity of Mr. Robinson’s despicable and reprehensible misconduct […] this amount is clearly warranted.”

Attorneys for the four plaintiffs said they would welcome a criminal investigation, but have not been contacted by prosecutors. A spokesperson for the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office said the matter was not under review because law enforcement had not presented a case. Similarly, the Los Angeles police said they had not received a report on the matter.

The four plaintiffs say they did not come forward sooner due to fear they would lose their low-paying jobs, combined with Robinson’s celebrity. All four women are Hispanic and say that shame associated with sexual assault in their culture further contributed to their not reporting the issue sooner.

Robinson was instrumental in the rise of Motown during the 1960s. He is best known for his hit “Tears of a Clown,” as well as over 30 hits either as a solo performer or alongside The Miracles.

Still fending off App Store regulatory scrutiny, Apple has officially appealed last month’s ruling in its courtroom confrontation with Epic Games. Photo Credit: Laurenz Heymann

As expected, Apple has moved to appeal last month’s ruling in its Epic Games legal battle over App Store terms. Meanwhile, the Open App Markets Act is poised to be reintroduced in Congress.

Apple attorneys confirmed the appeal in a brief notice, after CEO Tim Cook underscored that the maneuver was forthcoming. The concise filing doesn’t dive into the iPhone developer’s exact position here, but it does emphasize that the arguments will zero in on the court’s April 30th approval of Epic’s injunction-enforcement motion.

We explored the ruling (which took effect at once, appeal or not) in detail immediately after it was handed down. Keeping the focus on the order’s impact, however, Fortnite quickly returned to the App Store, and Spotify promptly received approval for a fresh version of its iOS app.

The music platform also described those pricing and payment changes on social media as well as in a dedicated blog post. “After nearly 10 years,” CEO Daniel Ek applauded on X, “Spotify can now show pricing + direct purchase links in our app for U.S. users. This is a huge win for consumer choice and tech innovation.”

In other words, there’s quite a lot riding on Apple’s appeal for Spotify and different companies, and it’ll be worth monitoring the legal showdown (besides adjacent disputes) in the coming months.

Bigger picture, the long-running confrontation over App Store terms isn’t confined to the Epic case.

First, the European Commission slapped Apple with a more than half-billion-dollar fine last month for allegedly violating the Digital Markets Act. One of several penalties handed down against the company in the EU, the decision elicited criticism and an appeal pledge from Apple.

At the intersection of these points – intensifying App Store scrutiny on multiple continents – Epic certainly isn’t letting its foot off the regulatory gas. When addressing Apple’s EU fine to close out April, Epic made clear its belief that “[n]ow is the time to follow through” on the Open App Markets Act in the States.

We took a look at the bipartisan legislation, which would impose a variety of new requirements on both the App Store and Google’s Play Store, at the time of its 2021 introduction.

Last week, Punchbowl News reported that one of the lawmakers behind the Open App Markets Act, Senator Richard Blumenthal, intended to reintroduce the bill. Though a timetable isn’t set in stone, the senator touched on a possible goal of getting the ball rolling before Memorial Day (Monday the 26th).

Jimmy Page (pictured), Warner Chappell, and others are facing another copyright lawsuit centering on ‘Dazed and Confused.’ Photo Credit: Simon Fernandez

Jimmy Page, Sony Pictures Classics, Warner Chappell, and others are facing a copyright suit centering on “Dazed and Confused,” which allegedly appeared in Becoming Led Zeppelin without the original songwriter’s authorization.

Singer-songwriter Jake Holmes submitted the straightforward complaint to a California federal court. Turning back the clock for a moment, Holmes, now 85 years old, wrote and recorded “Dazed and Confused” nearly six decades ago.

As the story goes, Page then “learned of” and began performing the same effort while a member of the Yardbirds. Subsequently, a reworked version of “Dazed and Confused” made its way onto Led Zeppelin’s 1969 debut album with (among different things) fresh lyrics and Page credited as the sole songwriter.

Evidently, the situation didn’t sit right with Holmes, who in a 2010 complaint accused Page and others of infringing on his “Dazed and Confused” composition with the Led Zeppelin founder’s own version.

(“Page copied Plaintiff’s Dazed and Confused in purporting to author a composition Page also entitled ‘Dazed and Confused,’” the firmly worded 2010 suit alleged.)

That set the stage for a settlement the following year, when, per Holmes’ latest complaint, the parties agreed that he “‘created and had and has complete ownership of’” the initial “Dazed and Confused” composition.

But according to the newly submitted action, Page and his fellow defendants have since “released numerous sound recordings” without Holmes’ authorization and in violation of the settlement.

This refers specifically to a variety of Yardbirds live tracks, all of which allegedly “falsely” credited Page instead of Holmes and allegedly failed to direct the appropriate royalties to the latter professional.

Building on these allegations, the action also maintains that the mentioned Becoming Led Zeppelin features an unlicensed Yardbirds rendition of “Dazed and Confused” – with Page, not Holmes, credited as the songwriter. Holmes didn’t provide his “permission or authorization” for the usage, the legal text spells out.

Consequently, the defendants “have willfully infringed” the original “Dazed and Confused,” according to Holmes, who’s said to have fired off cease-and-desist emails in mid-April. Those messages were “ignored,” per the plaintiff.

Now, ahead of a quick-approaching physical release for Becoming Led Zeppelin, Holmes is seeking damages, a share of the defendants’ profits, and, perhaps most notably, an injunction barring “any further false and unauthorized uses” of “Dazed and Confused” in the documentary.

A live performance from Beyonce, who’s updated a promo video to remove a depiction of the Sphere. Meanwhile, Beyhive superfans are swarming the Vegas venue’s social profiles. Photo Credit: Raph_PH

One cease-and-desist letter later, Beyoncé has removed a depiction of the Sphere from a video released as part of her ongoing world tour.

The clip’s retooled version debuted during a SoFi Stadium concert yesterday, according to Variety. And as we previously noted, it’s been just days since Sphere attorneys penned a firmly worded letter demanding that Beyoncé axe the venue reference.

Still live on YouTube, the original video appears to show a colossus Beyoncé picking up and inspecting what looks to be the Sphere. Though seemingly inconsequential, the promo evidently proved a big deal for Sphere brass, and not in a positive sense.

At least according to the mentioned attorneys, the video “resulted in significant speculation that Beyoncé will end her tour with a Sphere residency.” As things stand, the Parkwood Entertainment founder intends to wrap the tour in Vegas – albeit with a pair of performances at Allegiant Stadium.

Now, with the cease-and-desist having given the Cowboy Carter act until today to nix the Sphere reference, Allegiant Stadium has been incorporated as the replacement.  

Besides the in-concert debut, the retooled video also made its way into an Instagram post from Parkwood. “What happens in Vegas starts with a BANG,” the appropriate caption reads.

At the time of writing, the video had already racked up a healthy 75,000 or so likes on Instagram. In other words, the ostensibly unforeseen conflict is proving beneficial for Beyoncé, who has stops booked into late July.

Of course, it’s unclear whether the media coverage will translate into heightened attendance. Many of the reactions here are coming from existing “Beyhive” superfans – see the multitude of bee emoji comments on the Sphere’s Instagram page for proof – who are presumably set to attend in any event.

Nevertheless, the exposure won’t hurt; reports have pointed to thousands of available tickets for the SoFi series. More generally, the Cowboy Carter Tour revolves around repeat concerts at only a handful of stadiums. All told, the Houston-born singer is expected to deliver 32 performances at nine total venues.

Back to the Sphere, which has teed up a Tomorrowland “multi-sensory adventure” for later in 2025, execs have scheduled their first-quarter earnings call for this coming Thursday, May 8th.

Photo Credit: Laurenz Heymann

Apple is facing renewed legal scrutiny after the law firm Hagens Berman filed a new class-action lawsuit over Apple’s violations of a federal injunction to reform the App Store. The new class action follows a recent ruling in which a judge found Apple in contempt of a 2021 anti-trust order that stems from the Epic Games case.

The 2021 injunction mandated that Apple must allow app developers to direct users to external websites for in-app purchases and subscriptions. That would allow developers to bypass Apple’s typical 15-30% commission fee. The court found that Apple implemented a series of measures intended to circumvent the order—effectively blocking developers from accessing alternative payment methods. They also imposed a 27% fee on payments outside the App Store.

“The court ultimately held that Apple willfully violated the injunction to protect its revenues, and then ‘reverse engineered’ justifications to proffer to the court, often with ‘lies on the witness stand,” the class action lawsuit reads. “The evidence showed that while one senior Apple executive ‘advocated that Apple comply with the injunction,’ Mr. Cook ignored this advice and allowed others in his finance team to convince him otherwise. Cook chose poorly,” the lawsuit continues.

Hagens Berman alleges that Apple’s actions deprived developers of billions of potential revenue. The lawsuit claims Apple engaged in internal analyses to devise the best ways to sidestep the injunction. Only 34 out of 136,000 developers were able to implement third-party payment options—representing only 0.025% of eligible apps. That’s over the course of a 15-month injunction where app developers were supposed to be able to communicate with their user base about outside payments.

“Apple’s lip service concealed its real intentions from the start: to use every trick in the book to subvert the court’s order, in flagrant violation of the law,” Berman said. “This was not a victimless crime.”

The new class-action, led by Pure Sweat Basketball Inc. as the named plaintiff, seeks to recover lost revenues for potentially more than 100,00 developers who were forced to pay Apple commissions they should have been able to avoid. If successful, the lawsuit could result in substantial compensation for impacted developers. Hagens Berman previously obtained a $100 million settlement for iOS developers in a previous case concerning the App Store.

Warner Music Group is suing DSW for alleged copyright infringement on social media. Photo Credit: Anthony92931

Another day, another social-focused copyright lawsuit – this time from Warner Music, which is suing Designer Shoe Warehouse (DSW) and others for allegedly infringing on protected works in hundreds of promo videos.

Warner Music Group (WMG) submitted the straightforward action to an Ohio federal court, naming as defendants the mentioned DSW, Topo Athletic, and their Columbus-headquartered owner, Designer Brands (NYSE: DBI).

By now, many are aware of the mountain of infringement actions targeting music featured in companies’ social videos. In short, social platforms’ song libraries are pre-cleared only for personal use, with standalone licenses required for commercial usages in most instances.

(On the “most instances” front: Warner Music licensed some of its catalog for TikTok’s “Commercial Music Library,” which, as its name suggests, includes works cleared for brands.)

And paid influencer campaigns don’t constitute personal use, multiple companies have found out the hard way in separate litigation. Per today’s suit: “DSW’s social media advertising” – even featuring an appearance from the spouse of a Warner Music exec – “is similar to that of” Bang Energy.

Bang “was found liable for copyright infringement in two different lawsuits due to the same type of copyright infringement,” WMG’s DSW suit reads in part.

Running with the point, then, Warner Music says the defendants have “extensive experience with music licensing” but failed to seek or receive usage permission for its own social videos and for its influencer campaigns.

(WMG also took the opportunity to call out the defendants’ alleged approach to compensating influencers.“[C]ontrary to Federal Trade Commission guidelines, the social media influencers often do not disclose that they receive compensation in any form,” the complaint maintains.)

As for the extent of the alleged infringement, the filing parties’ “initial investigation has revealed that DSW misappropriated over two hundred” compositions and recordings in which Warner Music has stakes, per the text.

Incorporated into videos on Instagram and TikTok alike, the allegedly infringed works include tracks recorded by Usher, The Weeknd, Linkin Park, Ed Sheeran, and many others, the suit shows.

All told, Warner Music has levied three copyright claims against DSW and the other defendants, including for vicarious and contributory infringement.

Regarding the aforementioned mountain of social-infringement actions, various music companies have opted to litigate against NBA teams, AHL teams, Chili’s parent Brinker International, the University of Southern California, and Crumbl Cookies, to name some.

Photo Credit: Wesley Tingey

Sean “Diddy” Combs has rejected the government’s offer to plead guilty to reduce his potential prison sentence as his sex trafficking trial kicks off.

Combs appeared in court on Thursday, formally rejecting the US government’s plea offer that would reduce his potential prison sentence if he would plead guilty. When asked by Judge Arun Subramanian if he rejected the prosecution’s plea deal, Combs answered, “Yes, I do, your honor. Thank you.”

As the disgraced musician’s federal sex trafficking trial gets underway, at least four witnesses who have already filed civil suits against Combs are expected to testify against him. While the witness list has not been made public, three individuals familiar with the matter told CNN anonymously about those likely to testify.

Unsurprisingly, the central witness is Cassandra “Cassie” Ventura, the singer and ex-girlfriend of Combs, who will testify under her real name. The judge has permitted the other three witnesses and alleged victims to testify under pseudonyms to aid in protecting their identities. In court documents, they are referred to as “Victim-2,” “Victim-3,” and “Victim-4.”

Meanwhile, a number of supporting witnesses will also testify as government witnesses to corroborate the key witnesses’ accounts or to provide other relevant information. Among those expected to testify is a male sex worker seen in explicit videos of Combs’ “Freak Offs”—sexual encounters he allegedly coerced women into with sex workers, in which one or both parties were drugged and forced to engage in sex acts.

Combs is facing over 60 civil lawsuits, which are notably separate from his criminal trial. But many of those lawsuits served as a “roadmap” for prosecutors, according to sources close to the matter.

He has pleaded not guilty to charges of racketeering conspiracy, transportation to engage in prostitution, and sex trafficking. Combs continues to vehemently deny all civil allegations against him.

Photo Credit: Suge Knight by Nick Leisure / CC by 2.0

Suge Knight has agreed to a $1.5 million settlement to the family of Terry Carter, the man he ran over and killed in a 2015 hit-and-run.

On Tuesday, Suge Knight appeared in court via video and agreed to a $1.5 million settlement in his wrongful death suit. The wife and daughters of Terry Carter, the man Knight ran over and killed with his truck in 2015, will each receive $500,000.

The settlement prevents a retrial on claims made by Carter’s family, which would have led to jury selection beginning on April 30 had he not agreed to settle. Knight is currently serving a 28-year-sentence at the Richard Donovan Correctional Facility in San Diego and won’t be eligible for parole until October 2034. But he would have been forced to go on trial anyway—even without his lawyer, David Kenner, who has been trying to exit the case due to a conflict with Suge Knight.

Knight provided a statement to Rolling Stone about the incident, explaining he had gotten into an altercation in a restaurant parking lot that night. The altercation escalated when Knight ran over Carter and another man before fleeing the scene. Carter died within an hour of the incident, while the other man suffered two broken ankles and a head laceration.

“Terry was a friend of mine. It definitely wasn’t done intentionally. It wasn’t done to bring harm to him,” said Knight. “One of the reasons I settled [is] I got respect for Terry, so that means I’ve got respect for his family.” He continued: “I didn’t want to put the family through more pain. It’s not that I did anything wrong. I never would have. But I do owe the family an apology because of this thing they had to go through.”

“It’s hard living without [Terry] when I lived all those many years with him,” said Carter’s widow. “It’s been very, very difficult. I’ve been in pain ever since January 29, 2015; I haven’t had a good day—not one good day.”

She added: “I’m not happy with the outcome of it, at all, but I don’t want to give him another opportunity to put on a clown show and act like a bitch. Maybe somebody will shank him in jail.”

Photo Credit: Sam Smith, Normani – Dancing With A Stranger (Official Music Video)

A copyright infringement lawsuit against Sam Smith and Normani over their hit “Dancing With a Stranger” has been revived by a federal appeals court.

A federal appeals court has revived a copyright infringement lawsuit filed against Sam Smith and Normani over their 2019 hit “Dancing With a Stranger,” alleging it copied aspects of a similarly named song from 2015. On Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court’s decision to dismiss the case.

According to the appeals court, a jury could find the hooks of the two songs to be “substantially similar.” Ultimately, a California federal judge will reconsider the matter.

Sound and Color, copyright holder of “Dancing With Strangers” by Jordan Vincent and music duo SKX, filed the initial lawsuit in 2022. The filing alleged the song’s title, lyrics, melody, and overall production copied elements of the earlier track.

Smith’s song has a noticeably slower tempo, but the lawsuit claimed the similarities are undeniable when the tracks are played at the same speed. Further, it asserted the underlying composition of both songs is “nearly identical,” and their hooks share the same lyrics and arrangement of phrasing.

The case was dismissed by a California federal court in 2023, determining that the two songs were not substantially similar other than the phrasing of the title. But that was determined too general to be protected by copyright law.

Now, the appeals court says the case should have gone before a jury. The court emphasized that there isn’t a well-defined standard for assessing similarities in the arrangement and selection of songs to determine whether infringement has occurred.

“As Sound and Color’s experts opined, the hooks share the same combination of several musical elements, including the same lyrics, the same ‘metric placement’ at the beginning of each syllable, and the same downward ‘melodic contour’ that starts at pitch 7 and ends at pitch 3,” they wrote.

“Defendants’ exhibit containing forty-three audio excerpts of songs with similar lyrics but differences in rhythm, pitch sequence, and melodic contour illustrates the ‘wide range of possible expression and broad creative choices’ involved in crafting a hook and thereby shows that broad copyright protection is appropriate.”

The order arrives at a crossroads for similar cases, which for a while seem to have trended in favor of the artist being sued. Ed Sheeran won in two lawsuits that went before juries over his songs “Shape of You” and “Thinking Out Loud.” But cases of this nature can go either way; more often these days, such cases have been going before a jury due to the nuance involved in determining whether infringement has taken place.

Fat Joe, who’s filed a defamation lawsuit against one of his former employees. Photo Credit: Mika-photography

Drake isn’t the only rapper suing over allegedly false pedophilia claims. Now, Fat Joe says his former hype man defamed him with untrue allegations “of vile sexual misconduct, pedophilia, statutory rape, violence and stealing.”

54-year-old Fat Joe (real name Joseph Cartagena) just recently submitted the complaint to a federal court in his native New York. Aside from the mentioned hype man, Terrance Dixon (known professionally as TA), the complaint names as defendants attorney Tyrone Blackburn and his law firm.

For a bit of background, Fat Joe brought on TA as his hype man in or around 2006, according to the suit. Over the course of the professional relationship, which is said to have “ended amicably in 2019,” Fat Joe purportedly afforded TA “generous compensation.”

Fast forward to 2023, when TA allegedly “initiated a campaign of public harassment against” Fat Joe on social media.

“In an obvious money grab, all these years later, Dixon claims that he should have been paid more. He claims (falsely) that Cartagena recently blocked him from getting outside funding for a record label, which was the ‘last straw,'” the suit reads.

Furthermore, some of those not-so-subtle posts, which were still live on Instagram at the time of writing, accused the five-time Grammy nominee of sexual assault.

The accusations pertain in part to 2010 “inappropriate touching” allegations against Fat Joe, who denied the claims at the time and was cleared “of any involvement shortly” thereafter, per the text.

“Dixon knew that these statements were false: Cartagena never sexually assaulted anyone,” the suit maintains. “Authorities never charged or detained Cartagena…and cleared him of any involvement shortly after speaking with him. Rather, Dixon attempted to resurrect a decade plus-old false accusation and headline to support his campaign of harassment and extortion.”

Unsurprisingly, given the complaint, this alleged campaign was accompanied by demands for Fat Joe to cough up cash, per the suit.

Also unsurprisingly in light of the action, the rapper didn’t cave to the payment demands then or later in 2023, when the remarks “escalated” and “accused him [Fat Joe] of being a pedophile.”

Fast forward once more, past 2024 (when the alleged defamation continued) and into the current year. To this point in 2025, TA has allegedly levied false accusations at Fat Joe for cheating “him out of money and credit” on songs, besides penning “countless other posts attempting to belittle and humiliate” the plaintiff.

“Frustrated by his inability to overcome Cartagena’s resolve,” the complaint continues, “Dixon upped the ante by hiring” the aforementioned “Blackburn to continue his extortionate scheme.”

That attorney’s name will be familiar to some in the industry – though as Fat Joe and his counsel see things, Blackburn is only “an extortionist masquerading as a lawyer in a cynical ruse to use the court system as both a sword and a shield for his unethical conduct.”

Long story short, Fat Joe and his team are accusing Blackburn of engaging in “a pattern of unprofessional and erratic behavior that raises significant concerns.”

Said behavior includes allegedly threatening letters, an alleged threat to report Fat Joe to Homeland Security, and a whole lot else, the suit explains in more words.

And it’s against this backdrop that the defendants allegedly made massive settlement demands – one for a staggering $20 million – to prevent related litigation, according to the action.

All told, Fat Joe is suing TA for defamation and seeking relief from both TA and Blackburn for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

In a statement provided to DMN, Blackburn dismissed the complaint as “a desperate Hail Mary attempt to soften the blow of what’s to come.”

“The lawsuit filed by Fat Joe is a desperate Hail Mary attempt to soften the blow of what’s to come,” Blackburn said to DMN. “We will file a RICO, and TVPA case that outlines Fat Joe’s pattern and practice of sleeping with 10th/11th grade girls, one of whom we have on audio tape detailing how manipulative Fat Joe was when he was in his late 30’s and she was only 16.

“It will also outline Fat Joes Rico Criminal Enterprise, that is supported by a 19 minute audio recording of Fat Joes felonious hitman, Pistol Pete attempting to convince a member of Terror Squad to lure my client to a specific location so he can be ‘pounded out,’ which is code for killed,” the attorney proceeded.

Photo Credit: Alexander Abero

With the TICKET Act’s passage in the U.S. House, several music industry organizations have released full statements in support of the action. Now the law must pass through the Senate.

Several music industry organizations released statements about the passage of the TICKET Act. Some of those statements praise the move, but also call attention to carve outs that may weaken the law as it is written. Here’s a peek at where many industry bodies stand on the passage.

National Independent Venue Association (NIVA)

“The speculative ticketing ban in the TICKET Act is an important step toward restoring trust in the ticketing market,” begins Stephen Parker, Executive Director of NIVA. “Artists, independent venues, and promoters fought tirelessly over the last two years to secure this critical protection. Any ticketing law must truly ban speculative tickets without exception.”

“Unfortunately the inclusion of a ‘concierge service’ carve-out, as written in the TICKET Act, would undermine the speculative ticket ban. Concierge services should not be a loophole for companies like Vivid Seats to claim they are offering a service while selling ‘tickets’ they don’t possess to unsuspecting fans. States across the country have proven that strong, loophole-free ticketing consumer protections work, and Congress should build on that momentum.”

“The White House Executive Order on Combating Unfair Practices in the Live Entertainment Market also made clear that deceptive practices must be fixed, not re-branded. We urge Congress to amend language to make certain that ‘concierge services’ do not empower multi-billion dollar resale platforms over consumers.”

“Further, we support strengthening the law with enhanced penalties and enforcement authority for state attorneys general to deter bad actors and help ensure the law is being followed. Illegal bot use runs rampant in the ticketing industry because the FTC has only brought one enforcement action since the use of bots was banned in 2016. We hope Congress does not miss the opportunity to ensure these laws are actually enforced in the future.”

“We look forward to working with the Senate to ensure that fans, venues, and artists are prioritized in the final version of the TICKET Act.”

National Independent Talent Organization (NITO)

“The TICKET Act that just passed the house does not do nearly enough to protect fans and consumers against bad actors,” NITO said in a joint statement of members. “Vivid Seats spec ticket ‘seat saver’ program is still 100% legal. All-in pricing without itemization means fans won’t know the price the artist sets. Bots will continue to run rampant without stronger enforcement mechanisms.”

“NITO urges the Senate to strengthen this bill prior to passage and we will continue to advocate for stronger protections for our community.”

Recording Academy

“Today’s passage of the TICKET Act by the House of Representatives marks a significant step forward toward improving the concert ticket marketplace,” shares Harvey Mason Jr., CEO of the Recording Academy. “The TICKET Act was a key focus of Grammys on the Hill and the Recording Academy thanks our Congressional leaders for bringing the bill to a vote shortly after meeting with Academy members. We now urge the Senate to act quickly to incorporate the strong provisions contained in the Fans First Act and move a comprehensive ticket reform package that will provide transparency and protect artists and their fans.”

Live Nation

“We’re grateful to Reps. Gus Bilirakis, Jan Schakowsky, Chairman Brett Guthrie and Ranking Member Pallone for re-introducing the TICKET Act, which includes an all-in pricing mandate and bans speculative ticketing—a deceptive scheme that targets concert-going fans. Live Nation has long advocated for such reforms, and we’re hopeful Congress could soon pass these important changes into law to make the concert industry better for fans and artists.”

The Coalition for Ticket Fairness (CTF)

“The Coalition for Ticket Fairness (CTF) applauds the House on the passage of the TICKET Act,” says the organization’s statement. “Introduced by Subcommittee on Innovation, Data, and Commerce Chair Gus Bilirakis and Ranking Member Jan Schakowsky, the TICKET Act represents common sense reforms that will bring much needed transparency into the ticket buying process and give consumers more information as they make purchasing decisions. By empowering consumers, this bill will help lead to a better ticket buying experience and a healthier marketplace.”

Fix the Tix Coalition

“The Fix the Tix Coalition, representing every major constituency of the music and live events industry, applauds the passage of the TICKET Act, as an important step towards restoring trust in the ticketing ecosystem,” the statement reads. “The bill provides transparency with all-in pricing, and takes important steps to combat speculative tickets and deceptive websites.”

“The live entertainment ecosystem is counting on Congress to act in the best interests of fans to restore transparency and trust to our country’s broken ticketing system.”

Photo Credit: Dylan Mullins

The House has passed the TICKET Act with a bipartisan vote of 409-15. Now the bill heads to the Senate to await a final vote before making it to the President’s desk.

The Transparency in Charges for Key Events Ticketing (TICKET) Act has passed in the House of Representatives by a bipartisan vote of 409-15.

The bill, which has near-universal support from both parties, would ensure a fair, dynamic, and transparent ticket market for fans across the United States. It has also seen overwhelming support from consumer protection organizations, trade associations, and industry groups.

“The House has once again made clear: consumers deserve transparency and fairness when buying event tickets,” said John Breyault, Vice President of Public Policy, Telecommunications and Fraud at the National Consumers League.

“This legislation puts an end to hidden fees and deceptive resale practices that have cheated fans for too long. With the House having acted, the Senate must now move swiftly to pass the TICKET Act and send it to the President’s desk. With so many live events coming this summer, consumers can’t afford more delays.”

“With another overwhelming bipartisan vote, the House of Representatives has reaffirmed what consumer advocates, artists, venues, and industry leaders all agree on: it’s time for transparency in ticketing,” said Brian Hess, Executive Director of Sports Fans Coalition. “We thank Chair Guthrie, Ranking Member Pallone, Chair Bilirakis, and Ranking Member Schakowsky for their tireless advocacy on behalf of fans.”

“The TICKET Act delivers all-in pricing and comprehensive protections against deceptive practices that have plagued the ticket resale market for too long. We urge the Senate to pass the TICKET Act without delay. Together, we can build a marketplace that works for fans.”

Earlier this year, the TICKET Act passed the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation.

The TICKET Act promises the following:

Illegalizing hidden ticket fees: mandating all-in, upfront pricing, so the first price you see is the last number you see, plus tax; providing fans a full refund to a cancelled event, or a comparable replacement ticket if the event is postponed.

Cracking down on misleading websites and deceptive URLs: ticket websites cannot claim to be “official” sellers or resellers unless they actually are; prohibiting sellers or resellers from using the names of venues, teams, artists, and events in their online domain names.

Banning deceptive “speculative” ticketing: sellers can only offer tickets they have in possession or offer ticket procurement shopping services; requiring clarity and a distinction between tickets for sale and ticket procurement services.

Maintaining the ability for fans to purchase through ticket procurement services, but requiring ticket sellers to ensure clear and conspicuous disclosures and a distinction between in-possession tickets and pay-now-procure-later shopping services.

Assessing the use of illegal software bots: requiring the FTC to study the 2016-enacted BOTS Act, its enforcement to date, and help identify the challenges with its enforcement.

Photo Credit: Sean “Diddy” Combs for Cannes Lions Learnings / CC by 3.0

Footage of Diddy physically assaulting Cassie Ventura will be shown to the jury in his criminal sex trafficking trial, a federal judge has ruled. The trial is scheduled to begin next month.

Sean “Diddy” Combs and his legal team pushed to have the 2016 hotel footage of him brutally assaulting then-girlfriend Cassie Ventura excluded from the evidence in his upcoming trial. But a federal judge has denied those requests, allowing the footage to be shown to the jury.

Despite his repeated efforts to exclude the footage, Combs admitted in May 2024—just after the footage was aired by CNN—to physically assaulting Ventura. He posted an apology video on his Instagram account, calling his behavior in the footage “inexcusable,” and taking “full responsibility” for his actions.

However, Combs and his attorneys have since claimed the footage was inaccurate. But Judge Arun Subramanian said many of the defense’s concerns can be alleviated “through technology.” Prosecutors said they had a video expert going through the footage and further verifying its authenticity.

CNN has also doubled down on their assertion that they did not alter the footage. “CNN never altered the video and did not destroy the original copy of the footage, which was retained by the source,” said a spokesperson for CNN. “[We] aired the story about the video several months before Combs was arrested.”

Combs has pleaded not guilty to federal charges of sex trafficking, transportation to engage in prostitution, and racketeering conspiracy. He has been held without bail at a federal detention center in New York City since his arrest while he awaits trial. Jury selection begins on May 5, while opening statements are expected to begin on May 12.

Marc Agnifilo, Combs’ lead attorney, suggested in a court hearing on Friday that Combs is simply a “swinger,” rather than a sexual predator. This offers some insight into the defense’s strategy, claiming all Combs’ sexual encounters were consensual. However, assertions that some encounters involved minors would undoubtedly throw that theory out the window, even without the footage of his vicious assault on Cassie.

Photo Credit: Ashley King

Media conglomerate Ziff Davis is suing OpenAI for copyright infringement. The suit alleges that OpenAI “intentionally and relentlessly” exploited Ziff Davis’s copyrighted content to train its AI models without authorization or compensation.

Ziff Davis is one of the largest digital publishers in the U.S., overseeing more than 45 media brands and employing 3,800 people. The brand’s gaming portfolio includes some of the biggest sites in the gaming ecosystem, including IGN, GameSpot, GameFAQs, Humble Bundle, and Eurogamer. The conglomerate is also responsible for brands like PCMag, Mashable, Lifehacker, CNET, RetailMeNot, and others.

According to the complaint, OpenAI allegedly ignored explicit instructions to keep its web crawlers off Ziff Davis sites and even stripped copyright notices from the content it aggregated. Ziff Davis claims that OpenAI’s use of its content in training datasets resulted in ChatGPT generating ‘identical reproductions’ and derivative works, undermining the publisher’s ability to monetize its articles while harming the brands’ reputations.

The Ziff Davis lawsuit is part of a growing wave of legal actions taken by media companies, authors, and artists challenging AI companies over the use of copyrighted materials in training data. In the music industry, publishers and artists alike have raised alarms about AI models ingesting and reproducing copyrighted lyrics, melodies, and recordings.

Recent court decisions, such as a federal judge denying music publishers’ requests to block Anthropic from using copyrighted lyrics, highlight the unsettled nature of this legal frontier. If Ziff Davis prevails in this lawsuit, it could set a precedent requiring AI companies to obtain licenses or compensate rights-holders—potentially reshaping how AI interacts with news, music, and other creative industries.

The case mirrors one against Meta where court documents show that Meta researchers downloaded over 81.7 terabytes of books and research papers from online shadow libraries like LibGen and Anna’s Archive. Internal communications revealed that Meta executives were aware of the legal and ethical risks associated with obtaining licensed content from pirate sources. They attempted to conceal their piracy by avoiding the use of Facebook servers for downloads and minimized the digital footprint of their actions. CEO Mark Zuckerberg reportedly approved the use of these illicit datasets.

The European Commission headquarters in Brussels. Photo Credit: EmDee

That’ll be $800 million, please. A couple investigations and one stroke of the pen later, the European Commission has fined Apple (€500 million) and Meta (€200 million) the better part of $1 billion.

The European Union executive body announced as much in a formal release. As many know, both the mentioned companies (besides Google and other leading tech and social players) aren’t exactly strangers to aggressive regulatory scrutiny in the EU.

For Apple, that includes an astonishing $2 billion or so fine handed down last year over alleged anticompetitive behavior targeting music streaming apps. As we noted then, the penalty (which Apple promptly appealed) stemmed specifically from a 2019 complaint submitted by the vocal App Store critic Spotify.

Also as noted at the time, Apple was facing different investigations to boot; we detailed one such probe when it initiated in June 2024. And it’s in connection with this Digital Markets Act (DMA) inquiry, pertaining to purported consumer harm inflicted via App Store anti-steering policies, that the EC has ordered Apple to cough up €500 million.

According to the European Commission, “a number of restrictions” mean Apple is, in practice, preventing  developers from informing “customers, free of charge, of alternative offers outside the App Store.”

“Developers wanting to use alternative app distribution channels on iOS are disincentivised from doing so as this requires them to opt for business terms which include a new fee (Apple’s Core Technology Fee). Apple also introduced overly strict eligibility requirements,” the European Commission spelled out here.

That said, the entity did close a different investigation yet into Apple’s “user choice obligations,” including in terms of default-setting changes and more on iOS.

“This closure follows a constructive dialogue between the Commission and Apple,” the EC elaborated. “As a result, Apple changed its browser choice screen, streamlining the user experience of selecting and setting a new default browser on iPhone.”

Meta, on the other hand, is staring down a fine over an alleged failure to comply with the DMA with a “Consent or Pay” advertising model.

Keeping the focus on brass-tacks takeaways, the Facebook parent apparently embraced a revamped model some time back; the fine is for the system in place until November 2024.

As for where things go now, the companies must “comply with the Commission’s decisions within 60 days, otherwise they risk periodic penalty payments,” the EU agency relayed. Both Apple and Meta have fired back; Apple touched on plans to appeal as well.

While these massive fines don’t directly impact the core industry, the affected companies certainly have considerable music-space reach. Furthermore, the EU’s choppy regulatory waters are worth keeping in mind when it comes to Universal Music’s proposed Downtown buyout. Earlier in April, the much-criticized deal was referred to the European Commission for review.

Photo Credit: Crumbl

Warner Music Group sues Crumbl Cookies for around $24 million, alleging copyright infringement on social media—including TikTok and Instagram.

Warner Music Group (WMG) filed a complaint in a US District Court in Utah on Tuesday, April 22, alleging cookie chain Crumbl used at least 159 of WMG’s music in promotional videos posted to Instagram and TikTok. WMG says those works include recordings or compositions from artists and songwriters like Ariana Grande, Beyoncé, Bruno Mars, Dua Lipa, Lizzo, Mariah Carey, and Taylor Swift, without proper authorization or licensing.

“Defendants have misappropriated at least 159 of the most popular and valuable sound recordings and musical compositions in the market, using those creative works to build [Crumbl’s] brand profile and drive massive sales to Defendants without any compensation to [WMG],” the lawsuit reads.

“The audio track generally runs the full length of the Crumbl Videos and includes the most familiar portion of the sound recording and underlying musical composition, such as the hook or chorus,” WMG claims. The music giant cites examples such as Lil Mosey’s “Blueberry Faygo” played over a video promoting blueberry cheesecake cookies, another promoting yellow sugar cookies to Coldplay’s “Yellow,” and a third promoting Kentucky butter cake to BTS’ “Butter.”

Further, Warner’s lawsuit asserts that in addition to creating and posting infringing videos directly, Crumbl partnered with social media influencers who then received “perks and rewards” such as “paid initiatives” in exchange for promoting Crumbl products.

“Crumbl draws each of these influencers’ followers to Crumbl’s social media pages and to the Crumbl Videos. Crumbl recruits these individuals — including, upon information and belief, those featured in the Crumbl Videos — to ‘collaborate’ with Crumbl, whereby participants are rewarded for promoting Crumbl products,” the lawsuit reads.

WMG claims that Crumbl continued posting infringing content even months after the company sent the cookie chain a cease-and-desist letter in 2023. “Crumbl’s willfulness is further evidenced by its very own statements,” WMG continues, citing a TikTok video from January 2024 in which Crumbl said, “We were gonna make a funny video to promote Mystery Cookie, but legal said we can’t use any trending audios.”

Warner Music Group is seeking up to $150,000 in statutory damages for each infringed work, potentially resulting in damages of up to $23.85 million. The company is also seeking a permanent injunction prohibiting Crumbl from further infringement.

Founded in 2017 with a single store in Utah, Crumbl now has over 1,000 locations worldwide, with more than 29,000 employees. According to Reuters, the company has been exploring a sale since January that could value the business at $2 billion.

A live performance from Mariah Carey, who, along with fellow defendants including Sony Music, is pushing to receive legal fees in an ‘All I Want for Christmas Is You’ copyright lawsuit. Photo Credit: Raph_PH

All I want for Christmas is everything you own: A copyright infringement lawsuit over Mariah Carey’s perennial holiday hit is turning ugly amid a legal fees sub-dispute.

We first broke down that high-stakes sub-dispute closer to April’s beginning, after the presiding judge opted to toss the complaint in March. Long story short, the country-singer plaintiff, Vince Vance (real name Andy Stone), accused Carey’s “All I Want for Christmas Is You” of lifting from his own effort of the same name.

But the ruling in favor of the defendants – among them Universal Music, Sony Music, and Carey herself – set the stage for a massive attorneys’ fees demand. All told, the parties are looking to make the plaintiff cough up an astonishing $185,602 and change.

Unsurprisingly, the request isn’t sitting right with Stone, who, when opposing the bill in a new filing, described himself as “an elderly man now without vast resources.”

Elsewhere in the legal document, the plaintiff emphasized in more words that he’d pursued relief not on a whim, but only after “two of the most esteemed musicologists in the country” had independently identified alleged overlap between the two Christmas songs.

Not stopping there, Stone also underscored the belief that musicologists and artists know more about the subject matter than the court or attorneys in general.

“This is a lawsuit between a successful artist from one generation against another successful artist from a later generation,” Stone and his counsel wrote. “These musicians know more than any lawyer or the Court what they hear in another song.”

Evidently attempting to cover every angle, Stone proceeded to call out the defendants’ allegedly “unreasonable” legal fees billing.

Furthermore, the plaintiff reiterated his own litigation expenses (purportedly including a $40,000 bill just to oppose summary judgement motions) and claimed that “forcing him to sell parts of his catalogue of music will accomplish nothing.”

Against the backdrop of a volume-heavy infringement-litigation landscape, the defendants’ counsel would probably disagree with the latter remark.

With all that said, how much should the plaintiff pay? While the best answer (from Stone’s perspective) is undoubtedly “nothing at all,” if the court is inclined to award legal fees, giving “the entire group more than $70,000 would be reversible error,” per the filing.

Under the current schedule, we won’t have to wait too long to see whether the judge agrees with Stone here; the courtroom confrontation’s next hearing is set for May 12th.

Photo Credit: Jay-Z by Alex Johnson / CC by 2.0

The woman who accused Jay-Z of sexually assaulting her in 2000 is asking a judge to dismiss the rapper’s countersuit against her.

Identified only as Jane Doe, the woman alleged in court documents back in December that Shawn “Jay-Z” Carter and Sean “Diddy” Combs raped her at an MTV Video Music Awards afterparty when she was 13 years old.

Although her attorneys voluntarily dismissed the case in February, Jay-Z filed a countersuit against Jane Doe and her lawyers, Tony Buzbee and David Fortney, in March. Now, Doe has filed a motion to dismiss Jay-Z’s lawsuit.

In his lawsuit against her and her attorneys, Jay-Z alleged malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and civil conspiracy. Notably, he also sued Doe separately, alleging defamation. But in her motion filed on Tuesday, Doe and her legal team say Jay-Z “fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”

“Carter has not alleged facts that would support an abuse of process claim,” the filing states, arguing that Jay-Z’s malicious prosecution claim falls short, as he alleges that the lawsuit was initiated and prosecuted for malicious reasons, “not that any process was wrongfully used after issuance.”

Moreover, the filing says the civil conspiracy claim should also be dismissed, given that Doe’s lawyers “have shown that, as attorneys, they are not liable for civil conspiracy under these allegations.” A conspiracy, they state, requires more than one party; “Doe cannot be liable for civil conspiracy.”

Doe further claims that, based on Jay-Z’s own allegations, he was not damaged by any potentially defamatory statements. He claimed that an NBC News piece “disproved” her claims against him, and that “no person of ordinary care and prudence” would have believed the allegations against him in the first place.

Jay-Z’s countersuit seeks assumed, actual, and punitive damages.

Photo Credit: Otherbrick

Pink Floyd’s David Gilmour has filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against the operator of a website he claims is selling counterfeit merchandise.

A company belonging to Pink Floyd’s David Gilmour, David Gilmour Music Ltd., is filing suit against the owner of Otherbrick.com, alleging trademark infringement and counterfeiting.

The lawsuit, filed in Illinois on Monday, April 21, states it was created to “combat online counterfeiters who trade upon [Gilmour’s] reputation and goodwill by selling and/or offering for sale products in connection with” his “David Gilmour Trademark,” US Trademark Registration No. 3,756,468.

According to the website’s about page, it is the “ultimate destination for Pink Floyd-inspired merchandise,” such as t-shirts, accessories, and home decor, that “reflect the spirit of this iconic band.” Most importantly, the website features David Gilmour-related merchandise, which Gilmour and his company claim are being sold without his permission.

“[David Gilmour Music Ltd.] is in the business of developing, marketing, selling, distributing, and retailing high-quality concert merchandise […] under the federally registered ‘David Gilmour’ Trademark,” the lawsuit reads.

The suit claims that Otherbrick’s “sales of counterfeit products [are] in violation of [Gilmour’s] intellectual property rights, [and] are irreparably damaging [David Gilmour Music Ltd.]” Further, it asserts that Gilmour and his company “remain active,” and an “official source of authentic David Gilmour products.”

Since David Gilmour’s trademark has been “continuously used and never abandoned,” the filing says products bearing his name and trademark are “widely recognized and exclusively associated by consumers, the public, and the trade as being products sourced from [Gilmour].”

“[Otherbrick] is using a fake online storefront designed to appear to be selling genuine [Gilmour] products, while selling inferior imitations of [Gilmour] products,” says the filing, further asserting that the owner of Otherbrick has “intentionally concealed [their] identity and the full scope of its counterfeiting operations in an effort to deter [Gilmour] from learning [the owner’s] true identity.”

Gilmour is seeking a permanent injunction to stop the unauthorized use of his trademark and future sales, transfer of the domain name to Gilmour’s company, removal of the site from search results, as well as substantial damages and attorneys’ fees.

SoundExchange president and CEO Michael Huppe. Photo Credit: SoundExchange

Ahead of related CRB Web VI hearings, SoundExchange and the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) have unveiled a rates agreement covering 2026 through 2030.   

SoundExchange and the radio rep just recently put out a joint release about the deal, which was actually finalized closer to April’s beginning. Meanwhile, the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) set the overarching Web VI wheels in motion early last year.

Unsurprisingly, there’s been plenty of back and forth between the involved parties since then, the CRB’s pages-deep Web VI section shows. (The main CRB hearings themselves are slated to commence next Monday, April 28th, though a prehearing conference is scheduled for Wednesday the 23rd.)

Nevertheless, the talks (or at least those concerning rates for a portion of non-interactive digital recording usages – more on this in a moment) look to be ushering in significant progress relative to certain prior negotiations. And they’ll presumably be far smoother than some forthcoming rate discussions when all is said and done.

Bringing the focus back to the internet-radio world, the NAB and SoundExchange say their proposed settlement will boost the non-subscription rate to $0.0028 per usage in 2026 (up from $0.0025 currently). From there, the per-usage rate would increase by $0.0001 annually en route to hitting $0.0032 in 2030.

Additionally, the minimum fee would come in at $1,100 in 2026, grow by $50 annually until hitting $1,250 in 2029, and then remain the same in 2030. The payment deadline, for its part, would decrease from 45 days to 30 days following each month’s conclusion.

Lastly, in terms of brass-tacks takeaways, the NAB and SoundExchange treaded new ground with regard to late fees and access to performance data held by third-party vendors, among other things.

In a statement, SoundExchange president and CEO Michael Huppe applauded the “business solution that both parties can accept,” including because of the compromise’s “many benefits over battling it out in court.”

(George Johnson and Word Collections are participating as well; both, upon reviewing the relevant terms, “agreed they would not object to the” NAB settlement, per the adoption motion.)

And in remarks of his own, NAB head Curtis LeGeyt touted the settlement for providing “critical certainty around streaming rates in a way that is sustainable for broadcasters large and small.”

Bigger picture, SoundExchange has also proposed Web VI rate settlements on the public- and college-radio sides. And today, the entity reiterated proposed rates for all activities not covered by these possible settlements.

Against the backdrop of an existing royalties war between SoundExchange and SiriusXM – and given the above-described settlements, of course – that move is decidedly important for the satellite radio giant.

To be sure, besides seeking to address all sorts of “material terms issues,” SoundExchange has doubled down on calls for a substantially heightened per-performance rate of $0.0037 for subscriptions during the first year of the half-decade window.

Snoop Dogg at WrestleMania XL. Photo Credit: Diego Serrano

Snoop Dogg and Death Row Records are looking to dismiss the $107 million lawsuit filed by Lydia Harris, who they say should also be barred from litigating against them moving forward.

Counsel for Snoop Dogg and the relevant label just recently made the dismissal push official. Meanwhile, Universal Music, Jimmy Iovine, and several others are likewise defendants in the pro se complaint.

We broke down that complaint when it was filed – and then once more when the presiding judge scheduled a pretrial conference – last month. Long story short, Lydia Harris (the ex-wife of Death Row co-founder Michael Harris) says she’s owed big for her purported stake in the label, which Snoop Dogg bought in 2022.

She sued Suge Knight (who allegedly pushed her out of Death Row) for similar reasons in 2002, and a court in 2005 entered a $107 million default judgement in her favor (hence the damages sought in the current action).

But Suge Knight went on to declare bankruptcy, and Team Snoop maintains that a 2008 bankruptcy settlement both resolved Lydia’s claims and prevented her from seeking relief down the line. (Lydia has seemingly confirmed receiving a $1 million “good-faith payment” from Suge Knight at some point.)

Consequently, Snoop Dogg is painting the newest suit as the latest in a series of attempts to overturn the 2008 settlement. Lydia, who hasn’t hesitated to elaborate on her position in the media, is alleging that “strategic bankruptcy filings” concealed the assets in question and prevented the settlement’s full enforcement.

Running with those ideas, Snoop Dogg and Death Row believe that Lydia’s “substantively frivolous” suit is “undeniably time-barred by the relevant statute of limitations.”

“Thus,” reads one part of the dismissal motion, “over 20 years have elapsed between the March 9, 2005 entry of judgment and the March 18, 2025 filing of Plaintiff’s Complaint, a time period which is considerably outside the one-year statute of limitations.”

Furthermore, the two mentioned defendants say the prior litigation and settlement definitively resolved the claims at hand, subsequent discovery of additional information or not.

Leaving no stone unturned, Snoop Dogg and Death Row are also accusing Lydia of failing “to adequately plead any cognizable legal claim” and of improperly serving the suit.

“Here,” the text indicates, “the proof of service filed by Plaintiff clearly shows that Plaintiff [a party to the action, of course] herself served the Complaint via certified mail. This is clearly improper and constitutes an independent ground for insufficient service.”

For these and different reasons, the court should toss the action and deem Lydia a vexatious litigant to boot, per counsel for Snoop and Death Row. The plaintiff is allegedly “a bad faith litigant” who “continued a pattern of harassment in California for years and has now shifted her harassment to a new forum in Texas,” the motion reads.

Photo Credit: CNN

Diddy requests the video footage of him brutally beating Cassie Ventura to be excluded from evidence at his trial, claiming it has been manipulated.

Sean “Diddy” Combs has requested the hotel video footage that showed him beating ex-girlfriend Cassie Ventura be excluded from evidence at his trial. The disgraced music mogul and his team claim the footage, which was released by CNN in May last year, has been manipulated.

“Mr. Combs seeks to exclude all available video files related to an incident from March 5, 2016, in the Intercontinental Hotel,” his lawyers wrote in a 15-page motion, which was submitted to the US Southern District Court of New York on Thursday.

“There is no longer any dispute that the CNN footage from March 5, 2016, at the Intercontinental Hotel, offered by the government at three separate bail hearings, is wholly inaccurate, having been altered, manipulated, sped-up, and edited to be out of sequence,” they claim. “CNN paid [redacted] for footage, copied that footage in unknown ways, presented that footage out of order, and destroyed the original. Accordingly, all the footage from CNN is inaccurate and inadmissible as well.”

Combs’ team also requested a pre-trial hearing to “present testimony and video evidence” from a forensic video analyst, Conor McCourt, “so that the court can better understand the ways in which each of the available videos are unreliable and not a fair and accurate reflection of the actions depicted.”

CNN denies all claims of manipulate footage, asserting that none of the footage was ever altered. “CNN never altered the video and did not destroy the original copy of the footage, which was retained by the source,” said a CNN spokesperson. “We aired the story about the video several months before Combs was arrested.”

Combs’ trial begins on May 12, with jury selection beginning on May 5. A New York City judge has denied his request to delay the federal trial by two months, determining there should have been ample time for his team to prepare.

Diddy has been charged with five counts of racketeering conspiracy, sex trafficking, and transportation to engage in prostitution. He has pled not guilty to all charges.

Roblox is facing a copyright infringement lawsuit centering on the viral ‘Apple Dance.’ Photo Credit: Oberon Copeland

A copyright infringement battle over dance moves? TikToker Kelley Heyer has named Roblox Corporation in a lawsuit centering on its emote for the viral “Apple Dance.”  

The self-described artist and creator Heyer submitted the straightforward complaint to a California federal court, naming Roblox as the sole defendant. As laid out in the eight-page suit, the plaintiff “created and choreographed the viral Apple Dance” last summer.

Set to the Charli XCX track of the same name, the dance is said to have made its way onto TikTok in an upload from Heyer on June 15th, 2024. And at least according to the filing party, the Apple Dance took off from there; a multitude of posts and the better part of a year later, Coachella attendees did the apple last weekend.

Evidently, though, there’s more to the “Apple Dance” story than a nice bit of promotion for Charli XCX (as well as Warner Music) and an advantageous wave of exposure for Heyer, who looks to have attended the VMAs.

Per the legal text, the dance is a “work of authorship” resulting from “Heyer’s ingenuity, creativity and artistry; it is literally her brainchild.”

Roblox purportedly contacted the plaintiff “to license her viral Apple Dance as an emote.” And Heyer allegedly consented to the usage on August 12th pending “an executed agreement on the license terms.”

It probably goes without saying in light of the suit, but this executed agreement doesn’t seem to have materialized. Instead, Roblox allegedly began selling the dance emote on August 17th “while engaged in active negotiation with Heyer.”

Heyer claims to have “submitted her copyright registration application in the Apple Dance” on August 30th, before negotiations with Roblox “ground to a halt” in November, according to the action. Incidentally, November also saw Roblox cease selling the emote, the suit indicates.

While the emote was available via Roblox, it sold an astonishing 60,000 “units” to generate around $123,000, the complaint estimates.

“Notably,” the text claims, “other similar entertainment platforms, such as Fortnite and Netflix, HAVE licensed (following extensive negotiation and full execution) the Apple Dance for emote or skin release, PRIOR to commercial exploitation of such.”

Suing for copyright infringement as well as unjust enrichment, Heyer is seeking damages, a piece of Roblox’s Apple Dance profits, and more. In a statement, a Roblox spokesperson told DMN that the company is confident about “the propriety of its dealings in this matter.”

“As a platform powered by a community of creators,” the Roblox rep said to DMN, “Roblox takes the protection of intellectual property very seriously and is committed to protecting intellectual property rights of independent developers and creators to brands and artists both on and off the platform. Roblox is confident in its position and the propriety of its dealings in this matter and looks forward to responding in court.”

Photo Credit: Michael Beckerman / LinkedIn

TikTok’s U.S. Public Policy Chief Michael Beckerman is stepping down from his role to transition to a global advisory position. The departure comes amid the second extension of the U.S. deadline for ByteDance to divest from TikTok — and follows a number of high-profile departures at the app.

The Information reported the departure on Wednesday, citing a staff memo sent to TikTok employees. ByteDance has not publicly commented on the departure, but it comes amid a trade war between the United States and China.

Competition to acquire the U.S.-based business of TikTok has heated up, with AppLovin Corp confirming a preliminary bid in an exchange filing. Meanwhile, Amazon and a group led by OnlyFans founder Tim Stokely are also exploring making a potential bid, though the exact details of the cobbled-together deal remain undisclosed.

So far, Beijing has stonewalled any talks of selling U.S. operations, unwilling to force ByteDance to sell-off the app when 170 million Americans use TikTok. Vice President JD Vance was put in charge of negotiations, with his previous position being that terms of the deal would be finalized by April 5th. That deadline has come and passed, with the Trump administration extending the deadline seemingly with no deal in place.

Michael Beckerman has played a central role in TikTok’s efforts to resist a U.S. government ban. Beckerman’s departure comes at a critical moment as TikTok faces ongoing political and legal pressure in the United States over ownership. The U.S. government requires ByteDance to divest U.S. operations or face a total ban. It appears Beckerman’s exit is part of a broader wave of management changes and restructuring at TikTok.

That includes layoffs that have impacted TikTok’s U.S. e-commerce division and a shift in operational oversight to global leaders from China and Singapore. The company’s U.S. e-commerce team has faced increased scrutiny amid the ongoing trade war between the United States and China—particularly because the platform has underperformed for ByteDance.

As of now, TikTok remains available in the United States, but it’s unclear how long that will last. The new deadline for divestment is June 19—and Beijing is still as unwilling as ever to allow ByteDance to continue with any sale negotiations. ByteDance has signaled before that it would rather see the U.S. operations shuttered entirely than to divest and sell them off to an American buyer.

In February, TikTok Music head Ole Obermann jumped ship, sparking questions about the app’s long-term prospects in the US. That departure was closely followed by TikTok’s Global Business Solutions Head, Blake Chandlee, who exited last month.

Drake has officially filed an amended ‘Not Like Us’ defamation lawsuit against Universal Music Group. Photo Credit: musicisentropy

Right on cue, Drake and his legal team have fired off an amended “Not Like Us” defamation lawsuit against Universal Music Group (UMG).

The “Nokia” act and his counsel submitted the bolstered complaint yesterday, just a couple weeks removed from a major discovery win. As we noted closer to April’s beginning, the presiding judge had given Drake until the 16th to either respond to UMG’s firmly worded dismissal motion or file an amended lawsuit.

The rapper and his attorneys promptly committed to the latter approach, and the updated action runs 23 pages longer than the original. In keeping with the increased length, the 104-page amended suit covers a bit of new ground while reiterating the initial defamation claims.

First, the amended suit elaborates on the aggressive promotional push that UMG allegedly gave “Not Like Us” despite knowing of the “harm” it’d allegedly caused Drake. This push refers in large part to Kendrick Lamar’s Super Bowl halftime show.

“The Recording was performed during the 2025 Super Bowl and broadcast to the largest audience for a Super Bowl halftime show ever, over 133 million people, including millions of children, and millions more who had never before heard the song or any of the songs that preceded it,” reads one section of the suit.

“On information and belief,” the legal text proceeds, “Kendrick Lamar would not have been permitted to perform during the Super Bowl Performance unless the word ‘pedophile’ (in the phrase ‘certified pedophiles’) was omitted from the lyrics—that is because nearly everyone understands that it is defamatory to falsely brand someone a ‘certified pedophile.’”

From there, the expanded action explores in greater detail UMG execs’ alleged coordinated effort to promote “Not Like Us” (and the purportedly unprecedented commercial prominence thereof) on social media.

On this front, the suit now mentions a February LinkedIn post from Interscope exec Jessica Staats. Plus, by the plaintiff’s count, the number of “Not Like Us” articles published by Complex (in which UMG has a stake) swelled from 50 to 70 or so between mid-January and mid-April.

Similarly, Drake and his counsel have doubled down on their claims that UMG arranged for (or at least took steps to encourage) the Grammys success of “Not Like Us.”

“On information and belief,” one new line claims, “UMG conferred benefits and leveraged existing business relationships to secure Grammy nominations (and eventually wins) for the [‘Not Like Us’] Recording and Video.”

Lastly, in terms of the suit’s fresh components, Drake has dialed back some streaming-fraud claims; the original suit’s “UMG Caused Third Parties to Fake Streams” looks to be absent from its amended counterpart.

Nevertheless, Drake remains adamant that UMG engaged in a number of non-organic promo efforts for “Not Like Us,” including but not limited to a multifaceted arrangement with Spotify. As laid out by the plaintiff, this alleged arrangement went well beyond paid promotion and affected users’ search results and more.

Unsurprisingly, the defamation dispute is still spilling out of the courtroom and into the media.

In a statement provided to DMN, Drake lead attorney Michael Gottlieb emphasized an ongoing objective of holding UMG “accountable.”

“Drake’s amended complaint makes an already strong case stronger,” the Willkie Farr & Gallagher partner Gottlieb said. “UMG’s PR ‘spin’ and failed efforts to avoid discovery cannot suppress the facts and the truth. With discovery now moving forward, Drake will expose the evidence of UMG’s misconduct, and UMG will be held accountable for the consequences of its ill-conceived decisions.”

And in a response of its own, UMG expressed, among other things, the belief that Drake is being “misled by his legal representatives” when it comes to the “absurd” complaint.

Then, in a follow-up to UMG’s retort, a Drake rep took aim at the major with a lengthy comment, calling out the company’s “current leadership” and a whole lot else.

Here’s Team Drake’s full response to the statement put out by Universal Music:

“UMG’s latest statement is a desperate attempt to spin the narrative and deflect from the truth: Drake is holding the largest music conglomerate in the world accountable for its actions and doing so without fear.

We dismissed the Texas discovery action because discovery will now proceed in New York. That’s not retreat, that’s victory. UMG dismissed its first amendment petition in Texas because it has no claim, that’s losing. And UMG knows the case against it is only getting stronger.

Drake welcomes discovery and has nothing to hide. It’s not Drake who should worry; it’s UMG’s current leadership. We look forward to hearing from Lucian Grainge, John Janick, and UMG employees under oath.

UMG claims to stand for creativity, but in fact exploits it and the artist community knows that. UMG drains artists for its profits, then discards them. Drake joins a growing chorus of artists raising questions about UMG’s leadership. The public and artists should be concerned about recent headlines involving UMG’s largest stakeholder that only reinforces the need for transparency all the way up to the Board of Director’s level.

UMG said, ‘be careful what you ask for,’ Drake knows exactly what he asked for: the truth and accountability.”

Moments after a court ruled to leave in place an injunction blocking NewJeans’ solo career activities, the group appealed to the Seoul High Court. Photo Credit: SBS Radio

A Seoul court has upheld an injunction blocking NewJeans members from engaging in professional activities without Ador’s involvement. And right on cue, the group has kicked off a High Court appeal.

Both developments came to light in regional reports today. By now, many are familiar with the uglier-than-ever contract dispute between NewJeans and its Hybe-owned agency, Ador.

But just to recap – the convoluted showdown has a number of layers – late March saw the aforementioned injunction put an end to NewJeans members’ solo activities.

Having rebranded and performed as NJZ for a time, NewJeans was (and remains) specifically barred from pursuing any career moves without Hybe/Ador. Meanwhile, the five-piece act’s separate court challenge to the underlying contract is plodding along.

In short, then, the on-hiatus NewJeans’ current options include attempting to overturn the injunction, waiting out the suit challenging the contract (though a win certainly isn’t guaranteed), or reconciling with Hybe/Ador.

The latter path is definitely interesting, but the first course of action hasn’t brought about the desired result for NewJeans. As summed up by the Korea Herald, the court today upheld its prior ruling on the injunction.

Per the same source, NewJeans members promptly appealed to the Seoul High Court – though it’s unclear how long it’ll be before the legal wheels are in motion there.

Closer to the present, evidence suggests that the involved parties are still quite far from an amicable resolution. At the same time, with not-so-subtle press conferences in the rearview, the worst of the confrontation might be over.

To be sure, many NewJeans fans appear eager to see the group reunite (or at least stop quarreling) with Hybe/Ador, which, as noted, now has multiple courtroom wins under its belt. Undoubtedly interested in ending the battle, Hybe last week extended an olive branch to NewJeans by vowing to crack down on online harassment targeting the group.

Furthermore, NewJeans members are evidently still open to performing (they did so as NJZ before the injunction was handed down) and to making music (they unveiled a new track at the same concert). And returning to their original professional home might be the easiest way to continue earning a living from the efforts.

NewJeans’ relationship with ousted Ador CEO Min Hee-jin (who has worked with the group from the outset) is undoubtedly the biggest hangup in this area.

Though there are two sides to every story, an initial rift between Min and Hybe management seemingly fueled the wider conflict with NewJeans.

Long story short, NewJeans members are adamant that Min should be reinstated, and Hybe has spelled out that the ship sailed a while ago. Among many other things, litigation is ongoing between Hybe and Min.

Photo Credit: Patrick Moxey, Founder and CEO, Payday Music Publishing

Ultra International Music Publishing announces its name change to Payday Music Publishing following a court judgement in a case brought by Sony Music.

Leading independent publisher of hip-hop, pop, electronic dance music, jazz, and reggae, Ultra International Music Publishing, has announced it will be changing its name to Payday Music Publishing. The move follows a recent court decision in a legal case brought by Sony Music disputing ownership of the Ultra brand following Sony’s acquisition of the company’s recording division in 2021.

The newly branded Payday Publishing will continue to represent over 70,000 copyrights, including shares in numerous No. 1 Billboard hits. It publishes and co-publishes songs by Post Malone, Ed Sheeran, Future, Travis Scott, 21 Savage, Katy Perry, Kanye West, Chris Brown, Drake, Martin Garrix, Kygo, Steve Aoki, Playboi Carti, and many more. Thirteen of its songwriters were also nominated across seven categories — including Album of the Year, R&B Album of the Year, and Rap Album of the Year — at the recent Grammy Awards.

The Payday Music Publishing name is a natural progression from Payday Records, Patrick Moxey’s groundbreaking hip-hop label, which launched in 1992 and is best known for releasing music by Jay-Z, Jeru the Damaja, Antslive, and many others.

“Throughout the entire legal process surrounding the ongoing usage of the Ultra brand, we have asserted our belief that for our entirely separate and unconnected publishing division, the rights should remain with us. However, the judge in the case thought otherwise, even though no damages or legal costs were awarded against us, and we will move forward with a new name,” said Patrick Moxey, Founder and CEO of Ultra International Music Publishing (UIMP) and now Payday Music Publishing.

“But it’s important to emphasize that this is all it is — a new name. Nothing apart from the name changes, we will continue to represent our amazing songwriters and producers and we will continue serving as the custodians and protectors of the more than 70,000 copyrights we are privileged to represent. We have seen tremendous growth in recent years and will remain market leaders in independent global music publishing and we are proud to be working under our new Payday Publishing banner.”

The company is celebrating multiple entries into Spotify’s Billion Streams Club in the last few months, including Tory Lanez’s “The Color Violet,” “Wait For U” by Drake, Future, and TEMS, and “Runaway” by AURORA. Alongside numerous hits in the Urban, Rhythmic & Dance Radio charts, songwriters represented by the company have contributed to several recent US No. 1 albums, including those by Future, Playboi Carti, Lil Baby, and more.

In addition, Payday has announced a new series of international writing camps in 2025 following the success of 2024 collaborations with Atlantic Records in Ibiza, Virgin Records in Germany, and Warner Music in Paris.

These new camps also follow its successful South Korean writing camp, which took place in Seoul in February in association with Hybe Publishing, JYP, Watner Records, and SM Entertainment. Songwriters represented by Payday Publishing who attended this camp, including Neil Ormandy, Jenson Vaughn, Lizzy Land, and Kwon Close. They were joined by a number of acclaimed South Korean songwriters, including 1Zone, Slow Rabbit, Jinsol, Frants, Kass, CA$HCOW, Alex Karlsson, Gyubin artists, Tim Tan, Alawn, Wutan, no2zcat, MADDOX, Steven Castle, and Scon.

This spring will also see the return of Payday Publishing’s annual sync writing camp. With a focus on trailers, this week-long event is held in May in Palm Springs, and brings together the company’s top songwriters with major production company partners. Previous sync placements include the recent We Live In Time trailer, MAX Promo, Disney 100, Grey’s Anatomy, and works for Netflix, Hulu, ABC, and many others.

Jack Dorsey, who believes it’s time to “delete all IP law.” Photo Credit: Mark Warner

Against the backdrop of ongoing AI debate — and adjacent legal battles concerning generative models’ training processes — Block CEO Jack Dorsey says it’s time to “delete all IP law.”

Dorsey provided that controversial take on X, where, unsurprisingly, many promptly criticized the position. Notwithstanding the pushback – more on this in a moment – the contentious stance did find a high-profile supporter in Elon Musk.

“I agree,” the xAI founder wrote to Dorsey, who elaborated on his four-word post when replying to less enthusiastic responses.

These responses touched on not only the income fallout for creatives, but differences between various types of (and protections for) IP, the potential effect on medical research, and a whole lot else.

“creativity is what currently separates us,” Dorsey followed up, “and the current system is limiting that, and putting the payments disbursement into the hands of gatekeepers who aren’t paying out fairly.”

(There may well be non-AI angles to the comment for Dorsey, whose current company in November 2024 scaled back its questionable Tidal investment. Regarding the “gatekeepers” word choice, we’ve been hearing quite a lot lately about artists, from Snoop Dogg to Kate Nash, receiving small major-label streaming payments for their much-played tracks.)

Meanwhile, another critic asked about the sweeping move’s possible impact on the motivation to create. “What motivation would there be to create if there were no way to monetize?” the individual inquired. “This is straight out of the CCP playbook.”

“execution and speed matters more,” followed up Dorsey, whose net worth is (per Forbes) $3.6 billion.

As initially mentioned, Dorsey’s remarks are especially interesting and relevant in light of far-reaching AI-training questions.

There’s still much to see here, in terms of lawsuits and legislation, in both the U.S. and internationally. And though it probably doesn’t need saying, lawmakers aren’t going to “delete” IP protections outright.

But like DMN Pro has broken down in detail, despite rightsholders’ continued pushback, it’s not outside the realm of possibility that stateside courts will deem training on protected materials fair use.

More concretely, it’s safe to say that gen AI giants based in several other nations around the globe are (and will almost certainly continue) freely disregarding IP concerns when training.

Of course, this broader disregard for IP isn’t exactly new. But it’s definitely taken on a heightened importance given the unprecedented content-output capabilities of the technology at hand.

Following the point to its logical conclusion, there’s a separate conversation to be had about a susceptibility to commercial fallout stemming from cheapening artistry and prioritizing near-term profits above all else.

In and well beyond the music world, today’s top-selling projects aren’t necessarily today’s best projects, and carefully tailored AI outputs may resonate with the undiscerning audiences in question.

Photo Credit: Melissa Lee / Marine Corps

Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs’ sex-trafficking case gets underway in about a month, but his defense team has asked for an adjournment. Instead, they want to see the May 12 starting date pushed back by two weeks.

His lawyers argue the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the SDNY has not been fully sharing material such as emails from a former Combs employee. They allege that the prosecution’s witness ‘Victim-4’ seems to have “cherry picked messages” shared on WhatsApp. Outside of court, Combs’ team said they would no longer seek an adjournment if the feds “get their act together.”

Combs pleaded not guilty on Monday to an expanded federal indictment that charges him with five criminal counts—including charges for racketeering and sex trafficking. Combs entered his plea to the new charges at a hearing before U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian in Manhattan.

“These are not new allegations or new accusers. These are the same individuals, former long-term girlfriends, who were involved in consensual relationships,” his lawyers said to the media after the hearing. Jury selection for the trial remains scheduled for May 5 with opening statements set to begin May 12 if the judge does not grant an adjournment.

Prosecutors allege that Combs used his business empire to sexually abuse women between 2004 and 2024. The allegations include having women take part in recorded sexual performances called ‘freak offs’ with male sex workers, who were sometimes transported across state lines to facilitate the action. Combs has been sitting in the Brooklyn Metropolitan Detention Center since September. He is also facing more than a dozen civil lawsuits filed by both men and women that accuse him of sexual abuse.

His lawyers have argued that Combs never forced anyone to engage in sexual acts against their will. He says the ‘freak offs’ reported by the media were consensual activity between consenting adults. A surveillance video from 2016 leaked in 2022, kicking off the intense interest. The video shows Combs kicking his former girlfriend, R&B singer Cassie Ventura.

Senators from both sides of the aisle are reportedly urging the DOJ to zero in on the recently announced deal between Live Nation and Fanatics. Photo Credit: Bernini123

Besides fending off a Justice Department lawsuit — and regulatory obstacles across the pond — Live Nation is now grappling with a new round of bipartisan antitrust scrutiny.

That scrutiny pertains to the sports side of the Ticketmaster parent’s operations, but is certainly important from the perspective of Live Nation’s broader antitrust woes as well.

According to Sportico, the fresh pushback arrived in the form of a letter penned by Senators Amy Klobuchar and Mike Lee. Though on opposite sides of the aisle, the senators have long been critical of Live Nation; this isn’t even the first time the lawmakers jointly called out the promoter.

For a bit of quick background, Ticketmaster and the self-described “global digital sports platform” Fanatics unveiled a ticketing tie-up early last month. The companies have been partnered for a while, but the March agreement brought the official rollout of a standalone “Fanatics Ticket Marketplace.”

(In detailing the “two-way” tie-up, Sportico outlined a means of selling Ticketmaster passes via the Fanatics app, with the merch business then listing its own products on Ticketmaster.)

As reportedly described by the senators (who wrote to assistant AG Abigail Slater, the DOJ’s antitrust division head), however, the bolstered Live Nation-Fanatics union is the latest example of “‘anticompetitive behavior’” from the former entity.

Fanatics higher-ups, instead of opting to “‘innovate, disrupt and compete themselves as they have in numerous other sports-related markets,’” united “‘with an online ticketing monopolist,’” the senators reportedly said.

Driving home their point, the lawmakers asked the DOJ to identify and pursue remedies for possible antitrust-law violations. Here, those potential violations refer to the alleged use of Live Nation’s “‘monopoly power to prevent Fanatics from entering the online ticketing market, depriving consumers of the benefits of competition,’” per the mentioned report.

Unsurprisingly, a Ticketmaster representative refuted the letter’s claims in a statement shared with DMN.

“The agreement simply provides that Ticketmaster can sell secondary tickets to sporting events on Fanatics websites and mobile apps, giving fans additional ticket-buying opportunities,” this rep told us. “The secondary ticketing market is extremely competitive. Ticketmaster competes with StubHub, SeatGeek, Vivid Seats and numerous others and is in no way the leading secondary ticket seller, as the Senators’ letter suggests.”

Especially because the U.S. government’s initially mentioned Live Nation/Ticketmaster antitrust case remains active, it’ll be interesting to see whether the DOJ feels the same way. In any event, the bipartisan criticism appears to underscore the legislative mood when it comes to competition concerns.

Said mood could set the stage for the passage of not just the reintroduced TICKET Act (which Live Nation actually supports), but different ticketing-competition and -resale legislation yet.

Photo Credit: EMRA

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) have established the first collective management society—the Emirates Music Rights Association (EMRA).

Recent legislative and regulatory action on the UAE grants a collective management license to EMRA, authorizing it to oversee the collection and distribution of music creators’ rights across the country. The move aims to strengthen the creative economy by ensuring compliance with copyright laws across broadcasting and content platforms.

The license was granted in accordance with Federal Decree Law No. 38 of 2021 on Copyrights and Related Rights. The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) has applauded the move. Both the IFPI and the International Confederation of Societies and Composers (CISAC) were on hand to congratulate EMRA.

“The establishment of an effective, transparent and accountable rights management organization for public performance and broadcast rights is a further step that will cement UAE as one of the most dynamic and exciting music markets in the world,” adds Victoria Oakley, CEO, IFPI. “Not least because according to the IFPI Global Music Report just published, in 2024, [the UAE] was the fastest growing recorded music market in the world. IFPI is proud to support this work and I congratulate you all on a successful launch.”

According to the IFPI’s Global Music Report 2024, the MENA region was the fastest-growing recorded music market worldwide—expanding by 22.8% in 2024 alone. Meanwhile, the global music industry grew by 4.8% in the same period.

Abdulla bin Touq Al Marri, Minister of Economy for the UAE says the country has successfully developed a legislative framework aligned with global best practices to support intellectual property rights and drive the creative and cultural sectors as key pillars of the national economy. “Granting his license to EMRA is a significant step in advancing the UAE’s creative economy in line with the We the UAE 2031 vision,” he adds.

Photo Credit: Tingey Law

Jay-Z’s battle with Jane Doe lawyer Tony Buzbee heats up as Buzbee files to dismiss the rapper’s lawsuit against him — and makes fresh allegations, too.

Tony Buzbee, who represents over a hundred alleged Sean “Diddy” Combs victims, has filed a motion to dismiss Jay-Z’s defamation lawsuit against him. Among those Buzbee represents is a Jane Doe who accused Diddy and Jay-Z of raping her when she was a minor in 2000.

Jay-Z has staunchly denied those allegations, which culminated in the Jane Doe dropping her case against him. But Buzbee claims he had an agreement with Jay-Z, stating, “The relentless pressure that [Jay-Z] and his associates placed upon Doe became too much for her. On February 4, 2025, an agreement to resolve the litigation was reached between [the two parties], through their attorneys, which included the voluntary dismissal of the [Southern District of New York] action.”

Alex Spiro, an attorney representing Jay-Z, calls Buzbee’s claims “a total lie.” He added that Buzbee “brought a false case, lost badly, and was forced to dismiss quickly. End of story.”

Now, an attorney for Buzbee, Marc E. Kasowitz, has released a statement that calls Spiro’s statement a “total fabrication.” “There was an exchange of emails between me and Spiro, which set forth the agreement very quickly.” He added, “As part of that agreement, Spiro agreed to withdraw the […] motions for sanctions that he had brought against Mr. Buzbee’s law firm.”

Further, Kasowitz said Buzbee’s legal team “agreed to withdraw the lawsuit that Jane Doe had brought for rape against Jay-Z and [Combs] even though Jane Doe continued to maintain that the allegations in that lawsuit were true, and Jay-Z and Spiro agreed not to send any more people to harass and intimidate Jane Doe and her family.”

“One week later,” he added, “Jay-Z and his lawyer breached that agreement flagrantly by sending supposed investigators to harass and intimidate Jane Doe and her family.”

Spiro confirmed in court documents that Kasowitz did, in fact, contact him regarding dismissing the Jane Doe lawsuit against Jay-Z. He asserted that he told Kasowitz that his client “would never settle the lawsuit or pay any money to resolve it, given it was a heinous false accusation.”

He acknowledged that Kasowitz asked them to stop investigating Buzbee’s law firm, but denied there was any “explicit agreement” in place to drop the Jane Doe suit, calling that claim untrue.

Jane Doe, meanwhile, has claimed that a supposed audio recording of her recanting her allegations was manipulated by private investigators. “I never stated […] that [Jay-Z] did not assault me.” She also said investigators came to her Alabama home without warning and “twisted her words” during an impromptu interview.

Buzbee also denounced the recording as doctored. “The tape is a fraud,” he told TMZ. “They tormented and harassed and tricked that poor woman and took what she said out of context and secretly recorded her.” He added, “She stands by her claim that Jay-Z assaulted her. She has never wavered on that point once.”

BTS, whose Army diehards are coordinating to report AI deepfakes depicting Hybe artists. Photo Credit: HopeSmiling

BTS agency Hybe’s deepfake crackdown is in full swing, and South Korean police have made multiple arrests in connection with alleged AI-powered crimes.

We touched on that deepfake-takedown push yesterday, when Ador vowed to pursue legal action against those making “malicious” online comments about NewJeans. The overarching Hybe, we noted, has for years been spearheading anti-harassment and -defamation efforts.

(This undertaking centers in large part on a form through which fans can report infringement and “problematic” remarks. Here, Hybe requires one to provide, among other things, the post URL and author; there’s an option to identify the culprit’s IP address as well.)

However, Ador also disclosed that it’d started “taking firm action against deepfake crimes, which have become a major social issue.” And one suspect accused of making and distributing “false videos exploiting artists” had already been “indicted and referred to the prosecution while in custody,” Ador indicated.

Now, police have “apprehended” eight more individuals accused of putting out “sexually explicit” AI deepfakes of Hybe acts, according to the Korea Herald.

As described by the report, the sting involved a total of 23 persons, 13 of whom were taken into custody. And of the eight facing charges concerning Hybe-related deepfakes, six were taken into custody, per the coverage.

Regarding the charges-custody discrepancy, the Herald elaborated that “90 percent of the suspects are reported to be in their teens or 20s, with no stable employment.”

Unsurprisingly, Hybe reportedly “provided critical information to aid in identifying the suspects,” thereby enabling the “prompt” arrests. Following the point to its logical conclusion, the Herald further reiterated that the K-pop giant had “received reports from fans.”

In a statement, Hybe CEO Lee Jae-sang underscored his company’s plans to keep on targeting the parties behind explicit deepfakes. Meanwhile, evidence strongly suggests that diehard supporters intend to continue reporting the relevant AI outputs.

“ARMY,” one superfan encouraged on X this morning, “keep reporting real issues on the Hybe Portal… they’re taking good care of our guys & we’re helping! These deepfake crimes especially, need to be stopped!”

Closing with a quick update on the NewJeans-Ador contract battle, the group, now barred from engaging in solo career activities without the agency, just recently provided a detail-light update on its unofficial Instagram page.

(That page was originally tied to NJZ, as which NewJeans members rebranded for a short time, but has since been renamed “mhdhh_friends.”)

As translated by the Korea JoongAng Daily, the NewJeans members thanked fans for their ongoing support and vowed that “our time together will come.” The next court hearing in the NewJeans-Ador dispute is scheduled for early June.

Photo Credit: Nelly by Adam Bielawski / CC by 3.0

The last St. Lunatics member who was still suing Nelly for copyright infringement has dropped his lawsuit. But this battle may not be over yet.

St. Lunatics member Ali Jones has dropped the lawsuit the group filed against former member Nelly last year. The filing claimed the group never received proper credit or royalties for Nelly’s 2000 album, Country Grammar. The rest of the group — Murphy Lee, Kyjuan, and City Spud — all dropped out of the suit shortly after it was filed last year, claiming they never authorized legal action to be taken on their behalf.

Strangely, Jones and his legal team have not provided an explanation for their decision to dismiss the case. But they might not be walking away without consequence; Nelly’s legal team has urged the presiding judge to consider delaying the dismissal to hold the St. Lunatics members accountable for the rapper’s legal fees.

“Plaintiff’s counsel succeeded in its frivolous campaign aimed at forcing [Nelly] to spend money defending Plaintiff’s ridiculous time-barred claims,” wrote attorneys for Nelly. “The Court is respectfully requested to retain jurisdiction and set a briefing and hearing schedule [for potential sanctions].”

St. Lunatics, a group of high school friends from St. Louis, are credited with both performing and songwriting across Nelly’s debut album. But their lawsuit claimed the final credits undersold their contributions to the record, depriving them of royalties.

“Despite repeatedly promising plaintiffs that they would receive full recognition and credit […] it eventually became clear that defendant Haynes had no intention of providing the plaintiffs with any such credit or recognition,” their filing read.

The case was framed as a copyright infringement lawsuit, rather than a legal battle over ownership. This is due to the three-year statute of limitations that was far exceeded, given that Country Grammar was released nearly 25 years ago.

The Internet Archive and the major labels are discussing a possible settlement in their Great 78 Project copyright infringement battle. Photo Credit: Mick Haupt

Multiple years and twists later, the major labels’ copyright infringement lawsuit against the Internet Archive looks to be trending towards a resolution.

That’s according to the litigants themselves, which just recently requested a 30-day stay in the case. The presiding judge promptly approved the sought pause, and as a result, we should know sooner rather than later whether the parties will finally put the matter to bed.

But as described by Universal Music, Sony Music, and the Internet Archive, which are clashing specifically over the latter’s “Great 78 Project” music-preservation effort, things are trending in the right direction on this front.

Both sides “have engaged in and made significant progress in settlement discussions and believe a thirty (30) day stay of proceedings will facilitate resolution of this matter,” they jointly told the court when seeking the stay.

Furthermore, the parties “are optimistic that settlement discussions may be successful and that this case can be dismissed,” per the document.

At present, we don’t know exactly what those settlement discussions entail, nor do we know for certain why a compromise is now being discussed in earnest.

The back-and-forth legal battle initiated in 2023, and the Internet Archive last year came up short with its dismissal motions. However, that the same defendant suffered a largescale hack in October 2024 is worth keeping in mind. More pressingly, so is the considerable artist pushback against the relevant infringement lawsuit.

We broke down the straightforward criticism – expressed as part of a campaign organized by Fight for the Future – in December. At the time, approximately 630 artists had signed a letter opposing the “major record labels’ unjust lawsuit targeting the Internet Archive.”

Since then (and with the letter no longer accepting new signatures), roughly 850 total musicians have added their names to the message, the appropriate webpage shows.

As to where the dispute proceeds from here, the newly issued stay will run through early May. Of course, if a settlement does come to fruition, the parties will jointly seek dismissal. And if a resolution doesn’t materialize during the period, they’ll have 10 days post-stay to submit a new proposed schedule to the court.

In other infringement-suit resolutions, Dua Lipa recently beat a “Levitating” copyright complaint, Mariah Carey last month emerged victorious in an “All I Want for Christmas Is You” action, and hip-hop producer Turbo topped a different suit yet.

Kevin Liles, who’s taken a step towards officially seeking the dismissal of a sexual assault lawsuit filed against him by a Jane Doe plaintiff. Photo Credit: Maryland GovPics

Universal Music Group (UMG) and 300 Entertainment co-founder Kevin Liles are taking steps to seek the dismissal of a Jane Doe accuser’s sexual assault lawsuit.

The major label and the former Warner Music higher-up (who was an exec with UMG’s Def Jam as well as the overarching Island Def Jam in the 90s and early 2000s) made those requests in separate letters to the presiding judge.

Focusing first on the actual allegations, the accuser originally levied the claims in a state-level suit this past February. According to the Pfau Cochran Vertetis Amala-repped plaintiff, she started working at Island Def Jam in or around 1999.

“Soon” thereafter, “Liles began sexually harassing her, including making derogatory and degrading comments based on her gender regarding her body and appearance,” per the initial suit.

The alleged misconduct “escalated” by turning physical between 2000 and 2002, when the plaintiff was allegedly “sexually abused, assaulted and raped by” Liles.

As for where UMG fits into the action, the major is facing allegations of “permitting, aiding, abetting, conspiring, ratifying and enabling…the sexual harassment, assault and rape.”

Bearing in mind the latter point, Pryor Cashman-repped Universal Music in its letter to the judge pinned any liability for the alleged sexual assault on Liles himself.

“Furthermore, UMGR [UMG Recordings] cannot be held liable for the alleged actions of Mr. Liles,” the company’s counsel wrote. “Assuming he had engaged in the conduct alleged, UMGR is a music company and the alleged conduct was indisputably not in furtherance of any business of UMGR.”

The major also expressed the belief (in many more words) that the complaint is time-barred. Without diving too far into the legal nitty-gritty here, the alleged victim is suing under New York City’s Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Act.

With that statute, the New York City Council is said to have moved to open a two-year “lookback window” for sexual assault claims. Longer than (and, as described by the defendants, preempted by) the lookback window established under the state-level Adult Survivors Act, this period is said to have run through February 2025.

Shifting to Williams & Connolly-repped Liles’ letter, after touting the exec’s career (“one of the most respected members of the music industry”), his counsel took aim at the “patently false and untimely lawsuit.”

The accuser “offers zero factual bases for her salacious allegations,” per the text, and, among other things, fails “to explain when these purported acts occurred, where in UMG’s offices they occurred, identify a single person she reported this information to, or who was present.”

As to exactly where the situation goes from here, both Liles and Universal Music are seeking a pre-motion conference concerning their plans to formally file for dismissal.

Photo Credit: Soulja Boy | X/Twitter

Rapper Soulja Boy (real name DeAndre Cortez Way) was slapped with a $4 million verdict in a civil sexual assault trial brought by his former assistant. The ‘Jane Doe’ alleges years of physical and sexual abuse during her employment from 2018 to 2020.

The lawsuit was originally filed in 2021 with allegations of sexual battery, assault, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Jane Doe says the rapper hired her as a personal assistant for $500 weekly, but never paid her. Later after a romantic relationship developed between the two of them, she alleges rape, physical violence, and death threats were levied her way. After attempting to leave in 2020, she says the rapper violently attacked her.

Now a Los Angeles jury has found Soulja Boy liable and awarded the plaintiff $4 million in compensatory damages. That includes $1 million for future harm from sexual battery, $500,000 from past abuse, and $2,650 in unpaid wages. Now the court will consider punitive damages, which could increase the final total.

Jane Doe testified that Soulja Boy raped her repeatedly, locked her in a room without food, and threatened her with a gun. Text messages and witness accounts corroborated some of the claims, including the rapper’s pattern of violent behavior towards Jane Doe—including kicking, punching, and verbal threats.

Soulja Boy has denied all allegations, which his lawyer has called an extortion attempt. The jury cleared him of false imprisonment and hostile work environment claims. The plaintiff’s lawyer Ron Zambrano says the verdict is a step towards justice for victims in the music industry.

The rapper is facing a still pending lawsuit from a different Jane Doe who also alleges physical violence, sexual assault, and emotional distress. That case involved an incident where she allegedly suffered a miscarriage after the rapper violently beat her. Both lawsuits are a civil claim seeking monetary damages rather than criminal penalties. The trial for the second lawsuit has not yet begun and is expected to begin after the punitive damages phase in the first case.

Photo Credit: Flou

For all the attention paid to missing music metadata, copyright infringement, and royalty battles, the music industry often overlooks a potentially bigger issue: chaotic music contracting. Enter Flou, whose CEO, Alexiomar Rodriguez, is helming one of the more promising missions in the music industry: to fix the chaos that surrounds music agreements. Here’s a breakdown of his vision for ‘Music Contracts 2.0’ — including a detailed white paper.

What’s wrong with music contracts? For the answer to that question, one must start at the beginning — i.e., the first draft of an agreement.

Bad deals happen, and plenty of court cases focus on missed deliverables and differing interpretations. However, according to Flou founder and CEO Alexiomar Rodriguez, the bigger problem lies in the chaos surrounding the contract drafting, signing, and post-signature stages.

Rodriguez — an Orlando-based music attorney who cut his teeth in the music industry hotbed of Puerto Rico — battled the same pile of shared docs and ‘versioning hell’ familiar to lawyers, labels, and artists alike. In response, Flou is aiming to reengineer the entire music contracting process, and replace the current chaos with a SaaS-like update that prevents downstream disagreements, metadata issues, and missed deliverables.

Just recently, DMN joined forces with Flou to accelerate the industry’s shift to a completely different contracting approach. The very real possibility is that in just a few years, it’s entirely possible that the music industry lands in a totally different — and saner — place.

Investors love this kind of problem/solution startup — and Flou is focused on a specific music industry problem. But what is ‘Music Contracts 2.0’?

At its core, Flou’s ‘Music Contracts 2.0’ system features a centralized ‘Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM)’ platform that replaces a constellation of disconnected applications and sharing protocols like Gmail and Dropbox. On the creation side, Flou also includes automating contract drafting with templates and forms, streamlining sending, signing, and storing contracts with tracking and notifications, and integrating with other management and royalty systems.

The logical solution is rooted in serious pain — felt every day by lawyers, artists, and everyone in between. “Current music contract management is messy, outdated, and leads to lawsuits, lost money, delayed releases, missed payments, and broken relationships,” Rodriguez relayed.

Surprisingly, current contracting still features paper-based systems, manual tracking, and reliance on email and spreadsheets. It’s not that the tools themselves are bad, but they are rarely interconnected and frequently impossible to track cohesively. The result is a familiar, headache-producing swirl of disjointed elements.

Flou envisions a 2.0 replacement that accelerates deal-making and offers better control on both sides of the table, as well as stronger privacy protection, time savings, reduced costs, and increased efficiency.

“Flou is specifically designed for the music industry with pre-made templates, bilingual contracts, smart automation, and a secure central location for all contracts,” Rodriguez explained.

“Our goal is to shift the music industry from a slow, stressful, and expensive contract process to a fast, simple, and clear one, ultimately turning contracts into an advantage rather than a headache.”

If this sounds like a glass of ice water in your current hell, check out the white paper below – and theflou.com for more info.

Photo Credit: Karol G by Junta de Andalucia / CC by 2.0

A high court in Colombia rules that Karol G and J Balvin’s track “+57” violated the rights of children due to lyrics that ‘sexualized’ minors.

A Colombian high court has ordered Karol G, J Balvin, and several other reggaeton artists who helped record the song last year, including Feid, DFZM, and Maluma, to refrain from publishing music that violates the rights of minors.

The 14-page ruling determined that the song did, in fact, violate the rights of children and teens. The song generated controversy upon its release in November, with organizations that defend the rights of children quickly calling it out.

“Sexualizing minors reduces them to becoming objects of desire, and exposes them to risks that can affect their development,” wrote the court.

The song, called “+57,” is named for Colombia’s telephone country code and talks about a young woman who goes partying “despite having an owner.” The woman, “a hot mama since she was 14,” goes to a club and does shots. Lyrics refer to weed “starting to work,” passing “drinks mouth to mouth,” and “no room for your butt in the car.”

Karol G apologized for the controversy on Instagram last year, saying the lyrics had been “taken out of context,” but adding that she understands she still has “a lot to learn.”

“None of the things said in the song have the direction they have been given, nor was it said from that perspective. But I listen, I take responsibility, and I realize that I still have a lot to learn,” said Karol G. “I feel very affected and I apologize from the bottom of my heart.”

Between the initial backlash and pressure from Colombia’s Institute of Family Welfare (ICBF), the song’s lyric was changed to reference the age of 18, rather than 14.

Notably, the song was recorded in Karol G’s hometown of Medellin, Colombia’s hottest tourist destination, and a city known for several major reggaeton singers. But the city has struggled in its fight to protect minors; sexual predators are known to visit the city seeking young women.

A live performance from Quavo, who, along with Hybe America and Quality Control, is facing a copyright infringement lawsuit from sculptor Daniel Arsham. Photo Credit: Jørund Føreland Pedersen

Hybe America, its Quality Control subsidiary, and Quavo are facing a copyright lawsuit for allegedly infringing on a visual artist’s work in social media posts.

Daniel Arsham, touted as “one of the most well-known contemporary artists in the world,” submitted the unique action to a New York federal court. As laid out in the suit, the plaintiff sells his projects “for many hundreds of thousands of dollars” apiece and “has a robust licensing market.”

On the latter front, New York City-based Arsham is said to have collaborated with “a litany of hip-hop artists, including Pharrell, Usher, Jay-Z, Gunna, The Weeknd, Nas, and others.”

While it probably doesn’t need saying in light of the complaint, Quavo isn’t featured in that litany of talent.

At least as told by Arsham, he’s the creator of a sculpture called Quartz Eroded 1961 Ferrari GT. That 2018 effort is “part of a collection of full-size vehicle sculptures that he has created in his signature ‘eroded’ fictional archeological technique,” per the legal text.

Also in 2018 (and then again in 2023), the plaintiff allegedly displayed the creation, photos of which are included in the suit, to the public in an exhibition.

Fast forward to December 2024, when Quavo allegedly took to Instagram and TikTok to upload a teaser for “Trappa Rappa” (2025).

This clip, besides several subsequently uploaded stills thereof, allegedly shows “Quavo performing in front of the” aforesaid sculpture.

(The track itself debuted in February 2025; “music video” is used once in the complaint to describe the social posts, but the actual music video doesn’t seem to include the statue.)

Though Quavo and his team tagged Arsham in the original posts, they didn’t obtain the artist’s permission to use the sculpture, the lawsuit maintains.

The plaintiff “never consented” to the usage and hasn’t received related compensation, the legal text drives home for good measure.

And to reiterate the obvious once more, Arsham – who purportedly discovered Quavo’s alleged usages in December 2024 and sent multiple cease and desist letters soon thereafter – claims there haven’t been any “meaningful discussions” between his team and the defendants.

Furthermore, the alleged infringement has purportedly “significantly damaged the value of the” sculpture, the artist’s other works, and “the value of any licenses for his artworks in the relevant markets.”

All told, Arsham is seeking relief for vicarious and contributory infringement, with an additional publicity-rights claim under New York law to boot.

Photo Credit: DMX by Mika Väisänen / CC by 3.0

The DMX Estate secures a victory in an ongoing lawsuit challenging their sole ownership of the late rapper’s copyright and IP rights.

DMX’s estate has secured a major victory in an ongoing lawsuit that challenges the estate’s sole ownership of the late rapper’s copyright, trademark, and other intellectual property rights.

The judge issued a decision and order on Monday (April 7) that rejects the claims by DMX’s ex-wife, Tashera Simmons, that she co-owned his IP rights accrued during their marriage and is entitled to 50% of all revenue generated.

The decision reinforces that the estate, represented by Kurzman Eisenberg Corbin & Lever, LLP and Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, is the sole owner of all such rights. Tashera Simmons’ rights, therefore, are limited to a portion of record and music publishing royalties generated by musical works that her former husband released during their marriage.

“[The Estate] is the sole owner of all intellectual property rights (including all copyrights and trademark rights) that [DMX] acquired during his marriage to [Simmons], as well as any and all trademarks and intellectual property rights that belonged to [DMX] at the time of his death; except as specifically set forth in five Letters of Direction signed by [DMX],” wrote Judge David F. Everett.

“[Simmons] has no income interest and is not otherwise entitled to any monies of any kind generated by or attributed to services rendered by [DMX], and/or to copyrights and trademark rights […] acquired during his marriage to Plaintiff.”

DMX, real name Earl Simmons, who began rapping in the early 1990s, passed away on April 9, 2021, at only 50 years old. His influence on hip-hop is undisputed; his aggressive style and violent lyricism helped popularize the horrorcore genre.

Throughout his career, he won an American Music Award, a Billboard Music Award, and was nominated for six Grammy Awards. DMX was the first artist to have their first five albums consecutively debut atop the Billboard 200. By 2021, he had sold over 75 million records worldwide.

His international hit, “X Gon’ Give It to Ya,” released in 2002, saw a resurgence in popularity in 2016 when it was featured in the Marvel film Deadpool and its trailers. DMX’s eighth and posthumous studio album, Exodus, was released a month after his passing, on May 28, 2021.

Photo Credit: David Shankbone / CC by 3.0

Cassie Ventura is set to testify against her former partner Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs using her real name instead of the ‘Victim 1’ designation. She will tell the court about her relationship with the rap mogul during his upcoming trial on sex trafficking and racketeering charges.

She is one of four victims who are set to testify in court at Comb’s trial—and the first to make public allegations against the rap mogul. Ventura sued Diddy in November 2023 for what she alleges is a decade-long cycle of sexual assault—with the abuse beginning in 2005 when she was 19 and signed to Bad Boy Records. That lawsuit described beatings, forced drug usage, and coercive sexual acts with other men while Diddy filmed them.

Leaked video of an incident between Diddy and Ventura shows the rapper running down a hotel hallway to intercept Ventura at the elevators, preventing her from leaving. He drags her back to the room by her hair after kicking and assaulting her. That incident occurred in 2016 at the InterContinental Hotel in Los Angeles, with CNN publishing the video in May 2024. The video seems to corroborate an account in Ventura’s initial lawsuit. Combs settled that lawsuit one day after filing it with no admission of wrongdoing.

In a Friday motion submitted by prosecutors, federal attorneys said ‘Victim-1’ will no longer testify anonymously during the trial. “[Ventura] is prepared to testify under her own name. Victim-2, Victim-3, and Victim-4 have asked that their identities not be revealed to the press or public,” writes the prosecution, which seeks to use pseudonyms for those accusers. Combs’ lawyers have asked judges to unmask his accusers and force them to make their names public.

Combs faces five counts on three charges of racketeering, sex trafficking by force, and transportation to engage in prostitution. The rap mogul has pleaded not guilty. Combs is facing more than 55 lawsuits in New York federal and state courts—with around 40 of thos elawsuits filed under ‘Jane Doe’ or ‘John Doe’ pseudonyms.

TikTok USA, circa 2025 (Photo: TCY)

Months after ‘the ban,’ there’s no telling what happens to TikTok next in the US.

After inching oh-so-close to a deal to secure TikTok in the US, China apparently pressed hard pause on the arrangement following Trump’s tariff slap. So what does that mean for the music industry?

If you love uncertainty, this one’s for you. Trump is now extending the ban by another 75 days, though a hard clock is now ticking on a deal that was apparently 99% done. Congressional pushback on the ‘phase 2 extension’ is already happening, and Apple is seeking White House assurance that the app can remain on its App Store.

This slow-motion cookie crumble could go in any direction. Among the possibilities within the next 30 days: TikTok shutting down for good or continuing business-as-usual — or, potentially, some insane variation in the middle.

Last we checked, TikTok is available on both the iOS App Store and Google Play Store, though this situation is volatile. And certainly not a recipe for crafting stellar, long-term artist marketing campaigns — or advertising campaigns, for that matter.

Most music folks are smartly spreading their marketing efforts across the gamut of social media giants, with IG Reels and Shorts getting a nice stability bump. That said, as long as TikTok is ticking, it has the power to blow stuff up — including entire artist careers and dusty catalog tracks.

While the over-under on TikTok’s survival has gone haywire, some executive ship-jumping is worth noting — particularly TikTok Music ex-honcho Ole Obermann, who recently packed his bags for Apple Music. And he’s not the only one potentially pondering the writing on the wall.

Meanwhile, other platforms continue to seize the moment. On that note: what major social media platform just inked a broad-reaching deal with major music publishers? (Hint: the first letter isn’t ‘X’…)

On a broader note, few in the music business seem to be rooting for TikTok’s survival.

It’s not that TikTok isn’t making some effort to play nice with the music business. Just last week, for example, TikTok was among the supporting sponsors at the National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA) golf classic and fire relief efforts in Los Angeles. But for the most part, the vibe within the music industry isn’t warmly supportive, to say the least.

TikTok famously refused to reasonably compensate rights owners until absolutely forced, with the aforementioned Obermann battling it out with Universal Music Group for weeks before a deal was hammered out. Indies are also understandably cool on this low-paying platform, though TikTok’s marketing muscle is certainly potent — especially if the viral fairy gods tap your shoulder.

Then again, that’s the aspiration for rivals like Reels and Shorts, among others. And we get the sense that witnessing a heavy door slamming on TikTok’s derriere would be oh-so-satisfying for many industry folks.

Guess everyone’s replaceable — and let’s face it, life will go on in the music industry, with or without TikTok USA playing a role in it.

More as this develops.

Got a juicy tip? Hit me up at paul@digitalmusicnews.com or Signal (@digitalmusicnews.07).

A federal judge has denied multiple dismissal motions in a copyright infringement lawsuit filed by the Isaac Hayes estate over ‘Hold On, I’m Coming.’ Photo Credit: United Press International / CC by 4.0

A federal judge has rejected a pair of motions to dismiss the infringement complaint filed against Donald Trump and others over Isaac Hayes-penned “Hold On, I’m Coming.”

Judge Thomas Thrash Jr. denied the dismissal pushes (and ruled on several other motions) during a recent 50-minute hearing. We’ve covered the underlying copyright complaint, levied by Isaac Hayes Enterprises (which isn’t the sole owner of the appropriate IP; more on this in a moment), since it initiated in August 2024.

Just to recap, the relevant defendants did, in fact, obtain a public performance license. But the Hayes estate says its opposition to the use of Sam & Dave-recorded “Hold On, I’m Coming” at the president’s campaign events caused the work to be excluded from the license.

Also at issue is (among other things) the allegedly unauthorized synchronization of “Hold On, I’m Coming” in various social clips.

On the parties front, the initial action named as defendants President Trump, his campaign, the RNC, the NRA, Turning Point Action, the American Conservative Union, and the entity (BTC) behind the annual Bitcoin conference.

But a December 2024 amended action dropped all defendants save the president, his campaign, Turning Point, and BTC. Meanwhile, the court has now granted a joint request from BTC and the Hayes estate to transfer the case – for BTC only – from Georgia to Tennessee.

Returning to the new rulings, then, the court rejected Turning Point’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of standing.

However, this defendant further argued that it hadn’t had much at all to do with the alleged infringement – “there are no allegations…that TPA engaged in any wrongful conduct.” The court said the personal-jurisdiction position was “taken under advisement.”

(Without diving too much deeper into the convoluted courtroom confrontation here, the judge also rejected a sanctions motion against Turning Point counsel for, in the Hayes plaintiffs’ words, allegedly filing “a [dismissal] motion riddled with false statements.”)

Additionally, the court denied the Trump legal team’s own motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

Said motion had called into question the ownership particulars of “Hold On, I’m Coming,” in part by taking aim at an alleged 2014 Warner Chappell copyright termination as well as the actual rights of plaintiff Isaac Hayes III, one of Isaac Hayes’ 11 children.

“The problem is that none of these key legal events—the alleged termination of the copyright license based on one-half of the ownership in the Work; the alleged transfer of Isaac Hayes’s rights to Hayes Enterprises; or the agreement between the latter and Primary Wave—is documented,” the president’s legal team wrote. “There is nothing, not a single document: no termination; no assignment; no agreement.”

(The Hayes plaintiffs later pushed back, including by “disclosing the identities of each owner/member of” Isaac Hayes Enterprises, “which happen to be all the known heirs.” Non-party Primary Wave is said to own a quarter of Isaac Hayes’ body of work.)

As to where things go now, discovery will seemingly proceed after the judge (in the second such music industry ruling this week) also denied the defendants’ request to pause the process.

Photo Credit: Tony Bennett and Lady Gaga by marcen27 / CC by 2.0

Tony Bennett’s daughters are suing their brother, alleging he illegally took finances from their late father’s estate at their expense.

Tony Bennett’s daughters, Antonio and Johanna Bennett, have filed a lawsuit against their brother, D’Andrea “Danny” Bennett, who was their father’s manager and now heads their family trust.

According to the sisters’ filing, Danny allegedly “exercised complete and unchecked control over Tony and his financial affairs prior to and following his death.” This, they say, occurred “through multiple fiduciary and other roles of authority that Danny has abused, and continues to abuse, for his own significant financial gain.”

The suit further claims Danny Bennett took advantage of their father’s diminished state late in life due to Alzheimer’s disease in order to make millions for himself and his company. This includes the sale of his catalog shortly before his death in a deal including name, likeness, and image rights to brand development firm Iconoclast.

Danny Bennett’s sisters also sued him back in June, seeking an accounting of their father’s assets, alleging their brother had mishandled them. But the new filing further alleges he breached his fiduciary duty and seeks to remove him from his position as head of the family trust.

The new lawsuit also accuses Danny of benefitting from “self-interested and conflicted transactions, excessive and unearned commissions,” and “substantial loans and gifts to himself and his children.” These, they assert, have rapidly diminished assets that the late singer’s will calls for to be distributed equally between his children.

The sisters claim they have received a “single modest distribution” of $245,000 each, which is “nowhere close to what they believe they are entitled to receive.” Further, they allege their brother has gotten rid of items of great sentimental value to the family in a “malicious and retaliatory manner” following their previous attempts to get an accounting of the estate’s assets.

“This lawsuit is yet another baseless attempt to distort the public and the court’s understanding of Tony Bennett’s clearly stated wishes,” said a spokesperson for Danny Bennett. “Danny has followed his father’s plans with integrity and care, and it is disappointing that those Tony supported throughout his life — and continues to support through his estate — are now challenging Danny’s integrity with unsubstantiated and unfounded claims.”

Danny Bennett was his father’s manager, both personally and professionally, and possessed power of attorney. He was manager of his company, Benedetto Arts, and continues to serve as trustee of the family trust. Another brother, Daegal “Dae” Bennett, and Tony’s widow, Susan Bennett, are also named in the lawsuit. The lawsuit seeks damages to be determined at trial.

A live performance from Mariah Carey, who, along with several other defendants, is seeking legal fees after beating an ‘All I Want for Christmas Is You’ copyright case. Photo Credit: Raph_PH

Weeks following their “All I Want for Christmas Is You” copyright case triumph, Mariah Carey, Sony Music, and Universal Music are asking the court to award them a massive pile of legal fees.

These and other defendants made that sizable ask yesterday, ahead of a scheduled May 12th hearing on the matter. As for the dispute itself, we’ve covered the straightforward-enough infringement suit every step of the way – including its seemingly definitive dismissal last month.

And as many know, the complaint is one of an abundance of actions targeting alleged infringement in commercially prominent works. Bearing this point in mind, it’s not a stretch to say that the defendants could be looking to dissuade similar copyright litigation in part by presenting a hefty legal-fees bill.

All told, that bill, reflecting work kicked in by four law firms, comes out to a staggering $185,602 and change.

Behind the figure, the defendants’ attorneys are said to have performed a cumulative total of $125,432 worth of work in opposing the summary judgement motion and another $60,170 or so worth of work preparing their sanctions motion.

At least as described by Mariah Carey and others, notwithstanding the multiple involved firms, “the hours billed show the work was performed with little redundancy.”

Without digging too far into the per-hour particulars here, the legal professionals billed at anywhere from an eye-watering $374 hourly (for a paralegal, that is) to an astonishing $1,475 hourly, the text shows.

(Few hours were billed at the latter rate, however. A handful of attorneys and a paralegal apparently performed the lion’s share of the work at a “substantially discounted” rate of no more than $995 per hour.)

Now, all eyes are on the above-mentioned May 12th hearing, which the presiding judge today rescheduled from the original May 5th date.

In the bigger picture, time will tell whether the aggressive legal-fees push makes would-be litigants think twice about firing off infringement actions of their own. As things stand, March alone saw several plaintiffs beat dismissal motions in their copyright battles, with others yet having initiated new suits.

One of the latter is accusing Karol G and different professionals of lifting a third-party beat to create “Gatúbela.” Additionally, George Clinton is suing Bridgeport Music in a $100 million copyright-theft action.

Photo Credit: Lucas van Oort

The Korea Music Copyright Association (KMCA) implemented a new procedure for registering a song, requiring songwriters to verify they did not use AI.

The new measure reaffirms the Korean government’s stance that AI-generated music cannot be copyrighted. It went into effect on March 24, mandating that songwriters confirm they have 100% contributed to writing the song without the use of generative artificial intelligence.

Notably, the KMCA confirmed the criteria for not using AI does refer to “zero percent” contribution. “[Songwriters] are consenting to taking legal liability for any civic or criminal legal proceedings that may accompany false registration,” said the organization, adding that those who do not consent will have their registration placed on hold.

In the event that a song registered as not having used AI is later found to have used it after all, the KMCA said it can implement measures such as postponing royalty payments or cancelling the registration altogether.

The organization explained the new measure is designed to respond to the potential legal issues related to AI-generated songs. It reiterates its stance that songs using AI cannot be copyrighted; this was demonstrated in 2022 when the group cancelled royalty payments for six songs found to be written by AI songwriter EvoM.

Currently, the measure covers all songs with any AI input, but this may change in the future. The organization is still deciding exactly what to do with AI-assisted songs — those in which songwriters used AI tools to assist in the creation process, even for things as small as a topic or title.

Creative content written with AI technology has been a topic of much discussion worldwide, as an increasing amount of content using AI to varying degrees has emerged. The US Copyrights Office published its “Copyright and Artificial Intelligence Part 2: Copyrightability” in January, which stipulated that some forms of AI-generated content can receive copyright protection as long as a human substantially contributed to the content.

In order for AI-assisted to be copyrighted in the US, a human’s contribution should be sufficiently expressive and creative, significantly modify or arrange the AI-generated material, or come in a form in which human-created content is incorporated into AI output. For example, editing images or music, generating rough drafts, or assisting the human-led production of the content is considered acceptable.

The largest copyrights group in South Korea, the KMCA handles the commercial use of music registered by over 50,000 members.