Photo Credit: Jack White’s YouTube

The White Stripes have dropped their federal lawsuit against Donald Trump and his campaign, as well as his aide Margo Martin.

The White Stripes, Meg and Jack White, have dropped their federal lawsuit against Donald Trump, his campaign, and his aide Margo Martin. The case was dismissed without prejudice, meaning they could choose to refile.

Jack White had openly threatened to sue Trump over his campaign’s use of the White Stripes’ hit “Seven Nation Army” in videos posted on social media. In September, he and his ex-wife and former bandmate Meg White made good on that threat, filing their lawsuit in New York federal court.

The lawsuit stated the pair “vehemently oppose the policies adopted and actions taken by Defendant Trump when he was President and those he has proposed for the second term he seeks.” Jack White threatened to sue on Instagram, alongside a copy of Trump aide Margo Martin’s post of a video including the White Stripes’ track, writing “Oh, don’t even think about using my music, you fascists.”

Many musicians have publicly expressed their disdain for the Trump campaign’s use of their music in rallies and videos posted to social media. These include ABBA, Celine Dion, and Foo Fighters.

Meanwhile, a long list of musicians have put their names to an open letter by the Artist Rights Alliance calling on US political parties to establish “clear policies requiring campaigns to seek consent” for the music they want to use in their events. Musicians who have signed so far include Aerosmith, Elton John, The Rolling Stones, R.E.M., Pearl Jam, Green Day, Blondie, Elvis Costello, Sheryl Crow, Alanis Morissette, Courtney Love, Lionel Richie, and many more.

Jack White has long been an outspoken critic of Trump, and released a lengthy statement on Instagram following the outcome of the US presidential election. But whether he and Meg White will opt to refile their lawsuit against the Trump campaign remains to be seen.

Other musicians who have released statements expressing disdain for the results of the presidential election include Ariana Grande, Bruce Springsteen, Ethel Cain, Cardi B, Jack Antonoff, and King Gizzard & The Lizard Wizard.

Photo Credit: Filipe Vicente / Setor VIP

Merry Christmas, Mariah Carey: A federal judge is reportedly partial to tossing a copyright infringement action centering on “All I Want for Christmas Is You.”

That interesting development just recently entered the media spotlight, after one Andy Stone first sued back in 2022. DMN has tracked the courtroom confrontation every step of the way since then – including when the initial filing was dismissed and then followed by a substantially similar complaint (submitted this time in California) in November 2023.

According to the straightforward newer suit, Stone, a Louisiana-based artist known professionally as Vince Vance, co-wrote a work called “All I Want for Christmas Is You.” Penned in 1988, recorded sometime thereafter, and released the following year, the country effort is, of course, distinct from Carey’s perennial holiday hit.

With the other songwriter on the less-famous “All I Want for Christmas Is You” also aboard as a plaintiff, the suit maintains that Carey’s 1994 release of the same name lifted several elements without authorization.

Among other things, this alleged infringement encompasses the “compositional structure of an extended comparison between a loved one and trappings of seasonal luxury, and further includes several of Plaintiffs’ lyrical phrases,” per the text.

Unsurprisingly, one of these lyrical phrases is “all I want for Christmas is you,” according to the appropriate track and the action, which explores the Carey release’s commercial prominence, the works’ purported technical overlap (“the songs share a similar syncopated chord pattern”), and a whole lot else.

Now, with the holiday season as well as the “All I Want for Christmas Is You” machine ramping up, the presiding judge could be preparing to toss the case altogether.

As laid out in the latest legal documents, both sides are seeking summary judgement, with the defendants urging the court to grant a sanctions motion to boot.

“Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment is also frivolous because it makes arguments that could not plausibly satisfy the extrinsic test as a matter of law on the record here,” the sanctions push reads in part. “For example, Plaintiffs’ experts failed to analyze prior art and failed to distinguish between protectable and unprotectable elements of expression.”

Moving beyond the multifaceted particulars of these arguments, Judge Mónica Ramírez Almadani is “inclined” to grant summary judgement and do away with the case, per Rolling Stone.

More interesting yet – stated bluntly, it’s hardly uncommon for infringement battles to come and go in the contemporary music space – the court is reportedly weighing in earnest the defendants’ sought sanctions over the allegedly “frivolous” suit.

At the time of this writing, a related order hadn’t made its way into the docket, and it remains to be seen whether sanctions are actually in the cards. However, against the backdrop of allegedly questionable copyright complaints – and, in some instances, related trials – empowering defendants to pursue damages for allegedly meritless actions could have far-reaching consequences.

Photo Credit: Universal Music Group

UMG’s $500 million lawsuit against Believe gets ready to move ahead with a pretrial conference set for January.

Universal Music Group’s massive $500 million copyright infringement lawsuit against Believe and TuneCore over “rampant piracy” is moving forward, with a pretrial conference set for January 8. The conference will be held in person in a New York courtroom.

“Counsel are directed to confer with each other prior to the conference regarding settlement and each of the other subjects to be considered,” the filing reads. “The parties are hereby ordered to file […] a joint letter, as well as a proposed Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order […] no later than January 2.”

The pretrial conference follows Believe’s vow to fight the lawsuit in court. Universal alleges Believe and its TuneCore distributor failed to vet third parties’ infringing works and distributed them to DSPs like YouTube, wrongfully collecting their royalties in the process. The infringed works include those from Post Malone, Kendrick Lamar, Lady Gaga, and many more.

Attorneys for UMG argue that Believe has caused substantial harm to their client’s business, artists, and other contributors. They seek damages of at least $500 million, as well as a permanent injunction to stop Believe from infringing further.

UMG’s complaint outlines Believe’s practice of wrongfully collecting royalties and cites several examples of infringement, which include “sped up” or “remixed” versions of popular songs. Further, Believe is accused of exploiting YouTube’s content management system to claim ownership of recordings and thereby diverting royalty payments.

“Believe is well aware that such tracks are popular on certain digital services and more likely to evade the checks that digital music services use to detect infringing material on their platforms,” says UMG.

Believe and TuneCore responded to media requests for comment by simply stating they “do not comment on pending litigation.” A Believe spokesperson told Digital Music News, “As companies that work with artists and labels around the world, we take the respect of copyright very seriously. We strongly refute these claims, and the statements made by Universal Music Group, and will fight them.”

A Hot Girl Summer Tour performance from Megan Thee Stallion, who, along with GloRilla and others, is facing a copyright infringement suit centering on ‘Wanna Be.’ Photo Credit: Live Nation

Copyright infringement stemming from a sample within a sample? Rapper Plies is suing GloRilla, Megan Thee Stallion, Soulja Boy, and Cardi B for allegedly using his work in multiple tracks without authorization.

Plies (who owns Slip-N-Slide Records, per the complaint) and several others with credits on “Me & My Goons” (2008) submitted the action to a California federal court. Besides the noted artists, the long list of defendants includes Universal Music Group, its Interscope Records, and Megan Thee Stallion’s Hot Girl Productions, to name a few.

Diving straight into the claims, Plies dropped his third studio album, Da REAList, via Slip-N-Slide back in December 2008. Running 65 minutes, the project includes the mentioned “Me & My Goons” as its opening track.

As described in the firmly worded suit, Soulja Boy lifted without permission “substantial elements” of “Me & My Goons” in 2010’s “Pretty Boy Swag.” The relatively concise legal text doesn’t appear to dive into exactly why Plies and his team didn’t call out this alleged infringement at once.

However, it does maintain that the newer song, more than briefly sampling the older effort, “interpolated, replayed, and/or reproduced distinctive and protected elements of the underlying” creation at hand.

And while it perhaps goes without saying given the complaint, Plies is taking issue with the allegedly unapproved usage.

Contrasting most of the industry’s other unauthorized-sample lawsuits, though, that usage allegedly laid the groundwork for additional infringement yet. Earlier in 2024, Soulja Boy “authorized” Megan Thee Stallion and GloRilla to sample “Pretty Boy Swag,” according to Plies.

Consequently, the situation became even more involved when Megan Thee Stallion and GloRilla released the resulting song, “Wanna Be,” this past April. Like (or more specifically via) “Pretty Boy Swag,” that work features elements of “Me & My Goons” without permission, the filing parties allege – as does the “Wanna Be” remix from the same two artists as well as Cardi B, per Plies.

Predictably, pre-action discussions didn’t produce the desired resolution for the plaintiffs, who say the defendants have thus far “failed to take corrective actions, including offering compensation, credit, or otherwise resolving the matter.”

All told, Plies and his collaborators, suing for vicarious and contributory infringement alike, believe the alleged unauthorized usages have fueled lost payments, damage to Plies’ “reputation and goodwill in the music industry,” and more.

Closer to the top of 2024, Travis Scott was slapped with a sample-centered infringement complaint. Meanwhile, Daddy Yankee and the Black Eyed Peas are grappling with a separate sample-focused infringement suit, which is still in full swing after the defendants in September denied the allegations.

Photo Credit: Cox Enterprises

Cox Communications has filed a reply brief in the Supreme Court ahead of a November 22nd conference in Cox’s ongoing dispute with Sony Music Entertainment.

The legal dispute between internet provider Cox Communications and Sony Music Entertainment has culminated into Cox filing a reply brief in the Supreme Court yesterday (November 4). The brief is the final docket filing related to Cox’s petition to the court ahead of the scheduled November 22 conference to determine whether the Supreme Court will review the copyright infringement case.

“Plaintiffs do not dispute that the Fourth Circuit installed a copyright regime that requires ISPs to reflexively terminate the internet access of entire households and businesses upon a couple accusations of infringement, or that innocent users could lose their internet lifelines merely because a guest downloaded a couple of songs,” reads the filing.

“And they do not dispute that to avoid liability under the Fourth Circuit’s rule, ISPs must sever connections to hospitals, universities, and regional ISPs.”

However, Cox urges the Court to “resolve the confusion — and hold that ISPs are not required to police everything that happens online — before it is too late.”

“Plaintiffs cannot persuasively reconcile the three-way circuit conflict,” the filing continues. “And tellingly, they do not even address how the Fifth Circuit’s recent opinion in UMG Recordings v. Grande Communications […] deepens the morass.”

“Plaintiffs first claim that ‘a defendant acted willfully if he materially contributed to conduct the defendant knew was against the law,’ […] is logically wrong. If that defendant knew someone else was violating the law, but reasonably believed he was a bystander with no duty to stop that conduct, that is not ‘the definition of recklessness,’” Cox continues. “A defendant’s ‘good-faith, reasonable belief in the lawfulness of its own conduct’ forecloses recklessness, as Plaintiffs themselves admit.”

The ISP posits that Sony Music and other plaintiffs assert that “to avoid liability in this case, Cox needed to kick 57,000 homes and businesses off the internet over just a two-year period the moment each received a second infringement accusation.” To that end, “the music industry has brought or threatened the same claims against nearly every major ISP,” and yet “Plaintiffs dismiss the concern about ‘mass terminations’ as ‘overblown, misplaced, and hypocritical.”

The brief concludes, “This Court has neither the luxury nor the need for further ‘percolation.’ Sony was decided 40 years ago [and] since then, the lower courts have diverged on what those foundational precedents require, and how they should apply to the modern internet. Percolation will only make it worse. And in the meantime, ISPs will have to cut entire homes and businesses off the internet any time the music industry accuses some anonymous user of downloading a song or two. Review is urgently needed.”

The scheduled conference on November 22 will determine whether the Supreme Court will review the case at Cox’s behest, or whether the ISP will remain liable for copyright infringement across its network.

A performance from Post Malone, one of the many Universal Music artists whose works have allegedly been infringed upon by Believe. Photo Credit: Adam Bielawski

Yesterday, Universal Music Group (UMG) slapped Believe and its TuneCore subsidiary with a massive copyright infringement action. Here’s a closer look at the over $500 million complaint – and the defendants’ alleged “illegal actions.”

DMN first reported on the straightforward suit moments after its filing in a New York federal court. Just to recap, the 34-page complaint accuses Believe as well as its TuneCore distributor of failing to vet third parties’ allegedly infringing works, distributing them to DSPs such as YouTube anyway, and “wrongfully” collecting certain royalties to boot.

While it perhaps goes without saying given the half-billion-dollar damages payment sought by UMG, the alleged infringement encompasses all manner of commercially prominent works. The latter include but definitely aren’t limited to recordings from the Bee Gees, Daddy Yankee, Elton John, Lil Wayne, and Weezer.

Believe’s Alleged Infringement At a Glance: “Modified Versions,” Unauthorized “Remixes,” and More Distributed “Without Any Effective Review to Identify Infringing Copies”

Beginning on the core distribution side – adjacent allegations extend a bit further than that – Believe and TuneCore have “relentlessly pursued the goal of distributing as many tracks as possible,” per the plaintiffs.

For Paris-headquartered Believe, that refers to a purported practice of distributing “the tracks it receives (including those from questionable sources with no prior history of creating sound recordings)” sans infringement-related due diligence, according to the legal text.

“Many” of the “obviously infringing tracks” at hand “are ‘sped up’ versions of Plaintiffs’ popular recordings,” the suit indicates.

“Believe is well aware that such tracks are popular on certain digital services and are more likely to evade the checks that digital music services use to detect infringing material on their platforms,” according to UMG.

Nevertheless, Believe “has derived a direct financial benefit attributable to the infringement” when it comes to terms that “entitle it to retain a percentage of” the allegedly infringing songs’ streaming royalties.

All told, “the infringing tracks distributed and purportedly licensed by Believe have been streamed (i.e., publicly performed), downloaded or reproduced in videos hundreds of millions of times across the digital music ecosystem on a wide variety of digital music services,” UMG maintains.

Content ID Shenanigans? Believe “Compounded” Alleged “Unlawful Conduct” via False Claims on YouTube, Lawsuit Shows

Not stopping there, Universal Music is further accusing Believe of compounding alleged “unlawful” distribution conduct via “spurious assertions of copyright ownership” on YouTube.

“In numerous cases,” some of the relevant lines read, “Believe has used YouTube’s Content ID system to claim copyright ownership in Plaintiffs’ owned or distributed recordings embodied in tracks Believe distributed to YouTube.” That includes “numerous instances where” a work “was simply an infringing copy of” a UMG recording, per the plaintiffs.

Consequently, Believe has allegedly forced Universal Music “to incur the burden and expense of routinely contesting Believe’s incorrect claims of ownership.” And as described by Universal Music, “Believe did not even contest” the appropriate claims in many instances.

In those situations, however, the defendants did allegedly proceed “to distribute and purport to license the exact same tracks to other digital music services,” continuing “to collect royalties on those tracks from these other providers,” the suit spells out.

Believe Fires Back Against Universal Music’s Lawsuit: “We Strongly Refute These Claims”

DMN reached out to Believe – which, in the not-so-distant past, looked as though it might become a subsidiary of Warner Music Group – and received a to-the-point comment attributed to a company spokesperson.

“Believe and TuneCore do not comment on pending litigation,” said Believe spokesperson relayed. “As companies that work with artists and labels around the world, we take the respect of copyright very seriously. We strongly refute these claims, and the statements made by Universal Music Group and will fight them.

“We have developed robust tools and processes to tackle this industrywide challenge, working collaboratively with partners and peers and will continue to do so. We have been at the forefront of the digital music ecosystem for nearly 20 years, supporting the development of independent artists and labels, and have been awarded Tier 1 status and included in the Preferred Partner Program across all music stores,” the expansion-minded business concluded.

Photo Credit: Tunecore / Believe

Universal Music Group files a $500 million lawsuit against Believe and Tunecore for ‘rampant piracy’ and copyright infringement. Here’s the latest.

Universal Music Group (UMG), alongside its subsidiaries UMG Recordings, Capitol Records, and ABKCO Music & Records, with Concord Music Group, has filed a massive copyright infringement lawsuit against Believe and its distribution platform Tunecore.

The filing, shared with Digital Music News late Monday (November 4th), alleges Believe has built its business by knowingly distributing infringing copies of popular copyrighted recordings, including those owned by the plaintiffs. These include blatantly altered versions of tracks from artists including Kendrick Lamar and Lady Gaga, from which Believe is accused of pilfering royalties.

Believe’s distribution network, which includes partnerships with platforms like TikTok, YouTube, and Spotify, has allegedly enabled it to profit significantly from this unauthorized distribution.

UMG attorneys argue that Believe’s actions have caused substantial harm to their client’s business, artists, and other contributors, and are seeking damages of at least $500 million, in addition to a permanent injunction to stop Believe’s infringing activities.

“Believe’s client list is overrun with fraudulent ‘artists’ and pirate record labels who rely on Believe and its distribution network to seed infringing copies of popular sound recordings throughout their digital music ecosystem,” the lawsuit reads.

“While Believe is fully aware that its business model is fueled by rampant piracy, it has eschewed basic measures to prevent copyright violations and turned a blind eye to the fact that its music catalog was rife with copyright infringing sound recordings.”

The complaint outlines Believe’s practice of wrongfully collecting royalties rightfully owed to the plaintiffs and other copyright owners, and cites several specific examples of alleged infringement. These include the distribution of “sped up” or “remixed” versions of popular songs, for which UMG is alleging direct, contributory, and vicarious copyright infringement.

Believe is also accused of exploiting YouTube’s content management system to claim ownership of their recordings, thereby diverting or delaying royalty payments.

UMG is also claiming infringement of pre-1972 sound recordings, for which they are seeking statutory damages, injunctive relief to prevent future infringement, impoundment, and destruction of infringing copies, and recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs. They are also seeking a trial by jury.

Photo Credit: Perplexity

After being slapped with a lawsuit from Dow Jones & Company and NYP Holdings over copyright infringement, AI search engine Perplexity has responded.

That lawsuit alleges that Perplexity owes its success to a “brazen scheme to compete for readers while simultaneously free-riding on the valuable content” produced by outlets like the New York Post and the Wall Street Journal. Plaintiffs in the case said they reached out to Perplexity for a potential licensing agreement, but never received a response. Now, Perplexity is responding publicly.

Perplexity says the ‘common theme’ among lawsuits against generative AI companies is that these media companies “wish this technology didn’t exist.” “They prefer to live in a world where publicly reported facts are owned by corporations, and no one can do anything with those publicly reported facts without paying a toll,” Perplexity says.

“We believe that tools like Perplexity provide a fundamentally transformative way for people to learn facts about the world. Perplexity not only does so in a way that the law has always recognized but is essential for the sound functioning of a cultural ecosystem in which people can efficiently and effectively obtain and engage with knowledge created by others,” the statement reads.

Perplexity lists sources for the information it provides as in-line citations for every part of the provided answer. Many other AI chatbots have copied this citation presentation wholesale—providing the source of information so it can be viewed by the person seeking knowledge.

“The lawsuit reflects an adversarial posture between media and tech that is fundamentally shortsighted, unnecessary, and self-defeating,” Perplexity writes. “Perplexity is proud to have launched a first-of-its-kind revenue-sharing program with leading publishers like TIME, Fortune, and Der Spiegel, which have already signed on. And our door is always open if and when the Post and the Journal decide to work with us in good faith, just as numerous others already have.”

Perplexity calls the facts cited in the original 42-page complaint “misleading.” It says examples of the lawsuit alleging ‘regurgitated’ output mis-characterize the description of the source material. It also alleges that it did respond to News Corp. “They reached out; we responded the very same day; instead of continuing the dialogue, they filed this lawsuit,” says Perplexity. “AI-enhanced search engines are not going away.”

Photo Credit: Ryan Born

SESAC Music Group acquires HAAWK, a media software and services company specializing in copyright management and monetization for independent catalogs.

SESAC Music Group announces its acquisition of HAAWK, a media software and services company that specializes in copyright management and monetization for independent music, film, television, and video catalogs.

HAAWK (Helping All Assets With Knowledge) provides full-service administration of YouTube’s Content ID system and Facebook’s Rights Manager platforms (including Instagram), serving a broad range of record labels, publishers, and music rights holder clients. HAAWK will operate alongside Audio Salad as part of the artist and label distribution services segment of SESAC Music Group’s Music Services division.

“This is truly a dream come true,” says Ryan Born, Founder & CEO of HAAWK. “HAAWK already leads the way in providing unmatched opportunities and increased royalty revenue for our clients across YouTube, Facebook, and social video platforms. By partnering with SESAC Music Group, we’re opening the door to even greater possibilities, enabling us to scale globally and offer more advanced royalty collection and administration services to our clients.”

“HAAWK’s mission aligns with SESAC Music Group in delivering maximum value and transparency to music creators. Their leadership and technology strengthen our services for independent labels and publishers worldwide,” shared John Josephson, Chairman and CEO of SESAC Music Group.

“We’re thrilled to welcome HAAWK to our Music Services portfolio, enhancing our comprehensive asset management and royalty collection services for independent labels and publishers globally,” added Malcolm Hawker, EVP and COO of SESAC Music Group.

HAAWK’s headquarters will remain in Los Angeles under the leadership of Ryan Born, who founded the company in 2017. The company has earned repeated recognitions on the Inc. 5000 and Deloitte Fast 500 rankings for its rapid growth in media and technology.

A global, multi-line music company, SESAC Music Group provides a wide range of data, technology, and services to publishers, songwriters, composers, and creators across every corner of the music industry. With its four divisions, including Performing Rights, Music Services, Audiovisual Music, and Church Resources, SESAC Music Group drives efficiency in licensing for music users and is home to a wide array of world-class music companies.

HAAWK provides copyright monitoring and monetization tools to assist creators in maximizing earnings on YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and more. Signature services include YouTube Content ID and Facebook Rights Manager administration, SaaS products for independent video creators to legally and affordably access micro-sync music, publishing administration, and digital music distribution.

The Minnesota Timberwolves warm up before a game. Photo Credit: Bobak Ha’Eri

NBA teams including the Minnesota Timberwolves are firing back against the copyright infringement actions they’re facing from music publishers.

The Timberwolves are among the more than dozen NBA teams grappling with the substantially similar suits, which were filed separately in July but, for the time being, remain unconsolidated. Now, in keeping with the cases’ overlap, teams are submitting largely matching answers.

We’ve covered the relatively straightforward cases from the get-go. Just to recap, though, plaintiffs including Kobalt Music and Prescription Songs say the defendants infringed their works by using unlicensed music in various social media videos as well as clips uploaded to NBA.com.

As a growing list of companies are finding out – or being reminded – via litigation, social media platforms’ pre-cleared song libraries are generally licensed for personal as opposed to professional use. There’s also another layer of complexity (at least for companies and professionals situated outside the industry) given how quickly usage rules and infringement responses can change on social services.

Individuals who upload videos featuring unauthorized music and pertaining to sports teams, for instance, won’t be (or haven’t been) chased down by the appropriate rightsholders. But it’s evidently a different “ballgame” when teams themselves are uploading allegedly infringing media.

In any event, the Timberwolves’ answer doesn’t touch on this complexity or the broader subject of potential licensing pitfalls on social media.

Instead, the legal text includes a comprehensive point-by-point refutation of the original complaint’s allegations – as well as a number of affirmative defenses to boot. Perhaps most interestingly, the claims are allegedly barred because the plaintiffs “engaged in copyright misuse.”

Here, that refers to the publishers’ allegedly leveraging “their copyright registrations along with threats of attorneys’ fees in order to extort from the Team disproportionate payments for allegedly infringing uses.”

Next, the Timberwolves say they “possessed an implied license” to exploit the allegedly infringed works, maintain that doing so constituted fair use, and further believe that the First Amendment protected the alleged usages, to name a few defenses.

Lastly, echoing arguments made in different copyright suits, the defendants claim that the infringement allegations are time barred owing to the approximate date on which the plaintiffs knew about or should have known about the usages at hand.

Unsurprisingly, teams are leaning into social media content as the NBA season kicks off today – but in their latest video uploads, the Timberwolves look to have incorporated lesser-known releases unaffiliated with the plaintiff publishers.

The New York Post printing plant in the Bronx. Photo Credit: Jim Henderson

In a case that could establish precedent relevant to multiple music industry lawsuits against generative AI companies, the owners of the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post are suing Perplexity for copyright infringement.

Dow Jones & Company as well as NYP Holdings submitted that copyright complaint to a New York federal court, naming as the lone defendant San Francisco-based Perplexity. Billing itself as today’s “most powerful answer engine,” the latter startup counts as stakeholders Jeff Bezos and Nvidia.

Against the backdrop of sizable funding rounds and massive valuations in the AI space, the just-filed action points to a possible $3 billion market worth for Perplexity – though reports today suggested that the business is looking to raise $500 million at a whopping $8 billion valuation.

Conveyed in different words, it’s an understatement to say that ample cash is floating around the AI world. But according to the corporate entities behind the Journal and the Post, Perplexity in particular owes its success to a “brazen scheme to compete for readers while simultaneously freeriding on the valuable content” at hand.

As recounted in the 42-page suit, the plaintiffs reached out to the defendant in July of 2024 with a letter describing infringement concerns and “offering to discuss a potential licensing deal.” (Separately, the New York Times recently sent Perplexity a cease-and-desist letter concerning alleged infringement, Reuters reported.)

Predictably, in light of the fresh complaint, the filing parties, having previously finalized a licensing pact with ChatGPT developer OpenAI via their parent, say they never received a response from Perplexity.

Shifting to the actual copyright claims, the complaint contrasts previously filed actions against generative AIs (including Amazon-backed Anthropic, OpenAI, and more) by accusing Perplexity of infringement at several stages.

First, the platform, often used to summarize news, allegedly “copied hundreds of thousands” of copyrighted Journal and Post articles without permission for its retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) database. Taking aim at arguments made by other AI giants, the action rather directly claims the alleged practice isn’t transformative and doesn’t constitute fair use.

In a nutshell, the RAG database, distinct from the much-discussed training process for large-language models, is said to house a continually updated (via web scraping) collection of information for use in AI-generated answers to user questions (including requests for breakdowns of articles, for example).

(Incidentally, at the time of this writing, the AI platform was declining to use the Post article about the lawsuit to create a summary of the matter, even when asked to do so. Citations are featured prominently beside Perplexity answers but, according to the plaintiffs, render “users less inclined to visit the original content source” and generate “virtually no click-through traffic” in any event.)

Next, Perplexity’s “full or partial verbatim reproductions of” copyrighted articles allegedly constitute independent instances of copyright infringement. That includes detailed, quote-heavy summaries of paywall-protected Journal coverage as well as entire Post pieces.

Furthermore, the AI defendant allegedly makes additional unauthorized copies of “articles to preserve the outputs it generates in another database that it uses for analytical and other purposes.” The exact quantity of alleged copies is unclear, but the plaintiffs say “each individual electronic copy constitutes its own infringement subject to statutory damages under the Copyright Act.”

Lastly, Perplexity allegedly produces “made-up text (hallucinations) in its outputs” and then falsely attributes said text, sometimes alongside genuine quoted materials, to specific articles and authors from the plaintiff publications. Among other things, the alleged practice is “likely to cause confusion or mistake,” according to the suit.

“This conduct likewise harms the news-consuming public,” the complaint sums up towards its end. “Generating content for advertisement or subscription revenue is unsustainable if the content is taken en masse and reproduced by bad-faith actors for substitutive commercial purposes.”

All told, the plaintiffs are seeking substantial damages and a number of orders – one barring the unauthorized copying of protected materials and another calling for the “destruction of any index or database created by Perplexity that contains” the same materials, to name a couple.

Photo Credit: 2 Live Crew for Luke Records

A jury had ruled that 2 Live Crew should benefit from a copyright ‘termination right’ to win back their music from a label that bought them out of bankruptcy.

Classic hip-hop group 2 Live Crew have won a jury verdict allowing them to regain legal control of the majority of their catalog from a small record label that has owned their copyrights for decades. On Wednesday, a federal jury in Florida that members of the group and their heirs were entitled to invoke copyright “termination rights,” which effectively allow creators to take back their works decades after they were sold to another company.

Attorneys for Lil Joe Records, which bought the band’s catalog out of bankruptcy back in 1996, insisted that termination shouldn’t apply to 2 Live Crew’s albums, arguing the catalog was “work for hire,” meaning no copyright was assigned in the first place. But 2 Live Crew’s attorneys countered that the right to terminate was “inalienable” and couldn’t be forfeited, with which the jury agreed.

Termination rights enable the original owner of a copyright to regain their rights after a set period of time, usually after 35 years depending on the specific statute in play. The hotly-contested clause has been batted around for decades, and 2 Live Crew’s victory could spark similar actions by other artists.

As a result of the jury’s verdict, 2 Live Crew’s Uncle Luke (Luther Campbell) and the heirs of Fresh Kid Ice (Christopher Wong Won) and Brother Marquis (Mark Ross) are entitled to invoke the termination right to regain lawful control of their five albums. This includes their risque 1989 album, As Nasty As They Wanna Be.

Lead counsel for Lil Joe Records, Richard Wolfe, as well as the label’s owner, Joe Weinberger, vowed to appeal the verdict, saying it introduced “novel legal questions about the interplay between termination rights and federal bankruptcy law.”

“The bankruptcy code is clear that all assets of a bankruptcy party are part of the bankruptcy estate,” Wolf said. “All means all.”

2 Live Crew’s case first kicked off in late 2020, when they notified Lil Joe they planned to invoke termination and take back ownership of their music. The two sides could not reach an agreement, leading to Lil Joe suing the group in federal court.

Far from slowing since DMN Pro’s last lawsuit breakdown, music industry litigation has continued ramping up both in quantity and significance. Here’s an updated list of eight especially important suits to watch during 2024’s final quarter and into the new year.

DMN Pro is currently tracking more than 150 different lawsuits across a range of different categories. But what are the most important suits roiling the business? Here, we pluck eight particularly meaningful suits out of the hat, with a summary of the actions and where things stand in each face-off.

Of course, this isn’t an exhaustive list of suits past or present. But the results of these litigatory battles could have far-reaching repercussions for the music industry. Read on.

Table of Contents

Introduction: An Overview of DMN Pro’s Latest Industry Litigation Breakdown

I. Limp Bizkit et al. v. Universal Music Group

II. UMG Recordings et al. v. Brinker International et al.

III. TikTok and ByteDance v. U.S. Department of Justice

IV. Musi v. Apple

V. U.S. Department of Justice v. Live Nation and Ticketmaster

VI. Concord Music Group et al. v. Anthropic

VII. Barry Manilow et al. v. Hipgnosis

VIII. Yout v. RIAA

This report is for DMN Pro subscribers only. Please do not redistribute — thank you.

Two of the Marc Jacobs products that allegedly infringed on the famed Nirvana ‘smiley face’ logo. Photo Credit: Digital Music News

The better part of a decade later, Nirvana and Marc Jacobs have officially settled their dispute over the band’s famed “smiley face” design.

This image-focused case kicked off way back in 2018, when Nirvana’s namesake company sued Marc Jacobs and others for allegedly infringing on the relevant design. Though it perhaps goes without saying in light of the legal battle’s length, the courtroom confrontation delivered multiple dismissal motions, depositions, and counterclaims, besides one consolidation to boot.

On the latter front, art director Robert Fisher also claimed to be the maker and owner of the smiley face; it was suggested as well that Kurt Cobain had created the image, with major ownership implications for each possibility.

Long story short, Nirvana maintained that Marc Jacobs had infringed on the logo, the defendant designer challenged the validity and enforceability of the copyright at hand, and word of a settlement finally surfaced in July of 2024.

We promptly reported on that proposed settlement, the result of a mediator’s recommendations, and noted that the resolution was subject to an official submission as well as approval from the presiding judge.

Subsequently, late September saw Nirvana and Marc Jacobs jointly request dismissal with prejudice – while simultaneously asking the court to “enter an order retaining jurisdiction over this matter to enforce the parties’ settlement agreement.”

An October 10th deadline was then set for any objections – an important point given that Fisher, who only jumped into the action as an intervenor plaintiff to assert his alleged ownership of the logo, had previously appealed a December of 2023 summary judgement.

In relevant part, said summary judgement found “that, assuming Fisher drew the Smiley, it was a work for hire for Geffen and, assuming Cobain drew the Smiley, Nirvana owns the rights to the Smiley.” For obvious reasons, the determination didn’t sit right with Fisher, hence the appeal.

Shifting back to the present, Fisher doesn’t seem to have set forth a formal objection, and Judge John A. Kronstadt formally signed off on the aforementioned dismissal stipulation from Nirvana and Marc Jacobs.

Consequently, “all claims and counterclaims…are dismissed with prejudice,” per that order, and all involved “parties are responsible for their own attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in this action.”

Notwithstanding the case’s resolution, another legal battle pertaining to Nirvana IP – and specifically the cover of Nevermind – is still in full swing. Plaintiff Spencer Elden, the individual who appeared clothes-free on the well-known album’s cover as a baby and now alleges to be the victim of child pornography, saw the case revived on appeal late last year.

Discovery has apparently been in full swing as of late, and the district court just recently confirmed an October 23rd deadline for a joint summary judgment brief.

A Chili’s location in Georgia. Photo Credit: Michael Rivera

Moments following the conclusion of Sony Music’s social-media-focused copyright lawsuit against Marriott, a similar infringement complaint, levied this time by Universal Music Group (UMG) and naming Chili’s parent Brinker International as a defendant, has kicked off.

UMG submitted the to-the-point action – one of several ongoing disputes over brands’ alleged infringement in social-media promo videos – to a Texas federal court. As noted, a Sony Music v. Marriott legal battle just recently drew to a close, and Brinker isn’t a stranger to industry coverage.

That’s because the Dallas-based Chili’s and Maggiano’s owner is also fending off infringement allegations, once again centering on social media, from the Beastie Boys. We broke down the complaint, specifically accusing the defendant of incorporating “Sabotage” into an advert campaign sans authorization, when it was filed this past July.

With the courtroom confrontation still unfolding, however, Brinker is now facing a comparatively sweeping suit from UMG.

As far as infringement claims go, the action is straightforward enough: Brinker purportedly used UMG’s protected music in promo clips via the main Chili’s social handles “without permission or payment.”

Those “scores of” allegedly infringed Universal Music works include recordings and compositions alike, releases from Justin Bieber, ABBA, Mariah Carey, Snoop Dogg, and Frank Sinatra among them, to name a few.

Moreover, as the major-label plaintiff sees it, discovery will likely “reveal that Defendants have unlawfully exploited other sound recordings and musical compositions.”

A big chunk of the alleged infringement looks to have occurred on TikTok, with the remaining alleged unauthorized usages attributed to Instagram clips. (In general, platforms’ song libraries are cleared for personal but not commercial use, different cases have underscored.)

UMG included links to boot; some of the posts had been deleted (or, alternatively, the provided links, a portion tied to Reels, had ceased working) at the time of writing.

In any event, the defendants allegedly have “no effective procedures for ensuring that the social media content posted for their Chili’s commercial restaurant businesses does not violate others’ copyrights,” according to the lawsuit.

Notwithstanding the allegation, UMG also highlighted purported licensing talks with the defendants. Brinker “did obtain a license from a relevant Plaintiff to use musical works in a few videos at issue, but they have exploited the works beyond the bounds of the applicable licenses,” the appropriate line reads.

As the case plays out – assuming it isn’t promptly dropped like the initially mentioned Sony Music-Marriott complaint – additional details about that seemingly important license should come to light.

Among other things, the filing parties are seeking damages for vicarious and contributory infringement, besides a permanent injunction prohibiting further alleged infringement.

During today’s trading, Brinker stock (NYSE: EAT) slipped by almost 2% to $82.96 per share. Despite the dip, EAT is up over 97% from 2024’s start and a whopping 178% from October of 2023.

The Warsaw Marriott Hotel. Photo Credit: Michal Mrozek

Just shy of five months after it kicked off, the copyright infringement battle between Sony Music Entertainment (SME) and Marriott International has officially drawn to a close.

That abrupt conclusion arrived in the form of a notice of dismissal with prejudice from the major label, which had accused Marriott of infringing on a variety of recordings in social-media videos. In general – and as a number of companies are finding out the hard way – platforms’ licensed song libraries are cleared only for personal, not commercial, use.

But several promotion-minded brands have allegedly failed to obtain the required licenses, with Sony Music having specifically accused the “behemoth of the hospitality industry” Marriott of “at least 931 infringements” in the U.S.

While the lion’s share of the alleged infringement referred to videos uploaded directly to the defendant’s social handles, Marriott also used protected music without authorization in paid influencer campaigns, SME maintained.

Predictably, given the scope of the multi-year alleged infringement, Sony Music claimed that warnings and allegedly unfulfilled “tolling agreements” had failed to produce a satisfactory resolution.

Now, said resolution has evidently arrived – though the involved parties have opted against publicly disclosing the precise terms at hand. However, it appears that Marriott is being careful about the music featured in social content. The company’s latest Instagram videos encompass “original audio” that looks to have released on DSPs not long before the posts themselves went live, for instance.

Bigger picture, the dismissed Sony Music-Marriott suit certainly doesn’t mark the end of legal actions over brands’ alleged infringement on social media.

Over the summer, the Beastie Boys sued Chili’s parent company Brinker International over the alleged unauthorized incorporation of “Sabotage” into a social-media campaign. This case is slowly but surely chugging along, the docket shows, with Brinker having waived the service of the summons at the top of October.

Bringing the focus back to Sony Music, we’re weeks out from the one-year anniversary of the separate social-media-infringement suit it filed against OFRA Cosmetics.

Contrasting the shelved Marriott dispute, this older courtroom confrontation is in full swing, complete with an ongoing discovery process (the court has entered a confidentiality order as well) and a seemingly sweeping subpoena for pertinent materials from OFRA co-founder Ofra Gaito.

These materials pertain to OFRA’s funding history, ownership status, communications and documents concerning the brand’s social videos, and a whole lot else, according to a cursory look at the lengthy subpoena itself.

A live performance from Limp Bizkit, which has filed a massive royalties-related lawsuit against Universal Music Group. Photo Credit: ECarterSterling

Universal Music Group (UMG) could owe Limp Bizkit north of $200 million – at least according to the 30-year-old band, which is suing for unpaid royalties, copyright infringement, breach of contract, and more.

Limp Bizkit, frontman Fred Durst, and his Flawless Records label fired off the sweeping 60-page complaint today, alleging massive royalties underpayments, the misrepresentation of various accounts as unrecouped, “fraudulent accounting practices,” and a whole lot else.

As recapped in the legal text, these and other allegations can be traced to an initial 1996 agreement between Limp Bizkit and Flip Records, which, besides having a JV deal in place with Interscope, would later sell half its stake in the band’s royalties to UMG. Thus, the leading label is said to be responsible for paying the relevant royalties to Flip and the plaintiffs alike.

Amended multiple times before being replaced by a fresh Interscope agreement in late 2000, the Flip contracts (the royalty terms of which have allegedly been left in place) cover Limp Bizkit’s first three albums. Meanwhile, among several additional things, the UMG/Interscope pact rather unsurprisingly compels the major label to provide the band with bi-annual royalty statements, the suit describes.

Lastly, in terms of pertinent background details, the late 90s also delivered a JV deal between Durst’s aforementioned Flawless Records and Interscope; Durst, seemingly part of Interscope for a time, signed acts (like Puddle of Mudd) in exchange for a stake in the profits and the masters at hand, the document shows.

Fast forward to April of 2024, when Durst voiced royalties-related concerns upon hiring new reps. (The action doesn’t appear to dive into the artist’s possibly questionable prior team.) “Durst retained new representation and explained that he had not received any money for any Limp Bizkit exploitations—ever,” the text reads.

These new reps were “shocked” upon learning as much, including because of the band’s apparent commercial comeback (referring in part to an expected 793 million streams for Limp Bizkit by 2024’s end).

The focus quickly shifted to the relevant royalty statements – at which point Durst informed his team that he hadn’t received any such breakdowns “because UMG told him over the years that it was not required to provide them since his account was still so far from recoupment.”

That set in motion a “further investigation,” first in the form of obtaining access to the UMG portal. Upon gaining said access in April of 2024, the plaintiffs’ business managers identified cumulative due Limp Bizkit royalty balances of almost $1.04 million, per the document.

From there, the plaintiffs pushed to receive the payment immediately and were allegedly told that they’d have to provide basic forms and bank verification. More pressingly, the statements allegedly showed that the accounts had been recouped since 2019 but had also been “fraudulently reclassified as ‘unrecouped’ to prevent payment.”

“UMG did not explain why it failed to alert Limp Bizkit that it had over $1 million sitting with UMG that was payable to Limp Bizkit, why UMG had never even obtained the documents and forms it allegedly needed in order to actually make these payments, or why UMG could not use the documents already in their possession that it had used to pay Plaintiffs advances in the past,” the suit continues.

Of course, the specifics laid the groundwork for more intense scrutiny yet, which allegedly led to the plaintiffs’ discovering a number of missing royalty statements (some dating back to 1997) and claims of “recoupment costs for an extraordinarily long time.”

The appropriate accounts (for Limp Bizkit as well as Flawless) were allegedly overdrafted with “unsubstantiated costs” designed to make them appear unrecouped, the action claims in many more words.

Conversations with UMG execs over the summer are said to have failed to provide an adequate explanation, though higher-ups attributed the situation to a once-off software issue as well as $43 million or so in advances allegedly paid to Limp Bizkit.

The plaintiffs say the latter sum is “grossly inflated,” and when reviewing the appropriate (incomplete) royalty statements, they pinpointed closer to $13 million in advances, per the suit. Especially given the group’s sales resurgence, early albums should have recouped and started paying royalties long ago, according to the filing parties.

In any event, late August saw Limp Bizkit receive the aforementioned $1.04 million (before this, “Limp Bizkit had never received any royalties from UMG”), with $2.35 million paid to Flawless (which “had never received any profit sharing revenue from UMG”) around the same time.

The alleged lack of royalty statements, the alleged underpayments, and more then prompted the plaintiffs to seek the contracts’ termination – hence the complaint, which is looking to nix the deals and compel sizable damages payments. Limp Bizkit and Durst estimate that UMG owes them “in excess of $200 million due to the rescission of these agreements,” the action spells out.

Photo Credit: Quavo’s Instagram

Quavo faces a copyright infringement lawsuit over his 2018 track, ‘Bubble Gum,’ from his debut solo album.

Former Migos rapper Quavo is facing a copyright infringement lawsuit filed in California on Friday by Lamount London, known professionally as rapper L.Mont. London alleges Quavo copied parts of his own track “Bubblegum,” which he says he wrote in 2015, in 2018’s “Bubble Gum,” released on Quavo’s debut solo album, Quavo Huncho.

London claims his song was registered with the US copyright office back in 2015 when he released it, and that it was released on all major streaming platforms. Quavo would therefore have had ample opportunity to have heard the earlier track — but London also says he performed as an opening act for 2 Chainz and Migos, whose members included Quavo, Takeoff, and Offset, in New Orleans.

It was after that show that L.Mont claims he attended an afterparty with Quavo and the other members of Migos, where he gave them a demo CD featuring the allegedly copied track, hoping he would be able to collaborate with the other rappers in the future. The lawsuit says Quavo “accepted the CD” from London and that he would consider working with him in the future.

But the collaboration never came to fruition, and L.Mont says Quavo “without express authorization” copied protected elements of the song in his own track of the same name. Quavo’s “Bubble Gum” was released and distributed by Universal Music Group, which is named as a co-defendant, through Quality Control Music, Capitol Records, and Motown.

“Defendants, without authority, have willfully copied and sampled many protected elements of the Plaintiff’s copyrights and further infringed upon those copyrights by acts of reproduction, distribution, publish, display, and unauthorized creation of derivative works,” the lawsuit adds.

London’s lawsuit seeks an injunction to prevent further distribution of the song, as well as damages and attorney fees.

Photo Credit: The Come Up Show / CC by 2.0

Rapper Nelly (Cornell Haynes Jr.) is facing a $50 million lawsuit from his former rap group, which accuses him of manipulating them into believing they would have writing credits on his 2000 album, Country Grammar.

The St. Lunatics rap group consisted of Nelly and the named plaintiffs, Ali Jones, Lavell Web, Robert Kyjuan, and Tohri Harper. Former member Corey Edwards is not involved in the lawsuit. The group appeared on several hit songs from his debut album and released songs like “Gimme What U Got” before Nelly’s break-out solo career.

During recording sessions for what would become the album Country Grammar, the group claims Nelly manipulated them into believing they would have writing credits on the album. “[Nelly] privately and publicly acknowledged that plaintiffs were the lyric writers for the original compositions and promised to ensure that plaintiffs received writing and publishing credit for the original compositions,” the lawsuit states.

“Plaintiffs, relying on the promises made to them by [Nelly], continued to perform shows with [Nelly] both in his solo performances (as back up performers) and as the group St. Lunatics.”

The lawsuit continues stating that Nelly continually told the plaintiffs that they would receive credits, while both Country Grammar and the St. Lunatics album Free City were performing well commercially. Defendants allege that they did not find out the truth of those promises until 2020.

“Despite repeated assurances by [Nelly] that plaintiffs would receive their writing credit and publishing income for creating the original compositions, plaintiffs—sometime in 2020—eventually discovered that [Nelly] had been lying to them the entire time,” the lawsuit continues.

“Plaintiffs eventually discovered that not only did they not receive any credit as authors or creators of the original compositions, but that [Nelly] and others took full credit for creating the original compositions contained in [Country Grammar].”

“Sometime in 2020, plaintiffs became aware of a dispute between an individual named Willie Woods Jr. p/k/a John Long and [Nelly] and/or UMPG regarding the song ‘Ride Wit Me’ which was contained in Country Grammar. Upon information and belief, Mr. Woods claimed to be one of the writers on the song ‘Ride Wit Me’ and was demanding his portion of publishing royalties from the sales, public performance, or exploitation of ‘Ride Wit Me.’”

“Realizing that they were not the only writers on [Country Grammar] that [Nelly] had failed to provide proper credit and publishing income, plaintiffs decided to seek legal advice regarding their copyrights in and to [Country Grammar].”

The St. Lunatics are suing for copyright infringement with UMG, UMPG, BMG, Kobalt, and Hipgnosis named as defendants alongside Nelly.

Miley Cyrus, who, along with Sony Music Publishing and an array of others, is facing a copyright infringement complaint over ‘Flowers.’ Photo Credit: Raph_PH

Another day, another copyright infringement lawsuit: Miley Cyrus and an array of others are being sued for allegedly lifting from Bruno Mars’ “When I Was Your Man” without permission to create “Flowers.”

A company called Tempo Music Investments recently submitted that action to a California federal court, and DMN obtained an exclusive copy of the straightforward-but-sweeping complaint. By way of background, Mars, a non-party here, released “When I Was Your Man” in late 2012, and the track has racked up a cool 2.26 billion streams on Spotify alone.

Meanwhile, March of 2020 saw the lone plaintiff finalize an IP-investment deal with “When I Was Your Man” co-writer Philip Lawrence, thereby securing a stake in the work. And as most already know, Cyrus dropped “Flowers” – which, among other things, made a material international splash last year – in early 2023.

Having hit one billion Spotify streams faster than any other track to date, the work has itself accumulated 2.20 billion on-platform plays.

But as Tempo Music Investments sees it, that commercial success resulted from the mentioned Mars release, without which “‘Flowers’ would not exist,” according to the legal action.

“Any fan of Bruno Mars’ ‘When I Was Your Man’ knows that Miley Cyrus’ ‘Flowers’ did not achieve all of that success on its own,” the filing company spelled out in the suit.

According once again to the legal text, the newer effort “duplicates numerous melodic, harmonic, and lyrical elements” of the relevant Bruno Mars track. That includes “the melodic pitch design and sequence of the verse, the connecting bass-line, certain bars of the chorus, certain theatrical music elements, lyric elements, and specific chord progressions,” per the document.

Though infringement actions involving lesser-known releases typically go to great lengths to illustrate how the defendant(s) may have accessed the music in question, Tempo Music Investments opted against doing so here given the well-established reach of “When I Was Your Man.”

Instead, a substantial portion of the suit explores in technical detail the alleged similarities between the songs, including but not limited to purported lyrical and melodical overlap.

Some of the alleged similarities between ‘Flowers’ and ‘When I Was Your Man’ according to the plaintiff, Tempo Music Investments. Photo Credit: Digital Music News

Lastly, in terms of the action’s specifics, Willkie Farr & Gallagher-repped Tempo Music Investments isn’t suing only Miley Cyrus. Rather, the long list of defendants includes as well the 31-year-old’s fellow “Flowers” co-writers, Sony Music Publishing, and Concord, to name just a few.

Likewise staring down the suit are all manner of streaming services (Apple proper, Pandora, Deezer, Tidal, and SoundCloud but, curiously, not Spotify), Live Nation, and even retailers such as Walmart and Target.

Live Nation, for its part, allegedly “participated in the reproduction, distribution, sale, and/or other exploitation of ‘Flowers,’ including by selling copies of the song through Cyrus’s official online store,” per the complaint. And Walmart allegedly “participated” in the same way, albeit for both tracks, “by selling copies of the songs in its brick-and-mortar stores.”

Photo Credit: Altice USA

Several parties, including Altice USA, signed amicus briefs in support of Cox Communications’ petition filed last month with the Supreme Court.

In Cox Communications’ ongoing battle with Sony and other major labels, several parties have signed amicus briefs in support of Cox’s petition filed last month with the Supreme Court. The petition asked the high court to review the increasingly complex copyright infringement case that could potentially affect the internet access of Americans nationwide.

The issue stems from a case brought against internet service provider (ISP) Cox Communications by Sony Corp. and other music industry groups back in 2018. That case was just one of many levied against ISPs by music labels for copyright infringement committed by users through online piracy, in which the labels assert the ISPs are liable.

Now, the two amicus briefs signed by Professor Alfred C. Yen and Altice USA — which quietly settled its own copyright infringement case with BMG last month — as well as Frontier Communications, Lumen Technologies, and Verizon, urge the high court to “review this significant copyright infringement case that could jeopardize internet access for all Americans.”

“Sony is attempting to hold internet service providers like Cox and its peers responsible for instances of piracy and copyright infringement committed by individual users,” a representative close to the matter told Digital Music News.

Cox filed its petition last month asking the US Supreme Court to review the decision it made back in February that the ISP committed secondary copyright infringement by failing to address user piracy. At the time, though the Court upheld part of the jury verdict that held Cox liable, it threw out a $1 billion award for the labels, which included Universal Music alongside Sony Music. A new trial was ordered to determine the amount of damages Cox would owe.

But Cox argues that the only way it could avoid liability under the Court’s decision would be to terminate internet service for “entire households, coffee shops, hospitals, universities, and even regional [ISPs] […] merely because some unidentified person was previously alleged to have used the connection to infringe.”

Photo Credit: Raph PH / CC by 2.0

Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, BMG, and Universal Music have officially beaten an appeal in a copyright suit centering on “Living in a Ghost Town.”

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals just recently affirmed a prior district court ruling in favor of the Rolling Stones members as well as the label co-defendants. Last time we checked in on the courtroom confrontation, the plaintiff towards the top of 2024 set his appeal in motion.

That Spain-based plaintiff, an artist named Sergio Garcia Fernandez and known professionally as Angelslang, accused the defendants of lifting without permission from two tracks to create the Stones’ “Living in a Ghost Town” (2020).

These allegedly infringed works, the filing party claimed in the March of 2023 complaint, had been forwarded on CD to an “immediate family member” of Jagger back in 2013. Predictably, as the plaintiff told it, the tracks’ positive reception laid the groundwork for the alleged infringement (extending to a variety of elements) the better part of a decade later.

As things stand, a stateside court has yet to rule on the validity of those claims. To be sure, the action was tossed on jurisdictional grounds in October of 2023, when Judge Eldon E. Fallon, in deeming his court an improper venue for the case, reiterated in part that “none of the defendants ‘reside’ or ‘may be found’ in this district.”

The plaintiff then unsuccessfully urged the case’s transfer to a different venue, before January of 2024 brought the aforementioned appeal.

Now, though, with a three-judge appellate panel having “considered on the record on appeal and the briefs on file,” the prior dismissal order has been affirmed. Digging into the straightforward eight-page opinion behind the newer ruling, the presiding judges explained in more words that simply releasing the allegedly infringed music in Louisiana isn’t sufficient to establish jurisdiction in the state.

Likewise unconvincing is the personal jurisdiction argument when it comes to the allegedly infringed works’ potential to eventually reach Louisiana.

“Not only do the defendants lack minimum contacts with the forum, but there is no connection between the forum and the specific claims at issue,” the panel spelled out.

Lastly, the judges also called for the plaintiff artist to cover the costs incurred by the defendants in relation to the appeal. According once again to the appropriate legal text, the judgement will formally issue at the later of seven days following the rehearing-petition deadline or seven days after the entry of an order denying a petition for rehearing.

An American Hockey League game between the Milwaukee Admirals and the Rockford IceHogs, the latter of which allegedly used APM works in promo videos without authorization. Photo Credit: Michael Barera

Days after levying a copyright action against Johnson & Johnson, Associated Production Music (APM) is now suing the American Hockey League (AHL) for allegedly using recordings in “numerous” promotional videos without permission.

APM just recently levied the copyright complaint, the latest in a line of suits targeting allegedly unauthorized usages on social media and content platforms generally. Also naming as defendants several American Hockey League teams, the straightforward action begins by reiterating the plaintiff’s production music and sync credentials as well as driving home the AHL’s “all-time high” popularity.

At the points’ intersection, the legal text calls out the alleged “rampant infringement” of APM’s protected works “on team-specific social media channels,” reiterating for good measure that the AHL has allegedly “refused to obtain proper licenses or admit wrongdoing.”

All told, the plaintiff is seeking relief for alleged direct, contributory, and vicarious infringement across a number of works (which are listed in the suit), and the corresponding videos seem to have been uploaded to a variety of platforms. Said platforms include Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, and Twitter/X alike.

Some of the allegedly infringing clips, like one posted to X by the Syracuse Crunch, had already been pulled at the time of this writing. But others, such as a player promo uploaded to YouTube by the AHL itself in late 2021, were still live.

DMN reached out to the American Hockey League for comment but didn’t receive a response in time for publishing. However, as previously highlighted, this isn’t the year’s first copyright complaint alleging infringement on social media, where any pre-licensed song libraries are cleared solely for personal, not commercial, use.

Beyond APM’s initially mentioned Johnson & Johnson action, July saw Kobalt, Prescription Songs, and other publishers sue more than a dozen NBA teams for the same reason.

Transitioning back to the recorded side – and only scratching the litigation surface in this area – May brought a Sony Music suit against Marriott, once again over alleged “rampant infringement” in social clips. And in July, the Beastie Boys targeted the parent of restaurant chain Chili’s with a similar complaint.

Furthermore, this litigation trend isn’t new for rightsholders, with 2022 having seen each of the majors sue Bang Energy (which Monster acquired out of bankruptcy last year) before Sony Music took legal action against OFRA Cosmetics in 2023.

Still in full swing, the latter courtroom confrontation had a discovery hearing in late August, per the docket. The presiding judge subsequently approved Sony Music’s discovery requests at the top level, ordering OFRA “to immediately produce responsive documents on a rolling basis” while nevertheless giving the beauty company until September 19th “to fully respond” to these discovery demands.

Photo Credit: Human Artistry Campaign

The NO FAKES Act has been introduced in the House, and the Human Artistry Campaign endorses the effort, which would create federal IP rights.

The NO FAKES Act (Nurture Originals, Foster Art, Keep Entertainment Safe) has been introduced today in the US House of Representatives by Reps. María Elvira Salazar (R-FL-27), Madeleine Dean (D-PA-4), Nathaniel Moran (R-TX-1), Joe Morelle (D-NY-25), Rob Wittman (R-VA-1), and Adam Schiff (D-CA-30).

First introduced in the Senate in July, the NO FAKES Act creates a federal right of publicity that will protect all Americans against unauthorized digital replicas in the age of AI. The NO FAKES Act aims to accelerate the push for protection against invasive AI deepfakes, voice clones, and other nonconsensual digital replicas, while establishing a system of accountability. Organizations, including the Human Artistry Campaign, have spoken out in favor of the effort.

“The Human Artistry Campaign unequivocally believes everyone deserves a right to their own voice and image. We commend Representatives Salazar, Dean, and their colleagues for their united efforts in making that a reality as unethical AI deepfakes and highly realistic voice clones invade and victimize our communities,” said Human Artistry Campaign Senior Advisor Dr. Moiya McTier.

“The NO FAKES Act is essential to protecting people and our culture while acknowledging long-held exceptions for free speech. As some unethical AI developers move recklessly forward, Congress must pass this bipartisan legislation.”

“The Recording Academy is thrilled to celebrate the introduction of the NO FAKES Act in the House — alignment with the Senate on this bill represents an important step in the bipartisan, bicameral effort to establish a federal right of publicity that will protect artists, creators, and all Americans in this new era of technology,” said Harvey Mason Jr., Recording Academy CEO.

“Since I testified before the House on the impacts of AI on the creative industries this February, it’s been a privilege to be a part of the music community’s work to move the needle on meaningful legislation that ensures AI enhances, not replaces, human creativity. The Academy thanks Reps. Salazar, Dean, Moran, Morelle, Whitman, and Schiff for their leadership of the NO FAKES Act in the House, and we will continue to advocate for music creators by collaborating with Congress to pass this landmark bill into law.”

On a state level, the Recording Academy played a critical role in moving forward both Tennessee’s ELVIS Act and Illinois’ HB 4875, which were both signed into law earlier this year, along with California’s AB 1836, which passed the state’s Senate last week.

Each of these bills updates their state’s right of publicity law to address the emerging challenges posted by generative AI, including protections against the creation of unauthorized digital replicas.

Photo Credit: Igor Omilaev

A little over a month out from the one-year anniversary of its start, the copyright suit levied by major music publishers against Anthropic is heating up amid the AI giant’s renewed push for dismissal.

That push, music publisher plaintiffs including Concord and UMPG emphasized in their latest filing, actually marks the second attempt by Anthropic to dismiss the high-stakes case. As many know by now, the courtroom confrontation centers on alleged infringement stemming from the training process behind Anthropic’s Claude product.

The filing companies have pointed to the alleged presence of lyrics in the chatbot’s outputs – and claimed, among other things, that the alleged “massive copyright infringement” helps Anthropic to generate revenue and attract users.

Multiple twists and one time-consuming venue change later, Anthropic last month (again) fired back against the publishers’ push for a preliminary injunction blocking the continued use of lyrics in outputs and in future training.

And now, the music publishers themselves are taking the opportunity to refute Anthropic’s latest dismissal arguments as well as the appropriate motion.

Predictably, given the ultra-important case’s plodding nature, this 33-page refutation doesn’t break too much new ground. Instead, the publishers drove home that Anthropic’s dismissal motion is untimely in part because it arrived before a formal answer to the suit.

Running with the latter idea, the plaintiffs indicated that Anthropic had “deliberately contravened the Federal Rules” by ignoring purported warnings about the timing of its answer (or the lack thereof).

In short, the Amazon-backed AI mainstay is working “to gain a litigation advantage by prioritizing resolution” of the dismissal motion without first answering the complaint.

“When Anthropic answers the Complaint,” the publishers spelled out, “it will have to admit facts that it so far refuses to acknowledge directly, including that Anthropic copied Publishers’ lyrics when training Claude and made no effort to remove those lyrics from its training dataset despite its ability to do so.”

And from there, the publishers took aim at Anthropic’s specific dismissal arguments, which are looking to toss each claim save that involving direct infringement.

“Publishers are not required to name and date every instance of direct infringement to state a claim for secondary infringement,” the plaintiffs reiterated in part. “Publishers plausibly allege that Anthropic’s AI models respond to queries from users seeking copyrighted lyrics—including queries from Publishers’ investigators—by delivering those lyrics as requested.

“That allegation, without naming specific infringing users, is sufficient to set forth a valid claim for secondary copyright liability,” they proceeded.

Furthermore, dismissal would be “especially unwarranted” because the plaintiffs have yet to “discover from Anthropic what other third parties have requested from the Claude chatbot or APIs,” per the precedent-heavy legal text.

Photo Credit: Wesley Tingey

Pharmaceutical company Johnson & Johnson is being sued for ‘rampant copyright infringement’ by production music house APM.

Major production music company Associated Production Music (APM), jointly owned by Sony Music Publishing and Universal Music Publishing Group, is suing pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson in the Central District of California, Western Division, for alleged “rampant” copyright infringement. Notably, neither Sony nor Universal are named as plaintiffs in the suit.

According to the filing, APM alleges that Johnson & Johnson used copyrighted sound recordings without permission in promotional videos on social media, specifically Facebook, Instagram, the former Twitter, and YouTube. APM claims this use infringes on their exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, and publicly perform the recordings.

The production music company says it first learned of the infringement earlier this year and contacted Johnson & Johnson, who allegedly refused to obtain licenses or even admit to any wrongdoing. APM is seeking an unspecified amount in damages, an injunction to stop further infringement, and attorney’s fees, asserting that Johnson & Johnson is liable for direct, contributory, and vicarious copyright infringement.

“As a direct and proximate result of [Johnson & Johnson’s] direct infringement of [APM’s] copyrights, Plaintiff is entitled to recover its actual damages, including Defendant’s profits from infringement, as will be proven at trial,” attorneys for APM write. Alternatively, the company claims it is entitled to recover up to $150,000 in statutory damages per infringed work.

APM’s catalog contains over 1 million tracks, which the company says consist of multiple “diverse and in-demand production libraries,” including Bruton, Cezame, KPM Music, Kosinus, and Sonoton. The company’s music has been synced on major entertainment properties such as Westworld, The Americans, Stranger Things, Game of Thrones, SpongeBob SquarePants, and several films and video games.

The lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson reads similarly to other recent lawsuits filed against large US companies for allegedly using unlicensed music in promotional and social media posts.

In July, a group of NBA teams were hit with lawsuits alleging the use of copyrighted music without permission in promo videos posted to the official NBA website and social media accounts. Those suits, filed by Kobalt Music Publishing and other publishers, called out teams including the New York Knicks and Denver Nuggets.

‘Only the songwriters suffer in this messed up, inequitable streaming licensing scheme,’ says Jody Dunitz, a former exec at Sony Music Publishing. Here’s her case for nixing the mechanical, sunsetting the MLC, and shifting the action to ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, and other PROs.

This year has featured lots of handwringing about Spotify’s bundling antics and their impact on mechanical royalties.  That revenue is taking a big hit.

But don’t cry for the major publishers who oversee 70% of the revenue-earning songs in the United States.  Their paychecks are secured by the label bosses whose streaming revenue hasn’t lessened one bit.

Only the songwriters suffer in this messed up, inequitable streaming licensing scheme.

Given the labels’ dominance of the negotiating hierarchy, song rights revenue can never top 20% of the finite streaming revenue pot.   Subscriber rate hikes mean the pot gets bigger (which Spotify and the labels love), but the song share of the pot doesn’t change.

Against that reality, direct licensing of mechanicals won’t fix anything.  That’s simply a head fake fantasy promoted by the head of the National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA), David Israelite.  It runs contrary to all principles of copyright law. Further, the idea that hundreds of publishers would negotiate thousands of songs separately with each streaming service is ridiculous and would crash the whole streaming business. The NMPA knows it, and the labels know it.

But there are actual practical fixes to this problem.

One is to “update” the US Copyright Act to eliminate the fiction that streaming triggers any mechanical royalty at all.

The simplified solution is to codify the position that the only “right” attached to musical compositions in streaming services is the “public performance” right.  (For the history of mechanical licensing in streaming, sink your teeth into this.)

In such a case, ASCAP and BMI (and the other minor PROs) would negotiate the full song royalty on behalf of all publishers and writers, collect 100% of all monies due, and distribute them through their very efficient payment systems. Combining the rights would take them outside the scope of Section 115’s compulsory license applicable to mechanical (reproduction) rights, eliminate the mess that would engulf direct licensing of mechanicals, and achieve Israelite’s purported goal of “market-based” negotiations.

There’s another huge benefit to songwriters if this reform were to prevail.  The songwriters’ share of performance income flows directly to them.  If all streaming revenue connected to songs were deemed “performance” income, the writers’ share would follow and flow directly to them. The publishers, of course, would hate this idea.

They like the fiction of “mechanical income” because it allows them to collect 100% of royalties so designated and use them to recoup writer advances and other costs. They also love the idea that with direct licensing, they could negotiate advances and non-recoupable fees from Spotify – just like the labels. And the best part is they wouldn’t have to share those monies with the writers, just like the labels keep their collected advances and fees from artists.

Publishers love Israelite’s calls for such action.  Songwriters should hate it.

The other option is to force all content stakeholders—labels, publishers, and songwriters—to arbitrate their respective share of the streaming revenue pot in a single hearing.

The most pernicious aspect of the US scheme for licensing streaming rights is that rates are set separately, in disconnected arenas, for each discrete element of streamed music. The labels negotiate the recordings’ rates directly with the streaming services. A government tribunal (under Section 115) sets rates for streaming mechanicals after long, costly hearings punctuated with obtuse testimonies by competing economists. Lastly, rates for performance income are set by yet another negotiation between the PROs with the services. This is nuts.

The content stakeholders know very well that each of them contributes an indispensable part of streamed music. They understand that these disjointed negotiations can never lead to an equitable split of the whole pot.

So why not adopt the standard app store model?

In the app store model, the platform takes a percentage off the top for its costs and profit margin and the content owners split the rest. Let the labels, publishers, and songwriters negotiate their respective shares among themselves. Employ (through clear legislation) the services of an “arbiter” panel to conduct hearings and allocate the content shares.  The federal copyright tribunal empowered under the current Section 115 has a history of accepting negotiated “settlements” to finalize rate procedures. There is precedent for such negotiations.

The only rub in the arbiter plan is that the songwriters, the most beleaguered community in this brawl, have no authentic industry-wide advocate to conduct negotiations for them.

NMPA is not a trusted agent for songwriters. The only viable industry representatives for songwriters are ASCAP and BMI.

Both are explicitly chartered to serve and protect songwriters (as well as publishers). They are well-funded and experienced negotiators. They should declare their allegiance to songwriters and forsake the publishers for this purpose (who can use their true agent, NMPA). In this mess, they should rise to the occasion and confront the label/publisher cabal obstructing royalty parity.

Both roads lead to a prominent role of the PROs. It is time to fix this debacle.

Photo Credit: Marques Thomas

Verizon is now filing a motion to dismiss the major labels’ infringement lawsuit, calling the entire action ‘legally deficient.’

Verizon claims the major labels’ lawsuit involving the amount of piracy on its network should be tossed out, arguing that the music companies can’t use the “same playbook” that saw them win a similar lawsuit against Cox Communications. According to the telecom provider, the music labels’ allegations rest on a “faulty premise.”

The case, filed in July by Sony Music Entertainment, Universal Music Group, and Warner Music Group, alleges that Verizon looked the other way in the face of repeated warnings of piracy on its network. Verizon effectively “[buried] its head in the sand” as its users illegally downloaded and shared music.

Now, Verizon is filing a beefy motion to dismiss the case, one that rips apart a number of major label assertions. According to the filing, viewed by DMN over the weekend, Verizon is calling the entire premise of the lawsuit “legally deficient” in asserting an internet provider should be held liable for its users’ behavior.

“When people do bad things online, their internet service providers are not typically the ones to blame. This lawsuit claims otherwise. The plaintiffs are massive record labels — together worth billions — alleging that some people illegally shared their artists’ songs over the internet. Yet they made a calculated choice not to sue those people,” Verizon’s attorneys wrote.

To prove that an internet provider is liable for secondary copyright infringement would require evidence of “culpable action, not passive inaction,” the attorneys for Verizon continue. “The labels do not allege that Verizon encouraged music piracy or even wanted it to happen. All Verizon did was sell general internet access, which some people abused to share copyrighted music with others.”

Verizon’s attorneys pointed out a 2023 ruling by the US Supreme Court in which it was found that companies like Facebook, Google, and Twitter could not be sued for “aiding and abetting” terrorism just because terrorists posted content to social media.

But the labels’ case against Verizon is just the latest in a long series of major lawsuits aimed at ISPs to encourage them to take more proactive steps in eliminating piracy on their networks. Similar cases have been filed against Charter, RCN, and Cox Communications.

“The labels filed this lawsuit because the same playbook has worked against others. But the decisions blessing those lawsuits were wrong then and even less persuasive now,” Verizon’s attorneys wrote. “This complaint should be dismissed.”

A federal judge has granted an appeal request from Kobalt as it faces a push from Spotify to foot a massive damages bill. Photo Credit: Wesley Tingey

With Spotify having scored a victory in a marathon royalties battle against Eminem publisher Eight Mile Style, the presiding judge has temporarily denied the streaming giant’s motion for a massive damages payment from Kobalt.  

Judge Aleta A. Trauger signed the corresponding order today, following a filing in which Kobalt urged the court to reconsider its underlying judgement or, alternatively, pause the damages bill pending appeal. DMN obtained exclusive copies of both legal documents, which have arrived over half a decade after Eight Mile levied the initial complaint.

For some quick background – the convoluted courtroom confrontation is decidedly unsuited for inverted-pyramid writing – that original infringement action named Spotify as the sole defendant, and the Harry Fox Agency was added as a second defendant in a 2020 amended complaint.

Then, Spotify in 2020 targeted Kobalt as a third-party defendant; DMN covered this development and all manner of others in detail. Stated concisely, though, the platform expressed the belief that the underlying allegations lacked merit while also claiming that if anyone should be on the hook for the allegedly due royalties and damages, it was Kobalt.

Fast forward past more than a few twists to mid-August of 2024, when the presiding judge, despite acknowledging that “Spotify’s handling of composer copyrights appears to have been seriously flawed,” partially signed off on the streaming service’s motion for summary judgement (and partially granted Kobalt’s own motion).

Keeping the focus on brass-tacks takeaways in the interest of relative brevity, regarding the terms of Spotify’s 2016 blanket license agreement with Kobalt, the court granted the platform’s summary judgement push for indemnification.

Zeroing in on the definition of “administrator,” the language of the agreement, and a whole lot of related subjects, the judge validated the indemnification clause notwithstanding Kobalt’s opposition.

The latter company, the actual contract spelled out in part, would hold Spotify “‘harmless from any and all third party claims, damages, liabilities, costs and expenses.’” On cue, Spotify filed a (sealed) motion to obtain compensation for a presumably huge legal-fees bill.

“In Spotify’s Motion for Award of Damages (Doc. No. 708),” the court wrote of the sealed motion, “it seeks substantial attorney’s fees, for which it has not submitted itemized attorney time entries, and suggests that the court may find it necessary to rely on a special master if the court seeks such documentation for review.”

Predictably, that expensive-sounding proposal didn’t sit right with Kobalt, which promptly urged the court to reconsider the underlying ruling or, alternatively, certify an interlocutory appeal.

As the third-party defendant sees it, the damages question hinges on the adopted definition of “administer,” and specifically whether the indemnification provision extended to works, like the Eminem compositions, for which Kobalt lacked the stateside authority to issue mechanical licenses.

(In the end, following the expiration of a prior deal, that authority ultimately rested with Bridgeport Music, a distinct publisher “closely associated” with Eight Mile Style, per the court’s order on the summary judgement motions.)

“Does the 2016 BMLA [blanket mechanical licensing agreement] require Kobalt to indemnify Spotify for Kobalt’s failure to license a composition over which it lacked U.S. mechanical licensing authority,” Judge Trauger summed up of the central question at play, “but over which it exercised other rights associated with administration, such as non-U.S. mechanical licensing, worldwide synch licensing (subject to publisher approval), and acceptance of license requests?”

Furthermore, it’d “be in the interests of justice and efficiency to allow the question of liability on those claims” – meaning those on which Spotify prevailed over Kobalt – “to be appealed alongside the other issues in this case,” Judge Trauger wrote.

Consequently, setting the stage for this appeal, the court also ordered judgement to be officially entered on all claims save those in favor of Spotify against Kobalt.

Photo Credit: Wesley Tingey

BMG is being sued by a company called Muvox LLC over patent infringement stemming from BMG Synch song-selection methodology.

A company called Muvox LLC is suing BMG and technology giant IBM in a separate filing for alleged patent infringement in the US. The lawsuit, filed in a Texas court last month, stems from a patent involving “a method for selecting a song” based on other songs with similar moods. Specifically, the lawsuit focuses on song recommendation features within the BMG Synch service.

The patent describes the method of selecting songs by “checking the one or more moods of the song against at least one other mood identification technique for a level of correlation between the one or more moods of the song and the one or more moods of the plurality of the other songs.”

Aperture Investments LLC is listed as the company to which the patent is assigned, and currently has around 15 patents, either active or pending, involving “streaming music categorization using rhythm, texture, and pitch” and “music selection and organization using rhythm, texture, and pitch.”

In the filing, Muvox describes the BMG Synch service as “a digital platform that allows clients to license music for synchronization purposes, [offering] a catalog of music from various artists, songwriters, and composers, providing a wide range of genres,” and that “users can search within this catalog, listen to tracks, etc.”

Muvox also accuses IBM of copying elements of its patent that recommends music based on the song’s “mood,” alleging that the infringing platform “is a cognitive cloud-based music program developed using AI and machine learning that uses musical notes to analyze moods and reproduce music based on the identified mood.”

The case against BMG is similar to those filed against Warner Music Group and Universal Music Group last year, regarding four patents related to the encoding and distribution of digital content. Those lawsuits, according to Bloomberg Law, were filed by Texas-based Blue Spike LLC in New York (WMG) and California (UMG).

Photo Credit: Colin Lloyd

Following a judge-ordered preliminary injunction against the Trump campaign from using Isaac Hayes’ music, the campaign has sought an emergency motion to postpone the deposition.

The Trump campaign played “Hold On, I’m Coming” regularly before his speeches, including one at the Republican National Convention in July. Isaac Hayes III, acting on behalf of Isaac Hayes Enterprises, sued Donald Trump and the Trump campaign for continuing to play the song despite requests to stop. Yesterday, federal judge Thomas Thrash granted a temporary injunction against the campaign’s use of the song until the court case is settled.

“Before we left court, we spoke to the Hayes’ attorneys and to Mr. Hayes III, about trying to work something out. We want this to be as a cooperative process as possible going forward,” Ronald Coleman, an attorney for Donald Trump, told reporters yesterday after news of the preliminary injunction broke. Now it appears Trump’s lawyers have filed a motion to postpone deposition in the case.

“As explained in the brief in support of this motion, deposition on the selected date is premature, and there is no longer any need for expedited discovery now that this court has ruled on the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction,” the motion suggests.

“Moreover, the Defendants lack adequate time to prepare—a difficulty exacerbated by the fact that Plaintiffs have neither listed ‘the matters for examination’ as required … nor provided any documents produced by BMI as required by the operative Notice of Deposition,” the motion continues.

“Further, as defendant Turning Point USA, Inc. is not a proper party, moving forward with the deposition now creates a risk that the deposition will need to be re-opened in the event Plaintiffs’ file a second amended complaint naming as a Defendant the proper party, Turning Point Action, Inc.”

“Defendants respectfully request that the Court decide this motion today, without waiting for a response, because the deposition is currently set for tomorrow. The primary basis for this motion did not exist until yesterday, when this court ruled on Plaintiffs’ emergency motion for preliminary injunction and thus eliminated any possible need or purpose for conducting the BMI deposition on an expedited basis.”

Meanwhile, Trumps attorneys are wrangling another case over his use of the 80s hit “Electric Avenue.” Eddy Grant sued Trump four years ago for using the song in a video making fun of Joe Biden. The August 2020 tweet was viewed 13.7 million times before Twitter took it down. Grant argues the same as Isaac Hayes’ son, that Trump owes him $300,000 in damages from the unauthorized use.

Photo Credit: Barry Manilow by Matt Becker / CC by 3.0

Barry Manilow sues Hipgnosis for $1.5 million over bonus payments due from their music catalog acquisition agreement.

Barry Manilow and Stiletto Entertainment are suing Hipgnosis Songs Fund for $1.5 million in unpaid bonus funds from his catalog sale to the company back in 2020, part of an ugly fallout between the parties. The lawsuit, filed in the US District Court of California and viewed by Digital Music News, asserts that bonuses were due as part of the acquisition of Manilow’s catalog, alleging breach of contract, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation.

Hipgnosis also alleged breach of contract, filing suit against Manilow just last month. A spokesperson for the company told Financial Times that “in discussion with Mr. Manilow’s representatives it became clear that there was a difference in understanding of certain clauses in the sale agreement regarding bonus payments.”

The purchase price, upon which both parties had agreed, included an upfront payment of $7.5 million, with two additional payments of $750,000 each, contingent on Hipgnosis’ income from the purchased royalties reaching certain benchmarks. The lawsuit claims Manilow’s songs “satisfied the necessary conditions to receive the two additional $750,000 purchase price payments based on the income received” by Hipgnosis during those years, which it says range from $404,388 to $550,383 during each of the relevant years.

Manilow and Stiletto’s complaint alleges that Hipgnosis and the company’s founder, Merck Mercuriadis — who notably stepped down earlier this year after the company’s stock tanked and music IP valuations slumped — misrepresented its experience and expertise to induce Manilow and Stiletto into the agreement.

Further, the filing asserts that Hipgnosis failed to actively promote and optimize the value of the purchased royalties as promised. “None of the promised marketing or promotion ever materialized. It has never consulted with Manilow or even attempted to so consult. It became clear that Hipgnosis made profoundly false promises.”

“It pledged to do so by leveraging its purported expertise, experience, and bench strength through its large staff,” the filing continues. “Hipgnosis promised to provide a full-time, dedicated team of qualified industry professionals to devote themselves to optimizing the value of the royalties they purchased.”

Hipgnosis, which was only launched in 2018, led the now-infamous “gold rush” on song catalogs by paying over $2 billion for music assets from artists including the Red Hot Chili Peppers and Neil Young. But the company’s pledges far exceeded its ability to make good on them, leading to plunging stock, shareholder unrest, and the company changing hands.

Photo Credit: United Press International / CC by 4.0

So who owns the Isaac Hayes co-penned song, “Hold On, I’m Coming?” His heirs insist they have the rights to the song, while the Trump campaign says they have lawfully obtained a license to utilize the song at political rallies.

The lawsuit filed by the estate of Isaac Hayes says the Trump campaign has been using the hit penned by Isaac Hayes and Dave Porter in 1966, written for the duo Sam & Dave. The lawsuit states that Isaac Hayes III, the heir of Isaac Hayes and President & CEO of Isaac Hayes Enterprises, exercised his right under U.S. copyright law to reclaim his rights to his father’s works after a period of 56 years.

Responding to those assertions in a 23-page filing, the Trump campaign argues that the Hayes estate “failed to meet any of the well-established requirements on which the extraordinary relief of a preliminary injunction must be grounded.” The argument they make is that Hayes does not own the copyright to the disputed song.

“Following a number of transactions over the decades, during which the rights to ‘Hold On, I’m Coming’ were held or purchased by various publishers, they ended up being split between Universal Music Publishing Group (UMPG), and Warner Chappell Music Publishing,” The Trump campaign asserts.

But Isaac Hayes III issued a legal filing addressing these complaints, showcasing how he re-obtained ownership of his father’s copyrights under U.S. Copyright law.

“After 56 years from the date of the original copyright, the author (or their heirs) can terminate the copyright transfer and regain control of the work. This provision is designed to give creators a second chance to benefit from their works after they may have initially signed away rights under unfavorable terms,” the filing states.

“On December 31, 2014, Isaac Hayes Enterprises filed notice to the U.S. Copyright Office, Universal Music Publishing Group, and Warner Chappell Music of the termination of several Isaac Hayes copyrights including “Hold On, I’m Coming.”

“In March 15, 2022, 56 years after the publication of ‘Hold On, I’m Coming’ written by Isaac Hayes and David Porter, Isaac Enterprises regained control of 50% of the copyright to ‘Hold On, I’m Coming’ legally terminating ownership by UMPG and WCM. The assertion by Sam Moore that Isaac Hayes Enterprises did not or does not own the copyright to ‘Hold On, I’m Coming’ is completely false.”

“In fact, 50% of all licensing in commerce for the use of the composition, words, and music of [the song] including for commercials, movies, or television as a work protected by copyright, was controlled by Isaac Hayes Enterprises.”

“On March 1, 2023, Isaac Hayes Enterprises and its heirs entered into an agreement with Primary Wave Music IP Fund 3. Under this agreement, we granted use rights of the Isaac Hayes catalog for the purposes of name, image, and likeness deals, synchronization opportunities to film, TV, and advertising and the 100% collection of royalties and administration of such royalties. Primary Wave Music is currently under an administration deal with UMPG to collect and disperse royalties.”

“Under this agreement, 50% of the Isaac Hayes Enterprises ownership of copyrights, including but not limited to [the song], were assigned to Primary Wave Music IP Fund 3 for the term of this agreement. Once the transfer was complete, Isaac Hayes Enterprises retained control of 25% of the copyright and Primary Wave controls 25% of the copyright.”

“Included in this agreement with Primary Wave is the right for approval of all licenses issued on behalf of Isaac Hayes Enterprises, by myself and Liz Garner prior to licenses being issued. As President of Hayes Enterprises, I have approved licenses for the use of [the song] for numerous advertisers from $150,000 to $450,000 per license.”

“Addressing the claim made by Justin Caporale that Donald Trump and the [Trump campaign] has a valid political use license, Trump [and his campaign] had a valid political use license from November 30, 2022 to June 5, 2024 per a signed license by Mr. Caporale and a letter terminating the use of [the song] by BMI signed by Pamela Williams, VP Legal & Business Affairs.”

“Outside the term of the BMI political use license, Donald Trump [and his campaign] played [the song] at rallies a total of 28 times before having a valid political use license and 18 times after the termination of the political use license for a total of 46 unauthorized uses of [the song] by Donald Trump [and his campaign.]”

Disagreeing with the litigation is Sam Moore, who has publicly offered his support for Donald Trump and wants to reserve the right to perform the song at political events of his choosing. It’s unclear what Isaac Hayes himself would have done, though Moore claims the litigation is politically motivated.

“The claim by Mr. Sam Moore that the motivation for this injunction is political in nature is a completely false narrative. This injunction is sought by Isaac Hayes Enterprises for copyright infringement and the association and perceived endorsement of the individual Donald Trump.”

An Atlanta judge seems to have agreed with Isaac Hayes III’s assessment of his situation, issuing a preliminary injunction against the Trump campaign’s continued use of “Hold On, I’m Coming.” The campaign will not have to remove videos of prior uses of the song—but it cannot continue to use the music while this case is being litigated.

Photo Credit: Shaboozey’s Instagram

Shaboozey files a lawsuit against his publisher and label with allegations that he was blocked from exercising an early termination contract clause.

Shaboozey has rocketed to stardom this year with his track “A Bar Song (Tipsy),” easily one of the biggest hits of 2024. But now he’s suing his former label and publisher, and his label is suing him right back, all within the last few days.

On Wednesday, August 21, Collins Obinna Chibueze, better known as Shaboozey, first sued Warner Chappell Music Publishing with allegations that Warner had blocked him from exercising a contract clause. This clause, he said, allowed him to terminate his contract early by repaying 110% of advances, which are sometimes paid to an artist ahead of royalty payments, and are then recouped from future royalties earned.

Further, Shaboozey alleged that as part of Warner’s block, the label refused to disclose the amount owed, making it impossible for him to exit the deal with a full transparency of the correct numbers.

His former label, Kreshendo Entertainment, is also named as a defendant in the lawsuit, with Shaboozey claiming they were in on Warner’s ploy, instructing Warner not to disclose the financial and sales information required for him to exit his contract. He also says Kreshendo released three of his songs without permission after he had terminated their deal.

Just two days after Shaboozey filed his lawsuit, Kreshendo filed a countersuit on August 23, accusing the artist of fraud and subterfuge to avoid fulfilling his contractual obligations. “Notably, Shaboozey had no issue with any of these terms for years,” Kreshendo alleges. “It was only after he recently released the ‘Bar Song,’ which has become a huge hit, that he has taken sudden issue with the terms he expressly agreed to.”

Kreshendo also claims to have spent “endless” time and resources building Shaboozey’s career, only to be sued once he became a success. One of the stipulations, they claim, was that they would own a 50% stake in all Shaboozey’s compositions and retain a right to be paid a percentage of profits from his masters. Their lawsuit claims the artist failed to pay the required profits.

Photo Credit: The Ramones by Danny Fields, 1977

Joey Ramone’s brother sues Johnny Ramone’s widow over the allegedly improper use of the band’s trademarks and intellectual property.

The Ramones family is complicated. First, none of the members are actually related, having taken the name “Ramone” upon joining the band. Second, with all its members having passed away, The Ramones’ intellectual property is owned by two separate heirs: Joey Ramone’s real-life brother Mitchel Hyman, better known as Mickey Leigh; and Johnny Ramone’s wife Linda Cummings-Ramone. And somewhat infamously, those two individuals do not get along.

In a seemingly endless sea of legal squabbles between the two, the latest is a new filing in which Mickey Leigh accuses Linda Cummings-Ramone of “exploiting” the band’s legacy through being “unabashedly obsessed with portraying herself as the widow of Johnny Ramone.”

The new lawsuit, filed Friday in Manhattan federal court, paints Cummings-Ramone as a “former groupie,” whose “insatiable desire to shine a spotlight on herself” has “made and continues to make blatant attempts to exploit and personally capitalize on and benefit from the name, goodwill, and legacy of the Ramones.”

“That is, to try and push the false narrative that she is the heiress to […] the Ramones’ legacy,” the filing explains. “She most certainly is not. She is nothing more than a blatant self-promoter and an infringer.”

“Ramones are unique in many ways,” the lawsuit explains. “One of which is that they are the only band of stature where all the members were not related, but used the same last name as if they were. That made it easy for defendant to insert herself into the Ramones legacy as part of the family, the public spokesperson, and to associate her personal brand with Ramones, by using the name ‘Linda Ramone.’”

Leigh’s lawsuit asserts that Cummings-Ramone adopted the group’s stage name as a means to attach herself to the ‘family.’ “Indeed, ‘Linda Ramone’ never existed while her husband, John Cummings, was alive,” Leigh’s lawsuit continues. “Defendant increasingly adopted the name ‘Linda Ramone’ after Mr. Cummings died.”

Further, Leigh claims that despite earlier legal proceedings outlining the limits to which Cummings-Ramone can use the Ramone name, she has exceeded those limits in her “public persona.”

“Ms. Cummings-Ramone presents herself to the world as ‘Linda Ramone’ and unilaterally adopts the mantle of designated Ramones spokesperson and ‘keeper of the legacy,’” said Leigh’s lawyers. “She intentionally gives the false impression that she is empowered to take the lead on, or unilaterally pursue, Ramones business.”

Last January, Cummings-Ramone filed a lawsuit after Netflix announced a biopic about the Ramones based on Mickey Leigh’s memoir, I Slept With Joey Ramone, in which Pete Davidson was cast in the title role. Cummings-Ramone argued that such an adaptation would be little more than “a one-sided recitation of the history of the Ramones.”

The copyright infringement lawsuit filed against X by Concord and others could run well into 2026. Photo Credit: Kelly Sikkema

Is 2026 shaping up to be a particularly jam-packed year for industry litigation? It certainly seems so, as the copyright complaint filed by Concord and other music publishers against X (formerly Twitter) might plod well past 2025.

This pertinent scheduling detail comes from the court’s initial case management order for the high-stakes dispute, which kicked off in June of 2023. Not long thereafter, the social platform, accused here of using a number of compositions without authorization both before and after selling to Elon Musk, pushed for dismissal.

The strategy was successful for X, as the court tossed part of the suit in March of 2024. Nevertheless, the case is still proceeding on contributory grounds and, given the mentioned order, could run through the remainder of 2024, the entirety of 2025, and a chunk of 2026.

While a date hasn’t been established for the trial (which is expected to span approximately 15 days), the current proposed timetable would require any amended pleadings to be filed by November 13th, 2024.

From there, discovery would wrap on July 17th, 2025, before all expert depositions concluded on or by January 15th, 2026. Then, dispositive motions and replies would assume center stage into April of 2026.

Stated differently, this schedule would keep the showdown alive into 2026, which, as noted, could bring trials and major developments in several especially significant industry cases.

Of course, it’s worth bearing in mind the potential for settlements to resolve some of these legal battles prior to trial. There’s also the possibility that they could take even longer to play out than suggested by their early schedules.

The infringement complaint filed against Meta by Epidemic Sound in 2022 was at one time expected to get a 2024 trial, for instance. Amid an evidently involved discovery process, though, the appropriate parties say they will just “substantially complete document production” by September’s end.

(Based on the information, the court has teed up another case management conference for October 17th.)

In any event, music publishers’ Anthropic infringement suit is tentatively set for a 2026 trial, as is the DOJ’s Live Nation antitrust complaint. Meanwhile, the major labels’ infringement litigation targeting Udio would proceed deep into 2025 under a schedule proposed earlier in August.

Separately, a federal judge recently opted against dismissing an action filed against Madonna, Justin Bieber, and an array of others over the Bored Ape Yacht Club NFT collection. However, Altice USA quietly settled a case brought by BMG and more, whereas Beyoncé and Jay-Z beat a “Break My Soul” infringement suit.

The major labels have officially asked the Supreme Court to weigh in on an appellate court’s ruling in a marathon copyright battle with Cox Communications. Photo Credit: Adam Michael Szuscik

The major labels have fired back against Cox Communications in their long-running copyright battle, asking the Supreme Court to review an appellate ruling that tossed a $1 billion infringement penalty.

Universal Music, Sony Music, and Warner Music just recently submitted their petition for a writ of certiorari, after Cox itself asked the Supreme Court to step in. At this point, even a semi-detailed recap of the underlying courtroom confrontation, which has delivered more than a few twists, would prove lengthy.

Keeping the focus on brass-tacks takeaways, however, a jury in December of 2019 ordered Cox to pay a whopping $1 billion over the alleged recording and compositional infringement in question. Predictably, the ISP promptly began working to beat the fine – ultimately achieving (partial) success in February of 2024.

That’s when an appellate court overturned Cox’s vicarious infringement liability and ordered a fresh trial to calculate damages owed. Explaining the ruling, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals spelled out that it had “reversed the vicarious liability verdict because Cox did not directly profit from its subscribers’ infringement.”

Of course, the position didn’t sit right with the major label plaintiffs, nor did the adjacent conclusion that “under the correct legal standard, no reasonable jury could find that Cox received a direct financial benefit from its subscribers’ infringement.”

Consequently, when Cox moved forward with its request for Supreme Court clarification, the majors disclosed plans to seek a review of different elements.

Said review, the music companies have now relayed in many more words, would determine whether vicarious infringement’s profitability requirement encompasses any expected gain for the wider commercial offering at hand or, in keeping with the Fourth Circuit’s findings, exclusively refers to expected gains directly from the infringement.

“This Court has never addressed the contours of vicarious liability for copyright infringement,” the close to 50-page filing reads in part, “but lower courts have long understood that the Copyright Act permits copyright owners to pursue claims for vicarious liability where the defendant expects to profit from the broader operation in which infringement occurs.”

Not stopping there, the legal text indicates that the Fourth Circuit’s ruling “stands opposite to the rest of the field” and “is contrary to Congress’s stated purpose in enacting the 1976 Amendments to the Copyright Act.”

“And it eliminates an especially important tool in the digital age where pursuing direct infringers—in this case, thousands of faceless individuals who cannot be identified except through an internet service provider like Respondent—is impractical at best and impossible at worst,” the document drives home of the Fourth Circuit findings.

While the potential answer to the key copyright law question is certainly important, so is the corresponding effort to restore the original $1 billion damages verdict against Cox. With the majors stressing that the appellate court’s “erroneous interpretation of the vicarious-liability standard wiped out a $1 billion jury verdict,” the push to reverse the ruling is likewise a push to bring back the massive penalty.

As a result, it’ll be interesting on multiple levels to see how the dispute, which has already spanned the better part of a decade, concludes. Furthermore, perhaps in light of the ultra-involved showdown, different ISPs are opting to settle infringement complaints against them.

The Long Island headquarters of Altice USA. Photo Credit: Kidfly182

Earlier in August, internet service provider Altice USA quietly settled the copyright infringement lawsuit filed against it by BMG and others. But a separate legal battle between the ISP and Warner Music Group (WMG) is still in full swing.

The latter stems from a complaint submitted by WMG, Sony Music Entertainment (SME), and an array of their subsidiaries in December of 2023. Resembling the settled copyright action levied by BMG as well as Universal Music Group (UMG), the newer suit accuses Altice of failing to address subscribers’ repeat infringement.

And now, despite the resolution of the older disagreement, the involved parties still appear to be slugging it out in connection with the 2023 complaint. Furthermore, the latest twist in the continued dispute, which was ordered into mediation this past May, directly concerns the settled suit.

As described by the plaintiffs in an early August motion to compel additional discovery, Altice had “produced extensive relevant discovery in the” courtroom confrontation with BMG. On the other hand, the ISP had “produced, essentially, nothing in the eight months that this case has been pending,” according to the filing entities.

Moreover, Altice and its counsel allegedly refused to turn over the sought materials “without articulating any burden,” having provided a total of “only” 1,408 documents at the time of the motion’s filing.

Thus, the plaintiffs asked the court to make the ISP produce the BMG suit’s discovery materials in their entirety within 10 days, attaching a proposed order for good measure.

Predictably, Altice fired back (including with a proposed order of its own) and opposed the request as “pure overreach, in violation of proper discovery practice, and a source of needless distraction and expense in a case with already significant discovery obligations.”

Running with those points, the court (not the aforesaid mediator) today set a September 9th hearing on the discovery motion. And while it’ll be interesting to see how the sub-dispute unfolds, the bigger takeaway is that this distinct action is playing out notwithstanding the other Altice case’s settlement.

Also playing out in one form or another are several different infringement suits targeting ISPs. Verizon was named in a complaint in July, whereas Cox Communications this month opted to take its long-running infringement showdown to the Supreme Court. As some know, December will mark the half-decade anniversary of the massive jury verdict handed down in the same Cox copyright case.

Photo Credit: Kunlun Tech/Melodio

On August 14th, 2024, Kunlun Tech announced Melodio, “the world’s first AI-powered music streaming platform.” Free to use and promising unlimited custom-listening options, the service immediately ignited conversations about the materials on which it was trained — and its potential to disrupt well-entrenched players like Spotify down the line.

Perhaps the most pressing question that remains unanswered: is Melodio being trained on copyrighted music, including works from major labels like WMG, UMG, and Sony Music? In an attempt to answer that question, DMN Pro took a look under the Melodio hood.

Report Table of Contents

I. Introduction: The Questions Raised by Kunlun Tech’s Melodio Announcement

II. Kunlun Tech’s AI Music Products: What We Know About Melodio (And Its Training Data)

Graph: Kunlun Tech’s Organizational Structure and Products At a Glance

III. Has Melodio Been Trained on Copyrighted Music? What the Available Evidence Tells Us

IV. AI Music Streaming in the Long Run: Are We Witnessing the Beginning of a Fundamental Industry Shift?

Please do not redistribute this report without permission. Thank you!

Photo Credit: Steve Johnson

Earlier this month, a 2026 trial date was tentatively set in music publishers’ Anthropic infringement suit – raising questions about the legal system’s ability to keep pace with AI. Now, it looks like a different copyright complaint, filed by the majors against Udio, won’t see a trial for some time yet.

The schedule-related update in the major labels’ action against Uncharted Labs/Udio (similar copyright litigation involving Suno was filed separately) emerged in a new case management plan. And predictably, there are key contrasts in the timetables sought by the rightsholder plaintiffs and the generative AI company.

Running with the point, Udio’s proposed an April 10th, 2025, cutoff for the “substantial completion of document production” – far later than the desired November 1st, 2024, deadline of the majors.

The plaintiffs’ deadline would extend solely to Udio’s fair use arguments, which, as we’ve long noted, are at the heart of this legal battle and different rightsholders suits targeting generative AIs. In brief, several developers are adamant that ingesting copyrighted materials en masse without rightsholder permission is transformative in the context of AI training.

“In the interests of judicial economy, limiting expense, and speeding resolution,” the majors spelled out, “Plaintiffs’ proposal sequences discovery to focus first on that central issue [the fair use argument] of liability.”

Expectedly, the gap between the preferred schedules only widens from there. Ideally, Universal Music and its fellow filing parties would like to see expert discovery (once again on the fair use question) conclude on Valentine’s Day this coming February; Udio is pushing for a date more than seven months later, September 26th, 2025.

Subsequently, the major labels are requesting a March 14th, 2025, wrap for summary judgement motions, compared to October 21st of the same year for Udio. And to reiterate the obvious, the slower litigation pace would easily keep the action alive deep into 2025.

“In fact,” the AI defendant and its counsel claimed in support of the more methodical approach, “Udio’s schedule proposes a faster timeline than that of many other AI cases—as well as other schedules this Court has adopted.”

Against the backdrop of a rapidly evolving AI landscape, and in light of the breakneck performance improvements the technology’s achieved across 2024’s first eight months, there’s simply no telling what artificial intelligence will look like during the final quarter of 2025.

Among different things, the situation underscores the idea (expressed in different words by Elon Musk, former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, and others) that it’s exceedingly difficult to get a hold on quick-moving and unprecedented technology in the courtroom.

In any event, the cases are, of course, in motion, with plenty riding on their outcomes not just from a monetary perspective, but especially when it comes to legal precedent. Closer to the present, AI’s reach in the music space is continuing to grow on multiple levels.

Photo Credit: (Clockwise) KRS-One, Scott La Rock, D-Nice / Boogie Down Productions 1987

Kanye West has quietly reached an agreement in the copyright infringement lawsuit with Boogie Down Productions over his track ‘Life of the Party.’

Kanye West, who now goes by Ye, has reached an agreement to be dismissed as a defendant from a copyright infringement lawsuit over his song, “Life of the Party.” The suit involves the allegedly unauthorized use of a sample from rap pioneers Boogie Down Productions.

Ye, along with Phase One Network, said on Friday (August 16) that they had reached an agreement to dismiss him from the lawsuit over the sample. Neither Phase One nor attorneys for Ye have responded to media requests for comment as to whether a settlement was reached.

Phase One sued Ye in November 2022 with allegations that “Life of the Party” uses an “exact reproduction” of a melody from Boogie Down’s 1987 track, “South Bronx,” as well as horn and drums. The Kanye West track features André 3000 and appeared on a deluxe version of West’s 2021 album, Donda, named for his late mother.

Notably, Phase One has not dismissed its case against British tech company Kano Computing, named as a co-defendant in the lawsuit. Kano developed the handheld audio device Stem Player with West through which his song was also released.

Ye’s legal team filed their motion to have the lawsuit dismissed back in June, claiming that the sample’s use while “creating the track and experimenting with it, with the intent to contact the license holder for approval as evidence by such act, is undoubtedly fair use.”

Their argument pointed out that one of the original members of Boogie Down Productions and “South Bronx” creators had previously granted (on film) all MCs access to his entire catalog. “You will not get sued if you sample a KRS-One record or do an interpolation of my lyrics. Anything. My entire catalog is open to the public.”

Phase One, therefore, bears the burden of proof “of its proper ownership […] in contrast to KRS-One’s dedication of the copyrights to the public at large. Failing to do so, Phase One’s complaint should be dismissed with prejudice.” That argument did not succeed.

An Altice USA call center. Photo Credit: Hudconja

20 months later, plaintiffs including BMG have officially settled the copyright infringement lawsuit they filed against internet service provider Altice USA.

The development came to light in a recent order approving the dismissal stipulation, which all the involved companies had been seeking. Besides New York City-based Altice and its CSC Holdings on the defendant side as well as the mentioned plaintiff BMG, that includes filing parties Concord and UMG Recordings.

Like the many additional infringement actions levied against ISPs by music companies, the initial complaint accused Altice of failing to address the repeat infringement of certain piracy-minded subscribers.

“Altice has knowingly contributed to and earned substantial profits from, copyright infringement committed by thousands of its subscribers,” the plaintiffs claimed in the straightforward 22-page suit.

And while updates on the up to $1 billion suit have been few and far between in the interim, behind-the-scenes talks evidently led to a settlement.

In approving the sought dismissal, the presiding judge tossed the claims with prejudice in their entirety, thereby closing the case altogether. Each party will “bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees,” the court clarified as well.

Predictably, neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants have come out and directly confirmed the terms associated with the presumed settlement. However, Altice (NYSE: ATUS) in its Q2 2024 earnings report acknowledged a staggering $46.6 million hit attributable to “restructuring, impairments and other operating items.”

The sum expressly includes “significant legal settlements” and represents a decidedly steep falloff from the $5.2 million surplus attached to the category for the prior-year period.

Shifting the focus to the bigger picture, time will tell whether the compromise lays the groundwork for another settlement with (and stems the tide of infringement litigation against) Altice.

Making $1 billion copyright complaints a holiday tradition for the ISP, Warner Music, Sony Music, and more submitted a separate suit against Altice in December of 2023. As things stand, that case remains active.

So do a variety of other infringement legal battles with ISPs such as Frontier Communications, Grande Communications (against which the majors scored a $47 million judgement), and most recently Verizon. The latter action made its way to a New York federal court in mid-July.

Meanwhile, Cox Communications earlier in August took its marathon courtroom confrontation with the majors to the Supreme Court. The formal call to rectify the “confusion, disruption, and chaos” at hand followed an astonishing $1 billion jury verdict against Cox in December of 2019.

Over four years (and multiple twists and turns) later, that award was vacated this past February, with the responsible appellate court ordering a new trial to determine damages owed.

Photo Credit: Cox Communications

Internet provider Cox asks the US Supreme Court to review the decision to hold it liable for piracy to the tune of $1 billion in damages.

Cox Communications has long been battling with a group of major record labels, resulting in a court ruling that found the ISP liable for the piracy committed by its users to the tune of $1 billion in damages. Now, Cox is asking the US Supreme Court to review the ruling that has created “confusion, disruption, and chaos on the internet.”

In February, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld part of a jury verdict that Cox committed secondary copyright infringement by failing to address user piracy. The Court of Appeals also threw out a $1 billion award for the labels, including Universal Music and Sony Music, ordering a new trial to determine the amount of damages Cox would owe.

Todd Smith, a spokesperson for Cox, said the company’s Supreme Court petition “aims to protect users’ privacy and avoid unintended consequences that will harm innocent and non-infringing consumers.”

“We look forward to responding to Cox’s petition, which on first read is substantively meritless,” said the labels’ attorney Matt Oppenheim of Oppenheim + Zebrak, adding that the labels would file their own Supreme Court challenge on Friday, seeking to reinstate the billion-dollar verdict.

Over 50 labels teamed up to sue Cox back in 2018, accusing the ISP of failing to address thousands of infringement notices, cut off access for repeat offenders, or take “reasonable measures” to deter piracy. In 2019, a Virginia jury found Cox owed over a billion dollars in damages for its customers’ violations of over 10,000 music copyrights.

But the 4th Circuit Court said in February that award would not stand, reversing part of the infringement verdict and ordering a new trial to determine damages. Cox insists it should not be liable for infringement at all.

The only way to avoid liability under the lower court decisions, according to Cox, would be to terminate internet service for “entire households, coffee shops, hospitals, universities, and even regional [ISPs] — the internet lifeline for tens of thousands of homes and businesses — merely because some unidentified person was previously alleged to have used the connection to infringe.”

What are the most active law firms and litigators in the music industry? Here’s a ranking based on nearly 140 active cases being tracked by DMN Pro.

Litigation is hardly rare in the music industry, where each month brings a slate of new cases. But which legal professionals are representing the parties behind the suits?

A detailed answer to that question is made possible by DMN Pro’s soon-to-be-released Music Industry Lawsuit Tracker. We’ve already capitalized on the comprehensive, filterable database of industry and industry-adjacent litigation to break down some particularly interesting cases.

But easy access to the most significant industry suits isn’t the only perk of the one-stop hub, which also compiles each action’s case number, date filed, venue, parties, type, presiding judge, and counsel – so stay tuned. The latter category will include attorneys for plaintiffs and defendants alike, and among other things.

With that said, which teams are representing clients across the roughly 140 (and growing) cases within DMN Pro’s Music Industry Lawsuit Tracker?

Read on.

Report Table of Contents

I. Law Firms Mentioned In This Report

II. Introduction: The Pile of Music Industry Litigation – And DMN Pro’s Forthcoming Music Industry Lawsuit Tracker

III. Industry Litigation Representation by the Numbers – Today’s Most Active Legal Powerhouses

Graph: Music Industry Litigation by Firm, Top Level: Actively Tracked Cases as of August 2024

V. Who’s Litigating What? Where Leading Firms Fall When It Comes to Practice Areas

Graph: Music Industry Copyright Litigation by Firm, Active Tracked Cases as of August 2024

VI. DMN Pro’s Music Industry Lawsuit Tracker and the Quick-Moving Legal Landscape: What to Expect from the All-Encompassing Database

VII. Appendix I: Top Firms by Number of Cases – And Other Fun Data Bits on Music Industry Litigation

VIII. Appendix II: A Grab Bag of Copyright, Trademark, and Patent Lawsuits Roiling the Music Industry

The following report is for  DMN Pro subscribers only. Please do not redistribute without permission — thank you!

Photo Credit: SiriusXM

Has SoundExchange’s unpaid royalties lawsuit against SiriusXM evolved into an all-out war? The satellite radio giant is hitting back at the complaint and demanding, among other things, damages for counterclaims.

SiriusXM submitted its answer and counterclaims today, approximately one year after SoundExchange sued for north of $150 million in allegedly owed royalties. Besides covering the case in detail at the time, we’ve charted the courtroom confrontation’s twists and turns in the interim.

In summary, SoundExchange chalks up the alleged underpayment to SiriusXM’s “artificial” inflation of revenue attributable to webcasting in joint satellite and online radio packages. Royalties are calculated at different rates for each, and predictably, the plaintiff says the purported misclassification brought about massive unlawful savings for the defendant.

Now, 12 months and one venue change later, SiriusXM is swiping back harder than ever, including by refuting the complaint’s allegations.

Moving beyond that point-by-point refutation, SiriusXM’s affirmative defenses encompass but aren’t limited to arguments that the action fails to state a claim and is time barred. Consequently, the case should be tossed with prejudice, according to SiriusXM, the Pandora subsidiary of which is embroiled in a royalties lawsuit with the MLC on the compositional side.

However, far and away the most interesting component of SiriusXM’s aggressive opposition to the action is the aforementioned collection of counterclaims.

Keeping the focus on brass-tacks takeaways, SiriusXM is alleging that it “unavoidably overpaid SoundExchange significant excess royalties on revenue” from the joint satellite and online packages while it was refining its reduction and calculation methodology. Among other things, said effort to refine the calculations involved a survey to see how exactly SiriusXM subscribers were listening. With push having come to shove, SiriusXM is seeking the “recoupment of the excess royalties.”

Next, the accounting firm (Adeptus Partners) enlisted by SoundExchange to audit SiriusXM’s 2018 royalty statements, far from being truly independent as required by the CRB, maintained “loyalty and partiality to SoundExchange throughout its protracted examination of” the financials at hand, according to the defendant.

Not stopping at rattling off a laundry list of qualms with Adeptus, SiriusXM says the firm effectively “sought to nullify” its direct licenses and make it cough up overlapping payments under the statutory license to boot.

“Adeptus’s improper conduct was at the behest of its consulting client, SoundExchange, which has for years attempted to frustrate Sirius XM’s ability to exclude appropriate amounts from its Gross Revenues calculations as well as its right to engage in direct licensing,” the satellite radio company’s answer drives home of the allegedly “drawn-out and intrusive investigation.”

Moving beyond the multifaceted war of words – also at issue are the methodology specifics behind the previously noted user survey, SiriusXM’s payments stemming from the Adeptus audit, and a whole lot else – SiriusXM has formally requested a ruling in its favor when it comes to the core complaint.

Furthermore, the entity is seeking a declaratory judgement that Adeptus isn’t an independent certified public accountant as defined by the CRB and that its royalties investigation therefore “does not qualify as an audit within the meaning of” the same regulations. Lastly, SiriusXM is calling for damages in connection with the counterclaims as well as pre- and post-judgement costs and fees.

A high-stakes case between music publishers and Anthropic is seemingly set for a 2026 trial at the earliest. Photo Credit: Steve Johnson

Is the AI space evolving too quickly for the legal system to keep up? It certainly seems so, as music publishers’ high-stakes copyright infringement litigation against Anthropic might not receive a trial until 2026.

The involved parties outlined that proposed schedule in a joint case management statement yesterday, about 10 months after Universal Music Publishing Group, Concord, and other music publishers sued Amazon-backed Anthropic.

As most probably know, the straightforward-but-important suit, one of several ongoing copyright actions against generative AI developers, centers on the training process behind Anthropic’s Claude chatbot.

In short, the publisher plaintiffs say the product infringed on their protected compositions during said training process and in its outputs when responding to certain user prompts. Like other AI players, Anthropic is adamant that its training maneuvers fall under the fair use banner.

It will be a while before we have definitive answers to the significant questions raised by those clashing positions.

Though many moving parts and a far-off timetable mean nothing is set in stone, the publishers themselves want a trial date between mid-March and April 1st of 2026, the aforementioned case management statement shows.

Anthropic, for its part, is calling for a slightly nearer trial that, with a start date between December 2nd of 2025 and January 13th of 2026, still wouldn’t initiate for another 16 months from now.

Particularly in light of AI’s breakneck evolution, there’s no telling what the technology will look like – or be capable of – at that point. Exactly how this affects the case (and the broader battle against AI giants) remains to be seen, but Elon Musk’s comments may be ringing true when it comes to the technology’s advancing too quickly for courtroom confrontations to keep pace.

Of course, as previously little-known companies in a heretofore seldom-discussed sector went ahead and ingested a massive chunk of the world’s protected media into their products without authorization, it’s unclear whether preemptive steps could have produced a different outcome.

In any event, it’s not as if the filing-party publishers (or the plaintiffs in similar suits) are sitting idly by ahead of the sought 2026 trial. Having renewed calls for a preliminary injunction blocking Anthropic from continuing to train on their compositions and incorporating the materials into outputs, the publishers just days ago saw the RIAA submit an amicus brief in support of the push.

However this component of the case plays out, we won’t have answers overnight. Anthropic is set to outline its opposition to the preliminary injunction motion on August 22nd, with the publishers expected to reply on September 12th ahead of an October 10th hearing.

And before that, Anthropic is poised to file a dismissal motion next Thursday, August 15th.

A live performance from Beyoncé, who, along with Big Freedia and others, is no longer facing a copyright complaint over ‘Break My Soul.’ Photo Credit: Raph_PH

Less than three months after it was submitted, a copyright infringement lawsuit against Beyoncé, Jay-Z, Sony Music, and Big Freedia has been dismissed with prejudice.

The development emerged in a newly filed notice of voluntary dismissal from the plaintiffs’ counsel. Said plaintiffs, collectively a New Orleans-based group called Da Showstoppaz, didn’t shed light on the precise reasons for the case’s abrupt withdrawal.

However, the complaint is now in the rearview for “all defendants,” including several others besides those mentioned above, the notice spells out.

As described in the original action, which we covered when it was filed in late May, the plaintiffs said they’d met in 2001, put out a track entitled “Release a Wiggle” for a local mixtape, and then purportedly achieved regional recognition with the work in 2003 and the top of 2004.

Hurricane Katrina and different factors brought about the split of Da Showstoppaz, who had failed to register “Release a Wiggle” at the time of its creation, per the initial suit. (These Copyright Office registrations would arrive in 2022 and 2023, the plaintiffs indicated.)

Roughly a decade later, one of the plaintiffs opted to upload to their personal YouTube channel “Release a Wiggle,” which was soon thereafter allegedly copied without permission in New Orleans-born Big Freedia’s “Explode.” And Beyoncé, for her part, was accused of infringing on the plaintiffs’ work when she sampled “Explode” in Renaissance’s “Break My Soul.”

Notwithstanding this dismissal, we’re hardly without interesting, still-active industry litigation, referring to a growing collection of infringement battles and more.

Last month, Warner Music, Cardi B, and others were accused of lifting elements of “Greasy Frybread” sans authorization to create “Enough (Miami).”

Also in July, the Beastie Boys sued the parent company of Chili’s for allegedly using “Sabotage” in a social media promo without a license, while the major labels are litigating against Verizon over an alleged failure to adequately address internet subscribers’ repeat infringement.

And north of a dozen NBA teams are facing suits from Kobalt, Dr. Luke’s Prescription Songs, and more for allegedly incorporating protected works into videos without permission. Not ending there, July’s list of new copyright litigation includes as well singer Gloria Gaynor’s action against her former producer.

In terms of updates concerning existing courtroom confrontations, Daddy Yankee, the Black Eyed Peas, and Sony Music Entertainment moved to dismiss fraud charges in a separate copyright dispute, centering this time on “Bailar Contigo.”

Photo Credit: Ashley King

An amicus brief filed in support of a court injunction against AI company Anthropic seeks to have the startup stop using lyrics without permission. Major label trade group RIAA argues that Anthropic’s defense is the same position Napster took in the late 90s.

Universal Music Publishing Group, Concord, and Abkco sued Anthropic in October 2023, alleging copyright infringement of their songs. Anthropic is an AI startup founded in 2021 by four former OpenAI employees and has received an investment from Amazon worth up to $4 billion. The lawsuit alleges that Anthropic’s chatbot Claude has infringed on the publishers’ copyrights by training Claude on their songs and by posting the songs’ lyrics in prompted answers.

Lyrics websites like Genius or LyricFind typically republish lyrics after they have signed a licensing agreement with the music publishers. However, Anthropic allegedly scraped these lyrics websites to train Claude, bypassing any licensing agreement that would be set up. When prompted, Claude provided lyrics to Katy Perry’s “Roar,” to which Concord owns the rights. Other songs tested include Gloria Gaynor’s “I Will Survive” (UMPG), and The Rolling Stones’ “You Can’t Always Get What You Want” (Abkco).

Plaintiffs allege that lyrics results are often returned as prompts, for example, asking Claude to write a song about the death of Buddy Holly returns most of Don McLean’s “American Pie.” When asked to write a song about moving to Bel Air from Philadelphia, the chat bot returns the lyrics of “The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air.” It also alleges when asked to write a short fiction in the style of Louis Armstrong, the chat bot mostly returned portions of the song “What A Wonderful World.”

In responding to the lawsuit, Anthropic did not deny that it trained Claude on these lyrics, but argues that their use falls under ‘fair use.’ Anthropic says the chat bot should not produce the lyrics in a 1:1 copy, but if it did that it was a bug rather than an intended feature of the chatbot.

“Anthropic has always had guardrails in place to try to prevent that result. If those measures failed in some instances in the past, that would have been a bug, not a feature of the product,” Anthropic writes in its response. Music publishers ask the court to issue an injunction that requires Anthropic to “maintain guardrails to prevent its AI models from generating output that contains publishers’ lyrics” and to “refrain from using unauthorized copies of such lyrics to train future AI models.”

Now a bevy of music industry organizations have weighed in on the proceedings in an amicus curiae brief in support of these publishers. The RIAA, Artist Rights Alliance, and the Music Artists Coalition argue that while other AI companies agreed to licensing deals, Anthropic has so far refused.

“[M]any companies in the AI field have obtained licenses to use copyrighted content for AI model training and other purposes,” the brief states. “These companies are willing and able to comply with the law as they develop generative AI software—but not Anthropic. In order to obtain an advantage over its competitors, Anthropic has refused to license or compensate the authors and owners of the highly creative, copyrighted works that it copies and uses to generate competing works. Anthropic has argued ‘fair use.’ It is not.”

“The false choice that Anthropic have presented between compliance with copyright law and technological progress is a well-worn, losing policy argument previously made by other mass infringers such as Napster and Grokster in their heyday. Anthropic and COP even employ the same rhetoric as those pirate sites,” the amicus brief states.

The brief states that shutting down Napster and Grokster did not hurt technological progress. Instead, it paved the way for legal music streaming services that properly compensates rights holders when their music is streamed from any service which licenses it.

Photo: Pavel Danilyuk

Two critical court cases carry the potential to change the music industry for decades to come — and this is anything but a slam dunk for the major labels. So where do things stand in these all-important battles?

Millions of dollars and potentially far-reaching precedents are on the line in the major labels’ intensifying copyright infringement lawsuits against Suno and Udio. Here’s an in-depth look at where the cases stand and how they could play out.

Table of Contents

I. The Music Industry’s Most Critical AI Legal Battles Are Just Getting Started

II. The Major Labels v. Suno and Udio — A Quick Recap of the Industry’s Most Pressing AI Infringement Actions

III. Fair Use AI Training and the Commercial Implications Thereof: The Surprisingly Strong Arguments of Suno and Udio

IV. The RIAA v. Suno and Udio Moving Forward — A Closing Look At the Cases’ Significance In and Beyond the Industry

V. Appendix: A Refresher on Other Ongoing AI Infringement Litigation

Please do not redistribute this report without permission — thank you!

Photo Credit: Joakim Honkasalo

International associations of authors’ collective management organizations respond to the recent cut in the private copying compensation plan in Finland.

Associations worldwide representing authors’ collective management organizations in the music and visual arts sectors — including CISAC, EVA, IFRRO, GESAC, and the SAA — have responded to Finland’s recent cut to its private copying compensation plan, urging the country to reverse the decision.

The organizations have joined forces to express “great concern on behalf of both the Finnish authors and all European/international authors community whose rights are represented in Finland through our Finnish members.”

According to the response posted to CISAC’s website, the Finnish government “cannot justify” its decision to halve the level of private copying compensation paid from the state budget from 11 million euros ($12 million) to 5.5 million euros ($6 million). “This decision, taken without a proper economic assessment of its impact on rightsholders, would have harmful and destructive consequences for authors and the whole creative ecosystem in Finland.”

“The compensation for private copying is mandatory under the Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonization of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society […] and the Finnish Copyright Act as a condition to the freedom of citizen to copy works for their private use through a private copying exception,” the letter continues. “Finland thus has the responsibility to organize and secure this fair compensation to authors.”

The authors’ collective management organizations stress that private copying compensation is a significant source of income for authors in the European Union and beyond. “In Finland, a yearly amount of 5.5 million euros to be split between authors, performers, producers, and publishers in the audiovisual, music, text, and visual arts sectors cannot be considered in any way as an adequate, sufficient, or fair compensation for private copying.”

They assert the cut would harm authors and the Finnish cultural sector in two significant ways — the most obvious being that the amount of compensation authors receive in the creative fields would suddenly be reduced by 50%. But cultural promotion centers, partially sustained by private copy compensation, would need to “considerably reduce” their support to events and the creation of new works in the sector.

The cultural sector, which is still recovering from the pandemic in 2020, would be affected catastrophically in Finland, where culture has a significant impact on the economy. “Today, about 140 films and works of media art are financed annually with AVEK’s support [The Promotion Centre for Audiovisual Culture] and 200 municipalities events are financed with grants from MES [The Foundation for Music Promotion],” the organizations write. “We therefore find it disconcerting that the Finnish government would want to make it even more difficult to create new works and generate growth in the creative industries.”

The letter asks that the Finnish government reconsider its decision, ensuring that the level of private copying revenue is maintained at least at 11 million euros. Further, they ask the government to update the private copying system to accurately reflect the “actual number of copies being made and their extensive use,” in order to ensure a sustainable and fair level of compensation, especially in the digital landscape.

Signatories include CISAC (International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers), EVA (European Visual Artists), GESAC (European Authors’ Society), IFRRO (International Federation of Reproduction Rights Organizations), and the SAA (The Society of Audiovisual Authors).

Photo Credit: Spotify

British startup Bluejay Technologies sues Spotify for patent infringement over their Remote Group Session and Jam listening features.

Bluejay Technologies, a London-based startup which developed an app in 2015 for users to create a playlist and then invite friends to join in and listen simultaneously, is suing Spotify for copyright infringement. The lawsuit focuses on the streaming giant’s “Jam” and “Remote Group Sessions” collaborative listening features, which Bluejay asserts the company copied from its patent without permission.

According to the filing, Bluejay shared detailed information about its patented technology with Spotify during discussions in 2018, but in 2020, Spotify subsequently launched their own collaborative listening features without authorization. The complaint was filed on August 2nd in the US District Court for the Central District of California and subsequently shared with Digital Music News.

Bluejay says that while in “B2B discussions with streaming companies and music labels” during its fundraising phase, the company provided “detailed PowerPoint presentations” of how its app worked on a technical level. The complaint also details how Spotify discussed an NDA with Bluejay at the time, aware that the technologies being discussed were proprietary.

In 2020, Spotify launched its “Remote Group Sessions” feature, and then its “Jam” DJ feature in 2023. In April 2023, Bluejay was awarded a patent for its “System for Streaming,” which it asserts Spotify is utilizing in the aforementioned features.

“Jam provides simultaneous searching for users in a session in which a premium customer may restart the session and any user may join the session. This service was promoted as a way to engage, share, and discover music with friends,” the filing reads. “Jam utilizes Bluejay’s patented technology in providing services in Group Session and Jam (the accused services) including providing a shared playlist where playlist management is limited to the host.”

The complaint includes a technical explanation of how the functionality of Spotify’s collaborative listening features infringe upon Bluejay’s own patented technology. The British company is seeking damages for the alleged infringement, as well as pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, costs, and attorney fees.

Spotify has yet to comment on the lawsuit or Bluejay’s allegations.

Generative AI platforms Udio and Suno have taken aim at the arguments introduced by the majors in a pair of infringement suits. Photo Credit: BoliviaInteligente

AI-powered music-creation platforms Suno and Udio have officially fired back against the high-stakes copyright infringement lawsuits they’re facing from the major labels.

Both defendants just recently took aim at the suits; Udio is being sued in a New York federal court, while Suno is facing a separate-but-similar action in Massachusetts. We’ve covered the cases – and a public war of words between the defendants and the RIAA – in detail.

At the top level, though, they revolve around the all-important question of whether companies have the legal authority to copy and train generative AIs on protected materials (which are then incorporated into outputs) without the authorization of rightsholders.

Predictably, Suno and Udio are adamant that they do possess the authority, with the training process at hand purportedly drawing from the basic “building blocks of music” and constituting fair use, per their filings.

Putting everything out in the open, the AI companies in their answers directly acknowledged that both models utilized the majors’ recordings to train.

“The many recordings that Udio’s model was trained on presumably included recordings whose rights are owned by the Plaintiffs in this case,” reads one relevant line.

But doing so is lawful under copyright law, the responses claim in more words, including not only when recordings are copied behind the scenes but, more than that, when the AI outputs share characteristics with protected works.

“Under longstanding precedent,” Udio and its counsel wrote on the former front, “it is fair use to make a copy of a protected work as part of a back-end technological process, invisible to the public, in the service of creating an ultimately non-infringing new product.”

And on the equally important output side, the defendants underscored the belief that copyright law, owing to a described carve-out of sorts for recordings resembling existing works but not copying directly, permits their soundalike outputs.

“Even to the extent that Udio’s outputs ‘imitate or simulate’ sounds in the Plaintiffs’ recordings,” Udio penned, “Congress made the public policy choice to immunize such new creations from copyright infringement liability, so long as they do not themselves contain actual snippets of pre-existing recordings. Which they do not.”

Taking that important argument a step further – and using as an example Frank Sinatra’s “My Way,” which the majors say has been infringed upon because an output allegedly shared melodic characteristics with the famed recording – Udio emphasized the “literally hundreds of different recordings” of the work available on streaming platforms.

“Consequently,” Udio relayed, “Plaintiffs’ argument betrays a profound misunderstanding of the technology at issue by suggesting that UMG’s particular version must have been in the training set because Udio allegedly generated an output that contains ‘melodic similarities to the Sinatra original throughout.’ So too do countless other recordings of the song.”

Attempting to replicate the recording with a prompt containing the “My Way” lyrics, Udio added for good measure, allegedly violated its terms of use.

“No one owns musical styles,” the platform concluded. “Developing a tool to empower many more people to create music, by analyzing on a massive scale the relationships among notes and rhythms and tones to ascertain the building blocks of different musical styles, is a quintessential fair use under longstanding and unbroken copyright doctrine.”

Suno responded to the RIAA-spearheaded suit with similar arguments, and both also took the opportunity to point out the majors’ perceived “aversion to competition,” depicting generative AI as the latest in a line of resisted but ultimately accepted innovations.

Furthermore, “the major record labels wield massive market power” and haven’t “hesitated to exploit it in fundamentally anticompetitive ways,” according to both answers, which maintain that the alleged anticompetitive behavior is carrying over to dealings within the AI sector.

The RIAA reached out with a roughly 250-word statement about the responses, seizing on the above-described training admissions and doubling down on its position.

“After months of evading and misleading,” an RIAA spokesperson communicated in part, “defendants have finally admitted their massive unlicensed copying of artists’ recordings. It’s a major concession of facts they spent months trying to hide and acknowledged only when forced by a lawsuit.

“Their industrial scale infringement does not qualify as ‘fair use’. There’s nothing fair about stealing an artist’s life’s work, extracting its core value, and repackaging it to compete directly with the originals, as the Supreme Court just held in its landmark Warhol Foundation case.

“Defendants had a ready lawful path to bring their products and tools to the market – obtain consent before using their work, as many of their competitors already have. That unfair competition is directly at issue in these cases.”

A breakdown of active music industry lawsuits by category, August 2024 (Source: DMN Pro)

One thing the music industry doesn’t lack is litigation – or threats of litigation. But what kinds of disputes are behind the steady stream of lawsuits?

DMN Pro zeroed in on that question by analyzing data from its soon-to-be-released Music Industry Litigation Tracker. Comprehensive and filterable, the one-stop database of industry and industry-adjacent suits will feature a variety of case-specific details – from the involved parties and their counsel to assigned judges and court venues.

Table of Contents

I. Introduction – And a Teaser for DMN Pro’s Upcoming Music Industry Litigation Tracker

II. Industry Litigation At a Glance: A Percentage Breakdown of Case Types, August 2024

III. Copyright Infringement Actions Take Center Stage – With Surprisingly Little Precedent to Show for It

IV. Trouble Beneath the Surface: The Influx of Royalty-Collection Lawsuits Against Music Services

V. Music-Space Lawsuits Moving Forward: What to Expect in 2024 and Beyond

VI. Appendix: A Grab Bag of Copyright, Trademark, and Patent Lawsuits Roiling the Music Industry

Please do not redistribute this report without permission. Thank you!

Photo Credit: Jace & Afsoon

Major labels shift their $400 million legal action against the Internet Archive’s Great 78 Project into alternative dispute resolution.

The US record industry, including major labels like Universal Music and Sony Music, is shifting their $400 million legal action against the Internet Archive’s Great 78 Project, which has digitized and made available over 400,000 recordings originally released as 78rpm records, to alternative dispute resolution. The Internet Archive has argued that the Great 78 Project is a not-for-profit venture seeking to “systematically digitize” all the old recordings in question, “hisses, pops, and all, in order to preserve them for scholars and future generations.”

But the music companies have countered that “there is zero basis for arguing that the hisses, crackles, and pops that have developed over time grant defendants the right to copy, distribute, and transmit on a mass scale recordings that they know copyright law protects.” Further, they add that the “crackles” do not represent a historical record of the original recording, instead simply illustrating the “flaws” of an old physical record format that degrades with time.

The labels first sued the Internet Archive back in August last year, to which the Internet Archive responded by filing a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, raising the question of statute of limitations as well as fair use. In its argument, the Internet Archive mainly focused on the statute of limitations, that the infringement action must be filed within three years of either the actual infringement that took place, or when the copyright owner becomes aware of it.

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) sent the Internet Archive a cease and desist letter in July 2020, which suggests its members were aware of the infringement at the time. But the lawsuit wasn’t filed until three years later, which the Internet Archive argued was too late for some of the recordings over which they were suing were copied beyond the statute of limitations. The claims in relation to those recordings, they argue, should therefore be dismissed.

Further, the Internet Archive’s filing claimed that its archiving of the old 78rpm records “fall[s] squarely within both the text and spirit of the Copyright Act’s fair use defense.” In response, the music companies countered that “fair use cannot be perverted into forfeiting a sound recording’s protection under copyright law just because the recording is copied, distributed, and performed in something other than its cleanest sound.”

Ultimately, presiding Judge Maxine Chesney rejected multiple dismissal motions, and the infringement lawsuit will proceed, albeit shifting into private alternative dispute resolution (ADR). As of July 30, the case docket still reads that the case has been referred to “Private ADR,” which may still take months to fully resolve.

Photo Credit: Kathrine Heigan

South Africa hits back against the IIPA’s assertion that the country isn’t doing enough to combat copyright infringement, defending its broad fair use exceptions.

The International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA), which represents the ESA, MPA, and RIAA, among others, recently published its findings on the latest eligibility review of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). Led by the US Trade Representative (USTR), the process determines which sub-Saharan African countries are eligible for certain trade benefits, and which, at the opposite end of the spectrum, should be sanctioned.

In particular, the IIPA is worried that South Africa isn’t doing enough to deter copyright infringement, alongside concerns that proposed “fair use exceptions,” modeled in part after US laws, could “lead to problems” for South Africa. But that critique hasn’t gone unnoticed by the African country.

Now, the South African government has sent a response to the USTR addressing IIPA’s concerns, pointing out that the copyright law hasn’t even been implemented yet, so it would be premature for the US to use it as a basis for sanctions. But that detail aside, South Africa is openly rejecting IIPA’s critique.

Principally, the South African government points out that the copyright group’s arguments are not new, as they had been discussed during open review processes and considered by parliament, “which simply disagrees with the notion” that broad fair use exceptions will create an issue.

“In general, the position in the CAB [Copyright Amendment Bill], on fair use, recognizes that copyright regimes across the world are slowly moving away from the closed-list system to an open system, which will keep up with innovation, and changing digital environment,” the statement from the South African government reads. “Fair dealing in our current Copyright Act is outdated, limited, and static, and does not address the digital world. Fair use, on the other hand, is progressive, dynamic and future-proof, and ‘digital-friendly’.”

“Globally, research has found that fair use has not impacted negatively on the economy. On the contrary, there is evidence that shows that countries with open exceptions and fair use have high levels of innovation, economic growth, and development. It is a fact that fair use was coded in the US Copyright Act of 1976 and has not had to be amended, as it applies to new technologies as they arise. Other countries have also adopted fair use in their copyright laws and more countries are considering it, because it is ‘future-proof’ and benefits users and producers of information and knowledge, [and] give clarity to what can be used and reused,” South Africa continues.

South Africa is clearly ready to move forward, with this recent letter and direct pushback against the copyright lobby, making apparent its disinterest in continued negotiations. The letter makes clear that the concerns of rights holders have been noted, and even cites the United States having set the example with its fair use law that remains mostly unchanged nearly 50 years later.

Photo Credit: annulla / CC by 2.0

Gloria Gaynor is suing her former producer with allegations of breach of contract, copyright infringement, and unpaid royalties.

Singer Gloria Gaynor, best known for her 1978 hit “I Will Survive,” is suing her former music producer Joel Diamond, alleging that he and his companies breached their contract and infringed her copyright, failing to pay her and songwriter Robin Randall royalties owed. The lawsuit seeks to terminate Diamond’s contracts with both Gaynor and Randall, as well as at least $2 million in damages, legal fees, and royalties owed.

The lawsuit, filed in a New York federal court on Friday, July 26, says Gaynor initially entered into a contract with Diamond in 1983. According to Gaynor, Diamond has claimed this is a work-for-hire contract, which would mean all rights to the songs Gaynor created while under contract belong to Diamond. Gaynor and her legal team say this is not true, asserting that she continues to own all rights to the songs she has created and performed.

Robin Randall, a plaintiff in the lawsuit alongside Gaynor, worked as a songwriting team with her mother, Judithe Randall, until the latter’s death in 2002. Robin Randall alleges that Diamond committed fraud in 2000 by convincing her aging mother to sign over ownership rights to the songs the duo had written, while Judithe Randall had begun showing signs of “mental incapacitation.” The elder Randall was hospitalized in 2001 and diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.

“Diamond fraudulently induced, and otherwise wrongfully caused Judithe Randall to sign over her ownership rights to many copyrighted works, including but not limited to ‘Forever Friends,’ ‘Just Friends,’ ‘Close My Eyes,’ and ‘Two Souls One Breath,’” reads the complaint. “The contracts were fraudulently and wrongfully obtained by inducing an incapacitated person to sign documents whose content and purpose she was incapable of understanding, and to execute those documents for both herself and her daughter without her daughter’s knowledge.”

The case is already made complicated by the issue of Robin Randall’s mother’s health over 20 years ago, but for Gaynor’s part, there’s an apparent lack of documentation that further muddles things. “The precise dates and nature of the agreements between defendants and plaintiff Gaynor as well as defendants and third parties are currently unknown to Gaynor, as this information is in the sole possession, custody, and control of defendants,” despite alleged requests for this information by Gaynor and her representatives.

“Despite Gaynor’s repeated requests for an accounting thereof, defendants have failed to pay any royalties, provide transparency as to who Gaynor’s music was licensed to or any demonstration that Gaynor’s music was protected,” the complaint reads. “Despite requests, the recording agreement has not been provided to Gaynor[…] The recording agreement would have required for payment of royalties to Gaynor as writer and recording artist.”

Gaynor and Randall’s lawsuit alleges breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, copyright infringement, and unjust enrichment, and asks for a declaration from the court to terminate the contracts in question. The filing also seeks at least $2 million in damages, royalties owed, and legal fees.

The MLC is pushing back against Spotify’s dismissal arguments in their high-stakes legal battle. Photo Credit: Bastian Riccardi

In turns out Spotify and the Mechanical Licensing Collective (MLC) won’t be settling their legal battle anytime soon, as the MLC has officially fired back against the streaming giant’s dismissal arguments.

We covered those dismissal arguments last week, when Spotify urged the court to toss the action. As many know, the suit stems from the platform’s unilateral reclassification of its U.S. subscriptions as bundles.

That reclassification, set in motion by the addition of audiobooks as well as a separate non-music plan, is significant on multiple levels. And the most important of said levels is the many millions of dollars Spotify is saving – and is poised to keep on saving through 2027’s end – in mechanical royalties.

Predictably, the unprecedented move is eliciting far-reaching pushback, including from the National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA) and, of course, the MLC. The latter’s dispute with Spotify centers on whether the service’s main packages (notwithstanding the more recent integration of music-only options) constitute bundles as defined by Section 115 of the Copyright Act and, when it comes to royalty calculations for 2023-27, the Phonorecords IV determination.

Spotify maintains that the packages do, in fact, constitute bundles, the MLC is adamant that they don’t, and hundreds of millions of dollars are hanging in the balance.

It’s against this backdrop that Spotify’s counsel highlighted its pro-dismissal position in a letter to the court. Now, in a different four-page letter, the MLC has doubled down on its opposition and underscored the seemingly low probability of a near-term settlement.

“It sets forth detailed factual allegations as to why Spotify’s Premium subscription offering is not a ‘Bundle’ within the meaning of Section 115,” the plaintiff wrote of its initial claim for relief, “and Spotify’s letter simply ignores that those detailed factual allegations must be accepted as true for purposes of Spotify’s proposed motion.”

In the first place, the MLC proceeded in more words, the so-called bundles aren’t actually multi-product offerings, including because the baked-in 15 hours of monthly audiobook listening are allegedly of little real value to subscribers. Additionally, “Spotify’s letter also is entirely one-sided in choosing which new facts to include and which to omit,” per the MLC.

“And even if, in the course of discovery, Spotify could establish that some of its tens of millions of subscribers value audiobooks,” the Mechanical Licensing Collective continued, “that still would not be dispositive of the question of whether audiobooks have more than token value either to Spotify or the vast bulk of Spotify’s subscribers, who—as the complaint alleges—sign up for the service because of the music.”

Wrapping its arguments, the MLC reiterated for good measure the belief that “these and numerous other unsupported factual assertions in Spotify’s letter simply raise questions of fact that cannot be resolved on a motion to dismiss and further demonstrate why dismissal at the pleading stage would be inappropriate here.”

Photo Credit: Phoenix Suns by Michael Tipton / NBA / CC by 2.0

A pre-trial conference for the publisher lawsuit involving the Phoenix Suns is slated for October, while the rest of the 13 NBA-related cases are likely to be consolidated into an umbrella suit.

The lawsuits levied against NBA teams by several music publishers allege the teams are using their music without permission. Now, those suits are quickly heating up, with at least one of the cases — the litigation involving the Phoenix Suns — slated for an October tip-off.

The other 13 filings against teams including the New York Knicks, Orlando Magic, Cleveland Cavaliers, Indiana Pacers, Denver Nuggets, Minnesota Timberwolves, Atlanta Hawks, Miami Heat, New Orleans Pelicans, Philadelphia 76ers, Portland Trail Blazers, Sacramento Kings, and San Antonio Spurs seem likely to face consolidation into a single over-arching lawsuit.

Notably, in each of the cases aside from that involving the Phoenix Suns, dockets viewed by DMN currently show a “Notice of Case Assignment/Reassignment” with references to other emerging cases. This strongly implies that the cases will be consolidated into a single lawsuit, given their similarity to one another.

A consolidation action could take place in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, which is also handling the Phoenix Suns trial, though it’s yet unclear who will adjudicate, as well as an exact list of publisher plaintiffs.

The publisher plaintiffs thus far include Kobalt Music Publishing, Artist Publishing Group, and Prescription Songs. The lawsuits allege that the teams have used their music without permission, and are seeking $150,000 in damages for each infringement. Some of the songs used without permission include those from Cardi B, Jay-Z, Migos, OutKast, Busta Rhymes, DJ Khaled, and Shaquille O’Neal.

It’s worth mentioning that the legal action precedes Comcast president and NBCUniversal CEO Mike Cavanaugh announcing their closing on a $2.5 billion annual NBA broadcast package. While the league itself is not named in any of the lawsuits brought against the individual teams, any recording and compositional licenses would have to be obtained before videos could be uploaded to the NBA website.

The lawsuits against the NBA teams follow similar action from music publishers against companies like Roblox and Peloton for compositional infringement. Notably, the Beastie Boys sued Brinker International in 2022 for using parts of their song “Sabotage” without permission in a social media ad for its subsidiary, Chili’s. The group’s Adam Yauch, who passed away in 2012, included a provision in his will to prevent any of the group’s music from being used in advertisements.

Most recently, Sony Music filed action against Marriott International in May, under allegations that the hotel chain committed a willful infringement of copyrighted works in its social media posts. That lawsuit outlines over 900 infringements of recordings from artists like Britney Spears, Harry Styles, Miley Cyrus, Beyoncé, Michael Jackson, Doja Cat, Mariah Carey, Shakira, and many more. The majority of those infringements took place on social media posts.

Photo Credit: Abhay siby Mathew

Several music publishers have launched lawsuits against NBA teams including Kobalt Music Publishing, Artist Publishing Group, and Prescription Songs. These lawsuits allege the teams are using their music without permission, seeking $150,000 for each infringement.

Over 14 NBA teams are facing legal action over using protected compositions without permission. Those teams include the New York Knicks, Orlando Magic, Cleveland Cavaliers, Indiana Pacers, Denver Nuggets, Minnesota Timberwolves, Atlanta Hawks, Miami Heat, New Orleans Pelicans, Philadelphia 76ers, Phoenix Suns, Portland Trail Blazers, Sacramento Kings, and San Antonio Spurs.

Some of the songs used without permission include music from Jay-Z, Cardi B, OutKast, and Migos. Songs featured in videos used to “boost their image and commercial activities” include Busta Rhymes’ “Put Your Hands Where My Eyes Can See,” DJ Khaled’s “All I Do Is Win,” A Boogie Wit Da Hoodie’s “Look Back At It,” and Shaquille O’Neal’s “I Know I Got (Skills).”

The legal action comes just before Comcast president and NBCUniversal CEO Mike Cavanaugh revealed it is closing in on a $2.5 billion per year NBA broadcast package. The league itself is not named in any of the action brought against the NBA teams, but it’s worth noting that any recording and compositional licenses must be obtained for videos uploaded to the NBA.com website.

Music publishers have launched legal battles against Peloton, Roblox, and other companies for compositional infringement. TikTok remains a thorn in the side of commercial marketing teams, as the on-platform song libraries are licensed and cleared for personal-use only. Obtaining a separate commercial license is necessary for any music featured on the platform.

The Beastie Boys, who complain that Chili’s parent company is infringing on its “Sabotage” copyright by using the composition in a social media video has brought forth similar action. The group sued Brinker International for using parts of the song in a social media add in 2022. Adam Yauch, who died in 2012, included a provision in his will that none of the group’s music be used in advertisements.

In May 2024, Sony Music filed action against Marriott International, alleging “willful” infringement of copyrighted works in its social media posts. Sony Music says it has identified 931 infringements of recordings from works including Beyoncé, Harry Styles, Britney Spears, Mariah Carey, Miley Cyrus, Michael Jackson, Doja Cat, and Shakira. 913 of those infringements took place on social media posts made by hotels owned, managed, or franchised by Marriott.

SoundExchange is suing AccuRadio for allegedly failing to pay owed royalties. Photo Credit: SoundExchange

Chicago-based internet radio platform AccuRadio is facing an unpaid-royalties lawsuit from SoundExchange.

SoundExchange, the entity tasked with collecting U.S. recording royalties for non-interactive digital platforms, just recently submitted the complaint to an Illinois federal court. Of course, internet and satellite radio services fall squarely under the non-profit’s operational scope, and unpaid-royalties litigation is ongoing against the likes of SiriusXM and others.

Now, AccuRadio is likewise fending off a missing-payments action, which indicates that the nearly quarter-century-old company forwarded the mandated royalties, some of which were “untimely,” as required until 2016.

According to the filing party, those “payments slowed and finally stopped in 2018,” or the same year that Spotify listed on the public market. Against the backdrop of a rapidly evolving music landscape, early 2020 purportedly saw AccuRadio and SoundExchange hammer out a deal to account for the allegedly missing payments.

But AccuRadio, which says its stations are “absolutely 100% free” for listeners, allegedly “failed to make required payments” under this plan. SoundExchange claims it subsequently audited the defendant’s royalties for 2015 through 2017 and “identified additional royalties due.”

Fast forward to late June of 2023, which is said to have brought a forbearance agreement covering the allegedly missing payments.

Expected to run into April of 2027, that agreement called for an initial down payment, monthly installments thereafter, and “a single balloon payment” at the relevant period’s conclusion in 2027, per SoundExchange’s synopsis.

Predictably, given the ongoing suit, AccuRadio allegedly failed to make the required payments, the specifics of which are redacted in the action’s public copy.

In general terms, though, that refers to the alleged cessation of monthly forbearance agreement payments after the first three months of the deal. AccuRadio “paid its statutorily-mandated minimum fees for 2024, and is currently continuing to use the statutory license,” SoundExchange also noted.

All told, the platform is facing calls to cough up allegedly missing statutory and forbearance-agreement royalties and to provide an accounting from June of 2021 onward so SoundExchange can identify the exact amount owed.

Additionally, the plaintiff is seeking a preliminary injunction preventing the defendant from “utilizing the statutory license while depriving SoundExchange of the statutorily required royalty payments.”

More troubling yet for the defendant is a component of the forbearance agreement that’s said to define “collateral” as “all personal property” of AccuRadio. In the event of a default as laid out by the agreement, “SoundExchange is authorized to collect, compromise, endorse and sell any such Collateral in its own name,” including by intercepting payments that would have otherwise been directed to the internet radio platform itself by third parties, per the legal text.

After this piece was published, AccuRadio reached out to DMN with a statement about the “surprise” lawsuit.

More than a dozen NBA teams are facing copyright infringement lawsuits from music publishers including Kobalt. Photo Credit: Kyle Richards

Another day, another social media infringement lawsuit – or more specifically lawsuits, which have been submitted by music publishers including Kobalt against more than a dozen NBA teams.

Those publisher plaintiffs, among them APG, Notting Hill Music, and Dr. Luke’s Prescription Songs, just recently fired off the straightforward infringement actions. Substantially similar and possibly well-suited for consolidation down the line, the separate complaints are targeting the Cavaliers, Knicks, Pacers, Heat (only Kobalt and MXM Music signed on), Trail Blazers, Hawks, Magic, Kings, Pelicans, Spurs, 76ers, Suns, Nuggets, and Timberwolves.

Though that list appears to be comprehensive and was confirmed by DMN, the many moving parts and varying plaintiffs at hand mean related cases may have slipped through the cracks. In short, other outlets have identified as few as 12 and as many as 15 actions.

In any event, as described by the to-the-point suits, the plaintiffs learned from Kobalt that the defendants had been using protected compositions without permission “on [a] variety of consumer-facing platforms.”

For the Knicks, that list of platforms features TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, and NBA.com itself. (Nevertheless, the league isn’t named as a defendant.) At the time of this writing, the 23 relevant videos, which are linked in the appropriate suit, looked to have been removed.

But according once again to the legal text, they included unapproved usages of works recorded by DaBaby, Machine Gun Kelly, Charli XCX, and Dua Lipa, to name some. While time will tell whether the legal actions prove to be “slam dunks,” the plaintiffs are seeking sizable damages for alleged direct, contributory, and vicarious infringement.

Though it perhaps goes without saying, recording and compositional licenses must be obtained for all videos uploaded to and hosted on the NBA’s official website (as well as the website of any other business).

In the past, we’ve seen publishers launch legal battles against Peloton, Roblox, and more for alleged compositional infringement. The issue is less clear-cut but decidedly serious when it comes to featuring music in videos on social media services like TikTok. As many companies have found out (and are finding out) the hard way, the available on-platform song libraries are cleared only for personal, not commercial, use.

Earlier in July, the Beastie Boys levied a copyright complaint against the parent company of Chili’s for allegedly infringing on “Sabotage” in a social media video. And in May, Sony Music filed an action against Marriott for similar reasons.

Photo Credit: Mohamed Hassan

From infringement complaints against generative AI developers to unpaid royalty actions targeting streaming platforms, the music industry certainly isn’t lacking high-stakes litigation. Here are ten particularly important lawsuits with major implications to watch moving forward.

How many active lawsuits, conflicts, settlements, negotiations, and legal stare-downs are happening in the music industry — right now? At last count, Digital Music News is tracking more than 140 different filed lawsuits in the United States alone, all in various stages of litigation. And that doesn’t include the drumbeat of cease-and-desists, government proceedings, and private discussions and upcoming suits.

(Stay tuned for our complete litigation tracker from DMN Pro.)

As any attorney can attest, most of those suits aren’t groundbreaking or precedent-setting. Here’s a familiar litigatory tune: Artist A uses a sample from Artist B without permission, demands go nowhere, and litigation ensues. But some of the cases roiling the industry will have serious implications and impacts for years and decades to come. That includes battles in arenas like AI, statutory royalties, government regulation, and even national security.

Plucking from the latter, here are ten lawsuits with the potential to reshape the music industry ahead — for better or for worse, depending on where you’re seated.

Report Table of Contents

Introduction: An Overview of the Music Industry’s Litigation Landscape.

I. The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) v. Suno and Udio

II. The National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA) v. X (Formerly Twitter)

III. Epidemic Sound v. Meta

IV. TikTok and ByteDance v. Department of Justice

V. Department of Justice v. Live Nation

VI. Mechanical Licensing Collective (MLC) v. Spotify

VII. MLC v. Pandora

VIII. SoundExchange v. SiriusXM

IX. UMG Recordings et al. v. Internet Archive et al.

X. RIAA v. Verizon

XI. Bonus: Cleveland Constantine Browne et al. v. Rodney Sebastian Clark Donalds et al.

Please do not redistribute this report without permission. Thank you!

A live performance from Snoop Dogg, who’s facing an infringement action over two BODR tracks. Photo Credit: gcardinal

Another day, another copyright battle: Snoop Dogg has been slapped with an infringement complaint for allegedly infringing on two tracks incorporated into BODR.

Producer-songwriter Trevor Lawrence Jr. just recently submitted that complaint to a California federal court, with Snoop Dogg himself, Death Row Records, and Web3 platform Gala Music named as defendants.

As described by the direct, contributory, and vicarious infringement suit, the plaintiff in 2010 created and copyrighted two backing tracks, “Pop Pop Pop Goes My 9” and “Get This D with Hook.”

Fast forward a decade to November of 2020, when the Ed Sheeran and Alicia Keys collaborator Lawrence Jr. claims to have presented the works to Snoop Dogg “for potential in-studio experimentation.”

The way the filing party tells the story, Snoop “responded positively” and requested copies, which were provided without “any agreement” in place regarding the efforts’ commercial exploitation.

Then, late January of 2022 allegedly saw a representative of Snoop Dogg and his Death Row Records label reach out to Lawrence Jr. to explain that the famed rapper and entrepreneur “intended to include a derivative work based upon ‘Pop Pop Pop Goes My 9’ in an upcoming album.”

During that conversation, Lawrence Jr. explained that he’d require as a fee a $10,000 producer advance (to be recouped against the appropriate royalty stream), the retention of a 50 percent stake in the underlying composition, and publishing royalties from the derivative creation, per the legal text.

The terms, Lawrence Jr. purportedly made clear during the call, would need to be put into writing; the representative is said to have confirmed that the described details were suitable. And when he received a similar call the following day about Snoop’s desire to use “Get This D with Hook,” the plaintiff essentially communicated the same general terms, according to the suit.

Though it’s not exactly spelled out in the lawsuit itself, Lawrence Jr. does, in fact, have producer credits on the resulting BODR works: “Pop Pop” and “Get This Dick,” with the latter including a songwriter credit to boot.

Nevertheless, Lawrence Jr. claims he wasn’t “furnished with any paperwork to confirm the agreed-upon scope of use or terms of compensation for exploitation” of his works. That’s proving a big hang-up in light of the “stash boxes” that Snoop Dogg and Death Row released via Gala towards the top of 2022.

Unsurprisingly, given Snoop’s longtime support for Web3 and the nature of Gala’s model, the stash boxes included NFTs (and in particular 1,470 tokens per track, we covered nearly two years ago). But Lawrence Jr. didn’t “authorize any such exploitation of his work, which was never within his prior contemplation.” All told, the plaintiff estimates that the defendants pulled in “tens of millions of dollars” via the so-called stash boxes.

While the majority of the complaint gives the distinct impression that Lawrence Jr.’s seeking damages specifically for the stash boxes and other allegedly unapproved exploitations, the main body’s final paragraph makes it seem like the plaintiff hasn’t received any royalties at all.

“To date,” that paragraph reads, “Defendants have refused to properly license the Lawrence Tracks or compensate Lawrence for their use in the Broadus Tracks. This refusal encompasses not only the Stash Boxes, but all traditional forms of phonorecord exploitation (for which Lawrence has received no royalties from Defendants).”

In any event, Lawrence Jr. is seeking injunctions blocking the alleged infringement, damages, and the profits resulting from the BODR tracks in question. DMN reached out to Gala for comment but didn’t receive a response in time for publishing.

Photo Credit: Ugglemamma

Spotify is now taking serious issue with Digital Music News’ assertion that ‘Basic’ is getting buried from would-be subscribers.

Spotify has every incentive to bury its newly launched, unbundled ‘Basic’ subscription tier. But does that mean Spotify is intentionally hiding ‘Basic’ from would-be subscribers to steer them into its more lucrative bundled options?

Given the economics, it’s hard to imagine Spotify not wanting to bury its Basic tier. Not only are bundled plans more expensive, but they’re also substantially cheaper when it comes to royalty payments (and for proof of that, look no further than the hard data outlined in this DMN Pro report).

That may explain why Spotify has shifted more than 98% of its plans into bundles, according to our just-released Bundling Barometer.

Over the past few weeks, Digital Music News found overwhelming evidence that Basic is being buried. In response, Spotify has begged to differ and demanded corrections. We’re unsure if Spotify is helping or hurting their case here, but let’s air this out.

Perhaps the biggest tell is that new subscribers cannot subscribe to a Basic, unbundled plan. Despite the quibbling over details, Spotify didn’t dispute this critical fact.

“Basic plans are only available to existing subscribers,” a Spotify representative confirmed to Digital Music News.

Not only are newer subscribers forced into bundled tiers, but they are also unlikely to downgrade into a Basic, un-bundled tier after initially subscribing. The main reason? Few will know a simpler and cheaper plan exists — unless they accidentally stumble upon this option.

These ‘stumble upon’ moments would include revisiting the subscriber options page while logged in, clicking through other subscription options in the ‘Account’ page, or hearing about the cheaper option from a friend, forum, or other source. In all likelihood, only a tiny percentage of new subscribers will encounter the Basic option after subscribing to a bundled tier, and of those, only a subset will take action.

Spotify did note that both Family and Duo bundled Premium plans can be downgraded into Basic options, something we said didn’t exist.

The company also stated that it email-blasted all of its subscribers about the expanded option, though we somehow didn’t receive that email (and it didn’t land in our spam folder).

(On this last point, we did receive a note titled ‘Information about your plan’ on June 21st, which low-key informed us of a $1 price hike. This actually had some information about the Basic downgrade.)

None of that adds up to ‘shouting from the rooftops,’ though Spotify is trying to make the case that Basic isn’t being buried. But why are they doing this?

And why launch Basic at all if the real money is in bundling?

There may be a few motivations at work here. Spotify has been lambasted by music publishers over its sneaky, royalty-cutting shift into bundling. They have also been sued (by the Mechanical Licensing Collective) and referred to federal regulators (specifically the FTC) over this shift.

The National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA) is also stirring trouble for Spotify: NMPA chief David Israelite is already pushing for changes on Capitol Hill following Spotify’s shift while dangling the threat of litigation against the platform for separate infringement claims (specifically related to Spotify’s lyrics, music videos, and podcasting diversifications).

But what if Spotify can simply point to a bundle-free Basic option? After all, if subscribers have a choice between bundled and unbundled, then Spotify is merely serving the marketplace instead of abusively steering people towards royalty-lowering bundles.

Meanwhile, there are rumblings that the NMPA is preparing to litigate against the aforementioned infringement allegations. But that’s a whole ‘nother can of worms.

Stay tuned.

Verizon’s Boston offices. Photo Credit: Leon Bredella

The major labels are suing Verizon over the alleged “pervasive” copyright infringement of its internet subscribers – with an emphasis on “P2P file-sharing networks” and BitTorrent itself.

Notwithstanding the numerous references to file sharing and BitTorrent, the majors (and a number of their subsidiaries) only recently submitted the straightforward complaint to a New York federal court. First identified by TorrentFreak, the legal action marks the latest in a line of cases against internet service providers (ISPs).

In keeping with the longstanding industry focus on curbing ISPs’ alleged infringement – or more specifically the alleged infringement of their subscribers – Verizon is hardly a stranger to courtroom confrontations with the RIAA.

While that doesn’t fully explain the dated verbiage, it’s worth bearing in mind amid this newest infringement battle with Verizon, which allegedly “provides its high-speed service to a massive community of online pirates, who it knows repeatedly use that service to infringe” the protected works in question.

Those works include releases from all manner of commercially prominent artists, according to the straightforward legal text, which closely resembles that of several other infringement actions against ISPs.

All told, the filing companies have “since early 2020” forwarded north of 340,000 infringement notices to Verizon under an agreement with piracy monitor OpSec (formerly MarkMonitor), per the document.

“Those notices clearly and unambiguously advised Verizon of its subscribers’ blatant and systematic use of” the internet service at hand to illegally download “sound recordings through the P2P network known as BitTorrent,” spells out the complaint for contributory and vicarious infringement.

Hitting on the same key points as prior ISP infringement suits – points that have evidently resonated with juries – the majors are further accusing Verizon of intentionally failing to address the alleged repeat infringement in pursuit of “an obvious and direct financial benefit.”

“In other words,” the action drives home, “Verizon decided not to terminate repeat infringers because it wanted to maintain the revenue generated from those subscribers’ accounts.”

Regarding the hard numbers behind these alleged “flagrant and serial infringers,” 500 subscribers were the subject of at least 100 notices apiece, with one subscriber having racked up 4,450 notices between March of 2021 and August of 2023, according to the major label plaintiffs.

If ongoing marathon copyright battles with ISPs are any indication, this action against Verizon could take some time to play out; Frontier Communications, having emerged from bankruptcy in 2021, is still fending off a complaint levied that same year.

And Cox Communications continues to push back against jury findings, for which a new damages trial is seemingly forthcoming, that were finalized in late 2019.

A Chili’s location in Dallas, Texas, where the chain’s parent, now facing a copyright infringement suit from the Beastie Boys, is headquartered. Photo Credit: Saiflee100

The parent company of Chili’s is facing a copyright infringement suit from the Beastie Boys over the alleged unauthorized use of “Sabotage” in a social media video.

Surviving Beastie Boys members Michael Diamond and Adam Horovitz just recently submitted the complaint alongside the estate of Adam Yauch and others. Brinker International (NYSE: EAT), the owner of Chili’s as well as Maggiano’s, is the lone defendant in the straightforward suit.

Per that action, Brinker in November of 2022 at the earliest “produced, sponsored, and encouraged the creation and posting on social media of videos” promoting Chili’s, with one such clip allegedly featuring “Sabotage.”

As noted, the Beastie Boys plaintiffs say they didn’t green-light the campaign, which specifically infringes on the well-known work’s composition, recording, and, owing to the creative direction of the relevant Chili’s clip, original music video, according to the legal text.

The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame-inducted group’s members “do not license ‘Sabotage’ or any of their other intellectual property for third-party product advertising purposes, and deceased Beastie Boys member Adam Yauch included a provision in his will prohibiting such uses,” the lawsuit spells out.

Evidence like a Destiny 2 spot appears to contradict the former claim; the trailer in question incorporates “Sabotage” prominently and released about half a decade after Yauch’s passing.

In any event, the point’s secondary to the new infringement case, which has arrived amid continued operational difficulties throughout the restaurant sector. Against this backdrop, it makes more sense than ever to try and drum up business via social media.

Unfortunately, leaning into the valuable promotional tool isn’t without potential pitfalls, as leading platforms’ song libraries are cleared solely for personal, not commercial, use. The key detail has seemingly escaped the attention of (or been ignored by) higher-ups at a growing list of companies.

As reiterated by the AP, that includes the parent of Monster Energy, which was reportedly ordered to pay $1.7 million to the Beastie Boys in 2014 for the unauthorized use of a track. Furthermore, Monster itself scooped up Bang Energy last year, after the rival business declared bankruptcy following a number of major label infringement claims.

Closer to the present, Sony Music sued OFRA Cosmetics during the final months of 2023 for “blatant, willful, and repeated copyright infringement” on X, Instagram, and TikTok. And late May of this year saw the same major label target Marriott over “rampant infringement” on social media.

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

The U.S. Copyright Office has finalized a major update to “termination rights” for mechanical licensing payouts under the MMA-established blanket license.

The Office today published its final rule on the subject, close to two years after first taking up the highly complex matter. Subsequently, all manner of organizations, from the National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA) to the Mechanical Licensing Collective (MLC) itself and many in between, forwarded comments in support of their respective interests.

Predictably, scratching the surface of this back-and-forth (let alone the multifaceted arguments at hand) would require thousands of words – with even a brass-tacks breakdown proving lengthy in its own right.

Running with the latter in any event, many know that the initially mentioned Music Modernization Act (MMA), among other things, established the Mechanical Licensing Collective-administered “blanket license.” In keeping with its name, the license affords on-demand streaming players like Spotify the ability to utilize compositions on a blanket basis as opposed to use-by-use.

Perhaps similarly well-known is the “recapture” right established under Section 203 of the Copyright Act. In short, after 35 years, certain entertainment professionals (not solely in the music space) can potentially terminate copyright transfers to third parties like labels and publishers, thereby recapturing ownership of the works.

Less frequently discussed is Section 203’s inclusion of a “derivative work” clause, encompassing all creations stemming from the initially protected media (such as a recording of a composition).

“A derivative work prepared under authority of the grant before its termination may continue to be utilized under the terms of the grant after its termination,” the derivative work specifics read in whole, “but this privilege does not extend to the preparation after the termination of other derivative works based upon the copyrighted work covered by the terminated grant.”

Bringing that over four-decade-old legal text into the present, when a songwriter recaptures his or her rights from a music publisher, how is the blanket license affected? At the outset, the MLC called on streaming platforms like Spotify to make note of when recordings were first reproduced on their servers.

From there, the derivatives’ mechanical royalties would be paid to pre-termination owners if the blanket license was issued before the recapture notice and to post-termination owners otherwise. Expectedly, that was controversial, and because of the date-based payout approach adopted by the MLC (which didn’t “follow the Office’s rulemaking guidance”), the USCO sought to provide clarity at the intersection of recaptures, derivatives, and the blanket license.

Out of the gate, the Copyright Office didn’t hesitate to drive home its belief that recaptured works should deliver revenue to the party or parties responsible for the termination.

“Whether or not the [derivative] Exception applies to a DMP’s [digital music provider’s] blanket license (and the Office concludes that the Exception does not),” the Copyright Office penned back in October of 2022, “the statute entitles the current copyright owner to the royalties under the blanket license, whether pre- or post-termination.

“In other words, the post-termination copyright owner (i.e., the author, the author’s heirs, or their successors, such as a subsequent publisher grantee) is due the post-termination royalties paid by the DMP to the MLC,” the USCO spelled out.

Now, with the MLC having seemingly held all related royalties in the interim, the Copyright Office addressed the issue (and adjacent considerations) today with the aforesaid final rule.

Effective August 8th (though the MLC will have “until the first distribution of royalties based on the first payee snapshot taken after October 7” to comply), the rule “is a scaled-down version of the” solution floated in September of 2023, per the Office.

This scaled-down nature presumably resulted from arguments made by the NMPA and film-studio representatives, with the Office having dissected the positions in detail today. Looking beyond that interesting-but-secondary information, the MLC is under the new rule supposed “to distribute royalties based on its records and to assume that whoever is in its records is legally entitled to the distribution.”

In short, the party listed as the royalties recipient is the recipient, an approach that will ostensibly prevent the MLC from being backlogged with paused payments. However, said approach won’t prove satisfactory to those owed compensation that was incorrectly forwarded elsewhere.

And on this front, “any distribution made by the MLC is not a determination of a party’s legal entitlement to the royalties and does not prejudice any such party’s legal claim,” the Office emphasized for good measure.

Plus, the so-called default distribution provision doesn’t apply when there’s an ongoing rightsholder dispute or an MLC investigation; the appropriate royalties will be paused in the instances. Also excluded from the provision are “circumstances where the MLC receives information that would indicate to a reasonable person that the payee identified in its records is not in fact entitled to the royalty distribution.”

Moving forward, the MLC must keep on making “reasonable efforts to verify the information provided to it and to combat against fraudulent registrations and claims,” the Office stated, driving home that termination notices can extend to multiple works apiece. If one or more of these works’ status is at issue, it shouldn’t affect the others pinpointed in the same notice.

Photo Credit: Ardian Lumi

Daddy Yankee, Black Eyed Peas, and Sony Music have filed a notice of move to dismiss the third cause of action for fraud in a copyright infringement complaint levied at the hit, “Bailar Contigo.”

The lawsuit was filed in March 2024 by Denmark’s Iceberg Records in a California federal court. The lawsuit alleges that the trio illegally sampled the 1994 dance track, “Scatman (Ski-Ba-Bop-Ba-Dop-Bop).” The track was recorded in 1995 by Scatman John, who passed away in 1999.

The song belongs to the plaintiff on the master side, with Iceberg Records also owning 50% of the work’s publishing rights. Ahead of the release of the Black Eyed Peas’ Elevation, the plaintiff and defendants allegedly hammered out a deal for the use of the “Scatman” composition in “Bailar Contigo.”

On July 7, the defendants filed a motion with the court notifying the judge that in August, they will move to dismiss the third cause of action for fraud in the complaint. “This motion is made on the grounds that pursuant to Rule 9 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Complaint fails to state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud, and therefore fails to state a claim.”

The track features Daddy Yankee and has reached more than 70 million streams on Spotify. “We hereby agree to the use of extracts from the composition,” the original agreement states, witha 75% compositional stake and a 5% master income interest in “Bailar Contigo” awarded to Iceberg Records as part of that agreement. The original lawsuit alleges that the Black Eyed Peas, Daddy Yankee, and Sony Music “lied” about not utilizing the record in an effort to avoid paying this licensing fee.

Iceberg Records sued for direct and contributory infringement as well as fraud, seeking damages, attorney’s fees, and more from the defendant. The next hearing in the case is scheduled for August 2, 2024. Neither Iceberg Records nor Sony Music have offered a comment on the pending action.

Cardi B (pictured), Warner Music, and others are now facing a copyright infringement lawsuit over ‘Enough (Miami).’ Photo Credit: Chrisallmeid

Cardi B, Warner Music Group, and others are facing a new copyright infringement lawsuit for allegedly borrowing from a 2021 work without permission in “Enough (Miami).”

Two Texas-based plaintiffs just recently fired off the allegations, naming as defendants the mentioned Cardi B and WMG as well as Atlantic Records, “Enough (Miami)” producers OG Parker and DJ SwanQo, and Celebrity Booking Agency.

Overall, the to-the-point complaint, contrasting so many others, doesn’t dive into an all-encompassing comparison of the appropriate efforts’ technical characteristics or a convoluted description of how exactly the defendants may have had access to the allegedly infringed composition.

Instead, the legal text notes that this allegedly infringed work, written by plaintiffs Joshua Fraustro and Miguel Aguilar (known publicly as Kemika1956) in 2021, has been made available via platforms including Spotify. Furthermore, the song in question, “Greasy Frybread,” was recorded by one Sten Joddi, released via Tattoo Muzik Group Studios, and synced in FX’s Reservation Dogs (written as “Rez Dogs” in the complaint).

That series premiered in August of 2021, concluded its third season in September of 2023, and featured “Greasy Frybread” in season one’s fourth episode, according to FX’s website. The television network isn’t a party to the suit, but it apparently dropped an official music video for “Greasy Frybread” via its main YouTube channel.

“Defendant Cardi B, along with other Defendants, has used the song in her new album without permission,” the 10-page document indicates of the alleged infringement of “Greasy Frybread” in “Enough (Miami).”

Beyond that concise description of the actual alleged infringement, the suit provides a detailed account of the plaintiffs’ sought relief.

Alleging vicarious and contributory infringement, unfair competition, and misappropriation, the complaint is seeking temporary and then permanent injunctions as well as a temporary restraining order “to prevent further distribution and public performance of” Cardi B’s “Enough (Miami).”

Plus, Cardi B, Warner Music, and the additional defendants should be made to cough up damages, attorneys’ fees, and more, according to the plaintiffs.

A number of industry infringement complaints have made their way into courtrooms during the past month or so, with Drake’s merch company fending off allegations of infringing on trademarks with “Members Only” t-shirts. Also on the trademark front, Louis Vuitton and Pharrell Williams are being accused of infringing on the original Pocket Socks with an expensive product of the same name.

Shifting to some of the copyright side’s recent developments, the major labels last month took aim at alleged infringement committed by generative AIs Suno and Udio, Megan Thee Stallion and Warner Music emerged victorious in a legal battle over “Savage,” and the latter label was sued for allegedly using Tom Petty archival footage without permission in a Wildflowers documentary.

Jon Hume, who’s suing Universal Music for copyright infringement over the alleged unauthorized use of his stems in ‘Be Alright.’ Photo Credit: Diliff

Universal Music Group (UMG) is facing a copyright infringement action for allegedly using a number of stems in “Be Alright” without crediting or compensating the appropriate musician for the work.

Australia-born, Nashville-based Jon Hume just recently submitted the straightforward complaint to a Tennessee federal court, naming as defendants UMG proper as well as Universal Music Australia. The plaintiff possesses a songwriter credit on Dean Lewis’ mentioned “Be Alright,” which has racked up 1.76 billion Spotify streams since its 2018 release.

But the way Hume tells the story, his contributions extend well beyond co-authoring the commercially successful track, which he and Lewis are said to have created in 2015. When it comes to the work’s demo (not the final master that ultimately became available to fans), the plaintiff claims to have “recorded every instrument” featured therein.

Shifting the focus to July of 2016, now-former Universal Music Australia MD Michael Taylor, who would go on to exit the role in September of 2022, allegedly asked the filing party to send the involved stems “to another producer” for cash-saving “‘reference'” as opposed to incorporation into the master. (The complaint includes as exhibits copies of this email and other relevant messages.)

Unsurprisingly, that ask set the stage for an August of 2016 request from Taylor to use the stems in “Be Alright.” Hume and his wife, doubling as his manager, discussed with UMG Australia “giving Hume a producer credit” and then sent the stems along to Taylor, according to the action.

Needless to say, in light of the complaint, the producer credit didn’t come to fruition. UMG “‘did not end up using any of Jon’s files in the final Master,’” the then-UMG Australia MD allegedly emailed Hume in May of 2018, the month before “Be Alright” dropped.

Fast forward to December of 2023, when Dean Lewis is said to have sent the plaintiff “the entire collection of stems” for the actual “Be Alright” master “as a reference for another song for which” he was seeking Hume’s assistance.

Upon receiving these stems, Hume promptly “discovered that, contrary to UMG’s representations, more than fifty percent” were featured both in his initial recording of “Be Alright” and the master. From there, the musician identified the exact stems that were allegedly used without authorization.

All told, Hume is pushing for a variety of damages as well as his share of the track’s profits and a court determination of intentional infringement or a declaration that he’s “an author and owner” of the released master.

On the profits front, “the accounts presented are of such complexity that adequate relief cannot be obtained at law,” the legal text maintains, and an investigation of said accounts would be “necessary in order to effect justice.”

Image: DMN Pro

It’s been a dizzying month for AI music. Here’s a closer look at some major recent advancements in music AI technology, as well as a potentially groundbreaking pair of lawsuits lodged by the major music labels.

Thanks to a quick-moving June 2024, AI music technology has quietly taken a leap forward – and found itself at the center of two RIAA-spearheaded lawsuits. With the unprecedented technology’s evolution showing few signs of slowing, what will the corresponding music industry impact look like through the remainder of the year and beyond?

Report Table of Contents

I. Introduction: AI Music’s Strides and Setbacks in June 2024

II. An Unusually Crowded Month for An Especially Important Sub-Sector: Generative

III. AI’s June 2024 Developments and Setbacks

IV. Is Training Artificial Intelligence on Protected Media Fair Use? The High-

V. Stakes Question Underscores the Industry’s AI Positioning

VI. AI-Powered Music-Making and the Long-Term Effects of Opening Up Creation to All

Please note: unauthorized reproduction of this strictly prohibited — thank you.

AI music service Udio remains embroiled in an infringement legal battle with the major labels and, outside the courtroom, is engaging in a war of words with the RIAA. Photo Credit: Udio

Let the war of words continue: Days after the major labels filed copyright infringement suits against Suno and Udio, the latter AI music service has pushed back against the complaint and spurred a formal retort from the RIAA.  

This newest development in the increasingly public showdown arrives on the heels of an outside-the-courtroom confrontation between Suno CEO Mikey Shulman and the RIAA. While that encounter was set in motion by media statements from Shulman, Udio itself went ahead and addressed the majors’ infringement suit with an X post.

Spanning close to 500 words, the all-encompassing response covers Udio’s “thoughts on AI and the future of music,” an attempt at explaining why AI is actually good for proper musicians, and a simplified (and inherently biased) explanation of the training process for generative models.

“Generative AI models, including our music model, learn from examples,” wrote a16z-, will.i.am-, Common-, and UnitedMasters-backed Udio. “Just as students listen to music and study scores, our model has ‘listened’ to and learned from a large collection of recorded music.

“The goal of model training is to develop an understanding of musical ideas—the basic building blocks of musical expression that are owned by no one,” the company proceeded. “Our system is explicitly designed to create music reflecting new musical ideas. We are completely uninterested in reproducing content in our training set, and in fact, have implemented and continue to refine state-of-the-art filters to ensure our model does not reproduce copyrighted works or artists’ voices.”

Omitted from the remarks is a mention of the recordings Udio allegedly removed in the wake of the legal action’s submission; the RIAA promptly noted the pulldown of alleged Mariah Carey and The Temptations soundalike tracks, among others.

And on the training front, Udio’s acknowledgement that its “model has ‘listened’ to and learned from a large collection of recorded music” is significant for multiple reasons.

Moving beyond those reasons for now and shifting the focus to the RIAA’s follow-up, the organization didn’t hesitate to criticize the AI startup’s “meandering” comments.

“If there is any takeaway from Udio’s meandering ‘response,’” an RIAA spokesperson communicated in a comparatively concise 131-word reply, “it is that Udio is attempting to construct an alternate reality where being pro-artist means stealing artists’ work for profit.

“In the reality everyone else is living in, artist advocate groups oppose what Udio is doing and strongly support these lawsuits,” the RIAA continued. “Supporting real creativity means getting permission before using someone’s work and developing technology that partners with and supports human artists instead of cutting them out and replacing them. Music companies have already struck multiple partnerships with startups, entrepreneurs, and others with responsible applications of AI.”

Predictably, the industry representative saved its most important remarks for last, ending by calling out Udio’s above-highlighted training admission.

“There is one surprising note of agreement: Udio now seems to admit their model copied ‘a large collection of recorded music.’ That’s a startling admission of illegal and unethical conduct, and they should be held accountable,” the spokesperson concluded.

Moments after the major labels filed copyright infringement actions against AI music platforms Suno and Udio, the former’s CEO engaged in a public back-and-forth with the RIAA. Photo Credit: Steve Johnson

Why confine legal battles to the courtroom? Immediately following news of the major labels’ massive copyright infringement lawsuits against Suno and Udio, the former AI music service’s CEO engaged in a testy war of words with the RIAA.

That back-and-forth, a testament to the disputes’ high-stakes nature and the broader significance of protected media’s use in generative AI, compelled the trade organization to put out an afternoon statement yesterday.

Beginning on the other side of the confrontation, Suno CEO Mikey Shulman in widely circulated comments defended his company’s technology as “transformative” and “designed to generate completely new outputs, not to memorize and regurgitate pre-existing content.”

Not stopping there, the exec reiterated his platform’s intentional lack of support for text-to-music “prompts that reference specific artists” and accused the plaintiff labels of reverting “to their old lawyer-led playbook” instead of engaging in “a good faith discussion.”

“Suno is built for new music, new uses, and new musicians,” concluded Shulman, with those “musicians” presumably referring to anyone capable of typing a single-sentence prompt. “We prize originality.”

According to the RIAA, Shulman in the lengthy response avoided the main question concerning his platform’s alleged ingestion of protected media.

“Suno continues to dodge the basic question: what sound recordings have they illegally copied?” the RIAA asked in the quickly distributed follow-up.

“In an apparent attempt to deceive working artists, rightsholders, and the media about its technology,” the organization proceeded, “Suno refuses to address the fact that its service has literally been caught on tape – as part of the evidence in this case – doing what Mr. Shulman says his company doesn’t do: memorizing and regurgitating the art made by humans.

“Winners of the streaming era worked cooperatively with artists and rightsholders to properly license music. The losers did exactly what Suno and Udio are doing now,” the entity concluded.

Though it perhaps goes without saying, there’s quite a lot riding on the central issue of whether training generative AI systems on protected media – the “caught on tape” line in the RIAA’s statement seemingly refers to related remarks from a Suno exec – is transformative and constitutes fair use.

While the obvious answer is a resounding “no” – among other things, developers would have trained their models solely on public-domain works if doing so was viable – many in the AI community are of the opposite stance. That includes Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, who in April doubled down on the belief as his company fends off a separate infringement suit.

Time will reveal whether litigation can afford rightsholders their due compensation from generative AI giants and, more pressingly, bring about much-needed changes for future training practices as well as adjacent recordkeeping. However, even those solutions won’t halt the unprecedented technology’s sweeping impact, which could well undermine human creativity and a whole lot else in the long term.

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), on behalf of its major label clients Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment, and Warner Music Group, announced the filing of two copyright infringement lawsuits against AI music services Suno and Udio, alleging the unlicensed use of copyrighted sound recordings to train their generative AI models.

In an email to Digital Music News, the RIAA described both lawsuits as ‘landmark’ — and that may not be an understatement.

According to the trade group, the lawsuits against Suno and Udio, filed in Boston and New York federal courts, respectively, mark a significant step in protecting artists’, songwriters’, and rightsholders’ control over their works in the rapidly evolving landscape of AI technology. The plaintiffs, specifically Sony Music Entertainment, UMG Recordings, Inc., and Warner Records, Inc., assert that Suno and Udio have copied and exploited countless sound recordings without permission, spanning various genres, styles, and eras.

The cases seek declarations of infringement, injunctions to prevent future infringement, and damages for past infringements. The core allegations highlight the unlicensed copying of sound recordings on a massive scale for training, development, and operation of Suno and Udio’s services.

The filings can be found here (Suno) and here (Udio).

In its communication with DMN, the RIAA compiled a breakdown of numerous examples of copyright infringement that exemplify the issue at hand.

RIAA Chairman and CEO Mitch Glazier emphasized the music community’s embrace of AI while highlighting the need for responsible development: “The music community has embraced AI, and we are already partnering and collaborating with responsible developers to build sustainable AI tools. But we can only succeed if developers are willing to work together with us.”

Glazier has been critical of unlicensed services like Suno and Udio for exploiting artists’ work without consent or compensation, hindering the potential of innovative and ethical AI.

RIAA Chief Legal Officer Ken Doroshow reinforced the necessity of the lawsuits, stating, “These lawsuits are necessary to reinforce the most basic rules of the road for the responsible, ethical, and lawful development of generative AI systems and to bring Suno’s and Udio’s blatant infringement to an end.”

The music community, including various organizations and prominent figures, has rallied to support the RIAA’s efforts to protect creative works and foster responsible AI development.

In emails to DMN, executives from The Recording Academy, A2IM, SoundExchange, SONA, the NMPA, and others emphasized the importance of fair compensation, respect for artists’ rights, and the ethical use of AI technology.

The core legal arguments presented in the RIAA lawsuits against Suno and Udio revolve around copyright infringement and fair use, with several key points:

Unauthorized Copying of Sound Recordings: The complaints allege that both Suno and Udio engaged in the mass copying and ingestion of copyrighted sound recordings without obtaining the necessary permissions from rightsholders. The RIAA argues that this act of reproduction constitutes a direct violation of copyright law.

Commercial Exploitation: The lawsuits assert that the unauthorized copying was done for commercial purposes, as both Suno and Udio are profit-driven enterprises that monetize their AI-generated music services. This commercial exploitation of copyrighted works without permission further strengthens the copyright infringement claim.

Harm to the Music Industry: The RIAA contends that the unauthorized copying and exploitation of sound recordings by Suno and Udio not only deprives artists and rightsholders of fair compensation but also poses a significant threat to the music industry as a whole. By generating synthetic music that imitates and competes with genuine human creations, these AI services risk devaluing and potentially replacing human-created music, leading to a decline in the quality and diversity of music available to consumers.

Rejection of Fair Use Defense: The complaints anticipate a fair use defense from Suno and Udio but argue that such a defense is invalid in this context. The RIAA maintains that the fair use doctrine, which allows for limited use of copyrighted material without permission under certain circumstances, does not apply to the wholesale copying and commercial exploitation of sound recordings for the purpose of generating derivative works.

Deliberate Evasion and Lack of Transparency: The lawsuits accuse both Suno and Udio of being deliberately evasive about the scope and extent of their copying of copyrighted sound recordings. This lack of transparency, the RIAA argues, is an attempt to conceal their willful copyright infringement.

Negative Impact on Human Creativity: The RIAA emphasizes that the unauthorized use of copyrighted works in AI models not only harms the economic interests of artists and rightsholders but also undermines the value of human creativity and ingenuity. By relying on the unauthorized copying of existing works, AI services like Suno and Udio risk stifling innovation and reducing the diversity of musical expression.

Overall, the legal arguments in these cases center on the fundamental principle that AI companies, like all other businesses, must abide by copyright laws and respect the rights of creators. The RIAA seeks to establish a clear precedent that the unauthorized copying and exploitation of copyrighted works for commercial purposes, even in the context of AI development, constitutes copyright infringement and will not be tolerated.

Photo Credit: Harry Wad / CC by 3.0

Kanye West and Ty Dolla $ign settle a copyright lawsuit filed by the Donna Summer Estate for the use of “I Feel Love” in the duo’s “Good (Don’t Die).”

Ty Dolla $ign and the rapper formerly known as Kanye West have settled a federal copyright infringement lawsuit filed against them by the Donna Summer Estate’s executor and her second husband, Bruce Sudano. Sudano filed his lawsuit in February over the unauthorized use of Summer’s 1977 hit, “I Feel Love” in the duo’s song “Good (Don’t Die).”

While the court documents filed on June 20 do not outline specifics, they reveal that the case is being dismissed with prejudice.

In his lawsuit, Sudano claimed that although the artists sought a clearance request for the use of Summer’s song, they were denied by both the estate and her label, Universal Music Enterprises. Instead, according to Sudano, Ty and Ye “used the song’s iconic melody as the hook for their infringing song and essentially re-recorded almost verbatim key, instantly recognizable portions of “I Feel Love” using a singer soundalike to Summer, with slight changes to the lyrics (also done without permission.”

“Good (Don’t Die)” appeared on the Ye and Ty Dolla $ign collaboration Vultures 1, which was released on February 20 and was initially available on digital streaming platforms. The track has since been removed from Spotify and other major streaming providers at the request of the Summer estate.

And Donna Summer isn’t the only artist whose work the duo was not granted permission to use. Both Nicki Minaj and Ozzy Osbourne confirmed on social media that they refused to authorize samples of their music on the album in the wake of Kanye’s very public descent into antisemitism and hate groups. “West is known as a controversial public figure whose conduct has led numerous brands and business partners to disassociate from him,” Sudano’s lawsuit reads.

“I Feel Love” was released in 1977 on Donna Summer’s fifth studio album, I Remember Yesterday. Co-produced by electronic music godfather Giorgio Moroder, the synth-infused track was popular during the disco era. It was initially released as the B-side to the single “Can’t We Just Sit Down (And Talk It Over),” before being reissued two months later with the sides reversed.

A federal court has dismissed with prejudice a copyright infringement lawsuit filed against Megan Thee Stallion (pictured) and others over ‘Savage.’ Photo Credit: Valerie Albert

A New York federal court has officially dismissed with prejudice a copyright infringement complaint filed against Megan Thee Stallion, Warner Music, and others over “Savage.”

District Judge Katherine Failla just recently granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the pro se action, acknowledging in a footnote the “substantial assistance” provided by one of her interns in drafting the opinion.

The case itself kicked off in February of 2023, when the plaintiff, a hip-hop producer named James Greene, first alleged that “Savage” had lifted elements of a 1999 instrumental track entitled “It’s About to Be On.”

In brief, the claims at hand resembled those in a number of other infringement actions. The filing party, while acknowledging that he hadn’t released “It’s About to Be On” commercially, identified an early 2000s effort to get the song into the hands of label execs and other well-connected industry figures via CD.

One of those figures was allegedly “Savage” producer and co-writer J. White Did It’s purported mentor, who, after allegedly receiving a copy of the plaintiff’s relevant song two decades ago, was said to have played it for J. White Did It some time before the 2020 release of “Savage.”

Once again in the interest of relative brevity, Judge Failla pointed to Greene’s perceived failure to sufficiently illustrate that the non-party mentor had actually listened to the song on the CDs (one allegedly given to him in 2000, the other in 2004) or played it for the appropriate defendant.

Not stopping there, though, the judge also explored the plaintiff’s main claims of creative overlap between the songs, emphasizing that the described time signature and rhythmic sequence components couldn’t be protected under U.S. copyright law.

Employing the ordinary-observer test, the court also described as “qualitatively distinct” the alleged use of “the same siren sounds and piano instrumentation” in the songs.

“Despite this cursory and unprotectable structural similarity,” Judge Failla wrote of another alleged similarity, “the substance of the two drum patterns is qualitatively different, and would preclude an ordinary listener from finding substantial similarity.”

While the dismissal appears relatively straightforward, music-specific copyright litigation is in many ways a mixed bag, with rulings and results varying dramatically in some venues and situations.

It was only a few weeks back that a California court rejected a dismissal motion in a far-reaching action alleging the theft of reggaeton itself across a multitude of tracks. The plaintiffs, the judge summed up, had “sufficiently alleged the protectability of the drum pattern, interplay of compositional elements, or the combination of these elements.”

And in different cases yet, the court has acknowledged “apparent similarities” between works but nevertheless tossed infringement claims on technical grounds.

A live performance from Tom Petty. Photo Credit: Irina Lepneva

Warner Music Group is facing a copyright infringement complaint from a filmmaker who says half of a 2021 documentary about Tom Petty’s Wildflowers (1994) consists of archival footage that was used without permission.

That filmmaker and artist, Martyn Atkins, just recently submitted the straightforward suit to a California federal court. Directed by Mary Wharton, the 90-minute WMG Productions project in question, Somewhere You Feel Free, by its own description draws “from an archive of 16mm film.”

But according to the Wildflowers art director Atkins, that film, which he shot three decades back, wasn’t discovered by chance. Rather, the veteran art professional, who’s worked with Johnny Cash, Eric Clapton, George Harrison, and an array of others, is said to have informed the Tom Petty estate of the footage’s location in Warner Records’ massive storage facilities.

The way Atkins tells the story, he and Petty were “fast friends”; besides working on the art for Wildflowers, the filmmaker captured ample footage during its creation and in “the months on the road following the album’s release.”

This footage “was not subject to a work-for-hire or other such agreement,” and Atkins, with a long-term aim of potentially compiling the video in a documentary, didn’t immediately license it to Petty or Warner Music, the action maintains.

“He was not acting as an employee of Petty or Warner Records,” the complaint elaborates, “or any other party… There is no agreement in existence relating to any of the film footage that is the subject of this infringement action.”

Around 1995, when the plaintiff was moving into a new studio and a new home, “Petty offered to have Atkins store his 16mm film reels and audio elements in a secure storage facility maintained by Warner Records in Los Angeles for safekeeping,” the lawsuit states.

As described by Atkins, he “maintained access to his materials in the facility at all times” – including in 2014, when Tom Petty is said to have brought up the possibility of a Wildflowers documentary and asked to see some of the relevant footage.

From there, the filmmaker “inventoried the raw materials, copied large amounts of the footage and some of the audio onto digital media, and brought selected materials to Petty’s home,” per his account.

“Petty was thrilled with what he saw,” the complaint continues, “and the two again discussed that Atkins should, when their schedules allowed, produce and direct a documentary about Wildflowers and the subsequent tour—primarily featuring Atkins’ footage.”

Scheduling conflicts presumably prevented the project from getting started between then and Petty’s 2017 passing. Fast forward to the aforementioned disclosure of the footage’s location, which is said to have been revealed by Atkins during an early 2020 “in-person meeting with Petty’s daughter, Adria Petty, and the Petty estate manager.”

With the Wildflowers documentary front of mind, the conversation ostensibly touched on the creative direction thereof, financing, scheduling and more. Most importantly, given the purported disclosure of the decades-old footage, the plaintiff “was told he would be hired to direct and produce the film project under discussion,” per the legal text.

“Atkins left the meeting sincerely believing the next conversation would be to discuss developing the project budget and schedule,” the suit reads. “It did not cross his mind that anything nefarious was underway.”

However, he was allegedly cut out of the process entirely after that, including as a director and as the claimed owner of the footage.

“Atkins was not remotely aware of whether and the extent to which his footage would be used in the documentary that apparently was going to be made,” the action spells out. “Regardless, to the extent the producers wished to use his film or audio assets, Atkins expected he would be asked first, so that he could either decline or negotiate a license fee or other purchase agreement.”

Needless to say, given the firmly worded lawsuit, that license fee or different purchase agreement didn’t come to fruition. All told, Atkins is seeking damages, disgorgement, restitution, and a court order compelling the return of his “original film and audio materials.”

Photo Credit: House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

Convicted pharmaceutical exec Martin Shkreli faces legal action over releasing mp3s of a one of a kind Wu-Tang album forfeited after his fraud conviction.

“Pharma Bro” Martin Shkreli is being sued in New York by a digital art collective that paid $4.75 million for a one-of-a-kind album by hip-hop legends Wu-Tang Clan after learning the convicted pharmaceutical exec made copies he released to the public.

Shkreli acquired Once Upon a Time in Shaolin for $2 million in 2015. It was given up to partially satisfy a $7.4 million forfeiture order of his assets following his 2017 conviction for defrauding investors.

Since Shkreli’s release from prison in May 2022, plaintiff PleasrDAO says he has told fans on social media that he made copies of the album’s tracks. “I was playing it on YouTube the other night even though somebody paid $4 million for it,” Shkreli is said to have bragged after a livestream. The plaintiff also alleges that “thousands of people” tuned in on a recent livestream to hear the album for what Shkreli called a “Wu-Tang official listening party.”

These actions violate the forfeiture order, which “greatly diminishes and/or destroys the album’s value,” according to PleasrDAO’s complaint. The company asks that Shkreli destroy his copies, relinquish profits from disseminating the music, and pay compensatory and punitive damages.

The 41-year-old Shkreli gained the nickname “Pharma Bro” in 2015 when during his tenure as CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals, he raised the price overnight of antiparasitic drug Daraprim from $13.50 per pill to $750. He was banned from the pharmaceutical industry in 2022 and ordered to repay nearly $65 million for antitrust violations.

Shkreli was released early from his seven-year sentence, but continues to be on supervised release. Lawyers who have represented Shkreli declined to respond to media requests for comment.

PleasrDAO is displaying Once Upon a Time in Shaolin this month at the Museum of Old and New Art in Hobart, Tasmania.

Photo Credit: Regard – Ride It (Official Video)

Regard’s ‘Ride It,’ the viral remix of Jay Sean’s 2008 track of the same name, is the focus of an infringement lawsuit over an uncleared sample.

The year is 2019, and DJ Regard’s “Ride It” remix is a huge hit on TikTok, leading to over a billion streams on Spotify and similar success on other streaming platforms. Now, the track is the focus of a copyright infringement lawsuit for using an allegedly uncleared sample of the original 2008 Jay Sean song from which it is remixed.

Independent label 2Point9 Records, which released the original Jay Sean track, is suing Ministry of Sound Recordings, the label under which DJ Regard released his remix. 2Point9 says the sample used in the remix was never cleared before it was released, but was re-recorded months after the fact to omit the original uncleared sample, “by which time the track had become a commercial success.”

2Point9 claims it was willing to discuss terms for the use of its master recordings, alleging that Ministry of Sond knew in June 2019 that DJ Regard’s remix used an uncleared sample. “Ministry of Sound Recordings chose not to enter into any meaningful commercial discussions, electing instead to proceed with its release,” says 2Point9 in an official statement.

Upon 2Point9’s initial contact with Ministry of Sound, the latter allegedly claimed it had re-recorded the sample, but later admitted to releasing a version that still contained it. It was only after the first release using the uncleared sample that Ministry of Sound re-recorded the sample — by which time the remix was already a massive success.

“Ministry of Sound has treated our label with arrogance and dismissiveness, and the irony is not lost on us that before its acquisition by Sony Music Entertainment, Ministry of Sound Recordings was an independent label itself,” says 2Point9 co-founder Billy Grant.

“Why they think that this kind of behavior against a small label is acceptable is bewildering. However, we are determined to make them realize that it is not OK to ride roughshod over the commercial rights of those in the independent sector and that there are consequences for doing so,” Grant concludes. “Commencing legal action is the next step in that process.”

Photo Credit: Mali Maeder

Following evidently fruitless settlement discussions, Universal Music Group’s Interscope Records has officially taken a step towards seeking the dismissal of an infringement lawsuit filed by Tupac Shakur collaborator Master Tee.

Interscope as well as fellow defendants including Hulu and FX just recently moved to reopen the case, which has been paused since mid-April amid settlement talks. Initially designed to hammer out the details of a “modest” resolution, said talks in reality encompassed “pure fantasy” demands from the plaintiff for a massive payment, according to the defendants.

For a refresher on the original complaint, which we covered at the time of its November of 2023 filing, Master Tee (real name Terence Thomas) purportedly “co-wrote, produced and published the music” from which “2Pac immediately wrote the lyrics” for 1995’s “Dear Mama.”

In support of the claim, the plaintiff pointed to what’s described as Tupac’s handwritten record of credits on his songs. However, Master Tee never received an official songwriting credit on the track and is allegedly billed solely as a producer.

“Master Tee was never properly and fully credited with his publishing copyright from the writing and creation of the music of ‘Dear Mama’ and instead,” the original suit reads, “a self-serving group, led by an upstart music producer, Tony D. Pizarro, conspired with executives at Interscope Records and Universal Music Group” to misappropriate the rights.

Stated briefly, Master Tee (“a musical artist – not a sophisticated business person”) maintains that Pizarro swooped in at the time of Tupac’s 1995 incarceration and assumed “control over the production.”

That alleged control refers not only to the alleged theft of Master Tee’s rightful credit on “Dear Mama,” but an alleged effort from Pizarro “to lay claim to every aspect of the written creative work” in question (as well as a remix to boot) via interviews and other public remarks.

In the end, Master Tee, who’s said to have been working as a New York City bus driver for the better part of three decades, ostensibly enlisted counsel to explore the credits situation last year. Per the suit, that process initiated after the individual “was not contacted nor asked to clear or license his rights” for the Dear Mama series that Hulu and FX released in 2023.

“One major reason that Master Tee did not know he was not receiving proper royalty and copyright credit was because he was receiving writer’s and publishing royalties from BMI for radio of ‘Dear Mama,’” the plaintiff elaborated in the action.

“Being a relatively unsophisticated producer, Master Tee did not until very recently appreciate that the royalties which he was deriving from BMI were actually much less than he should have been receiving had his creative work been credited as it should have been from the outset,” he continued.

Back to the defendants’ mentioned motion to resume the case and then move to dismiss, Master Tee and his counsel allegedly represented beforehand that they were “merely seeking formal credit and a modest writer’s royalty.”

“Since then,” Interscope and the other defendants proceeded, “plaintiff has made it abundantly clear that he and this case are not ready for a serious settlement discussion. First, instead of a modest royalty, plaintiff is now demanding hundreds of thousands of dollars from each defendant, and a writer’s share of ‘Dear Mama’ that is twice what the Tupac Shakur estate receives for Shakur’s lyrical contribution.”

Building on those points, the defendants (who also believe the allegations are time-barred) highlighted a purported demand from Master Tee for a $1.6 million once-off settlement or, alternatively, a $200,000 payment along with a 15% “writer’s royalty for ‘Dear Mama’ and a doubling of his producer royalty.”

“The demand would be pure fantasy even if plaintiff’s claims were timely,” the defendants proceeded, indicating as well that “a 15% writer’s royalty would be nearly twice the Shakur Estate’s 8.33% royalty.”

Finally, the defendants emphasized that Pizarro himself hadn’t participated in the settlement conference and may not have been served. For these and related reasons, Interscope and the other involved parties asked the court to set a deadline, at least two weeks after ruling on the sought settlement discussions’ conclusion, for the filing of a dismissal motion.

Estimated Mechanicals Paid, U.S., February 2024 (Last Month Prior to Spotify Bundling Discounts) (Source: Digital Music News/DMN Pro)

How much are streaming music platforms actually paying for publishing in the U.S.? Amid an intensifying battle over Spotify’s bundling and a corresponding mechanicals decline, here’s a comprehensive look at actual payout data preceding Spotify’s big move.

DMN Pro’s latest trove of exclusive data — sourced from actual mechanical payments receipts and documents — gives us the closest look yet at how Spotify’s mechanical royalty payments compare to other streaming platforms in the United States. That is, for the last month before Spotify switches a large percentage of its accounts to bundled status.

Report Table of Contents

I. Introduction: A Recap of Spotify’s Bundling Reclassifications and the Forecasted Mechanical Royalties Decrease

II. Streaming Services’ Compositional Royalty Calculations: A Methodology Overview

Graph 1: Total U.S. Paid Accounts (Not Users) by Music Streaming Service and Plan, February 2024

Graph 2: Leading Streaming Services’ Public Performance Payments by Individual Plan, February 2024

III. U.S. Mechanicals At a Glance — A Synopsis of How On-Demand Streaming Royalties Are Calculated Under Phonorecords IV

IV. Mechanical Royalties by the Numbers: What Leading DSPs Are Paying in the U.S.

Graph 3: 2024 U.S. Mechanical and Performance Payments, Ad-Supported and Paid, by Service

Graph 4: Estimated Payable Mechanicals, U.S., February 2024 (Last Month Prior to Spotify Bundling Discounts)

V. How Will the Battle Over Spotify’s U.S. Mechanicals Play Out? A Summary of Near- and Long-Term Possibilities

Please note: unauthorized redistribution of this report is prohibited — thank you.

A federal court has rejected multiple motions to dismiss a reggaeton copyright lawsuit filed over contemporary artists’ alleged infringement of pioneering works. Photo Credit: Wesley Tingey

What do Karol G, Justin Bieber, Luis Fonsi, Daddy Yankee, Diplo, Jason Derulo, Anuel AA, Anitta, and Drake have in common? For one thing, they’re being accused of infringing on reggaeton itself by borrowing from “groundbreaking” decades-old releases without permission.

Those allegations stem from a lengthy infringement action levied by reggae musicians themselves and the estates of different reggae professionals, who are said to have played a key role in the development of the genre as well as reggaeton.

Chief among these plaintiffs is one Clevie (real name Cleveland Constantine Browne), a Jamaica-based individual who’s purportedly known for “pioneering the use of drum machines in reggae.” In the interest of relative brevity, the present complaint actually stems from three separate cases: two filed in 2021 against a total of 34 artist defendants, the third submitted in May of 2022 against 24 more defendants.

The actions were consolidated in July of the same year – for a cumulative total of around 60 artist defendants and north of 1,000 allegedly infringing works. This includes the initially mentioned acts and, on top of that, all manner of companies – such as the major labels’ publishing units, Hipgnosis, Concord, and BMG, to name just a few.

Once again in the interest of relative concision, Clevie and one Steely (real name Wycliffe Anthony Johnson) formed a group called Steely & Clevie, which then put out “Fish Market” (1989).

Written and recorded by the duo, that “groundbreaking” instrumental track features “an original drum pattern that differentiates it from prior works,” with “a programmed kick, snare, and hi-hat playing a one bar pattern,” among different things, per the plaintiffs. Another Steely & Clevie effort, “Dem Bow,” proved “a massive hit, and a critical and commercial success, in the international reggae dancehall scene,” according to the legal text.

Additionally, the much-copied track – “Dem Bow” has allegedly “been widely copied in songs in the reggaeton music genre” – set the stage for a 1990 derivative called “Pounder Riddim,” consisting of elements of both the previously noted Steely & Clevie works, the plaintiffs said. From there, “Pounder” made an even bigger splash in different commercially prominent releases across reggaeton.

Predictably, those releases ultimately extended to a variety of projects from the defendants, who have allegedly sampled “Pounder” numerous times. “Pounder has been widely copied and/or sampled,” the plaintiffs spelled out, clarifying for good measure the unapproved nature of the alleged usages.

Unsurprisingly, the defendants fired back against the far-reaching suit, seeking a dismissal for several reasons. Multiple twists and turns later, the court in a May 28th order approved certain of the dismissal motions and rejected others.

Beginning on the dismissal side, the court granted a request to toss contributory and vicarious arguments for failure to state a claim. The plaintiffs failed to distinguish which parties “materially contributed to or induced the underlying infringing conduct or had the right and ability to supervise the underlying infringing conduct,” the relevant order reads in part.

Running with the lack of specificity at hand, the court nevertheless granted the plaintiffs leave to amend this component of the suit. Furthermore, other dismissal arguments were unable to bring about the desired result for the defendants; perceived issues with the plaintiffs’ copyrights would best be addressed down the line, the presiding judge explained in more words.

Dismissing due to the recent timing of the copyright registrations on the plaintiffs’ decades-old works might simply compel the refiling of parts of the suit, which the court has spent “a substantial amount of time and resources managing,” per the order. And the defendants’ argument that the “Dem Bow” copyright solely includes lyrics would be “inappropriate for resolution at this stage.”

Perhaps most interestingly, the court also rejected the defendants’ claims that the reggaeton musical elements in question aren’t protectable at all.

The same argument has proven effective in separate copyright battles, but here, the judge summed up that the plaintiffs had “sufficiently alleged the protectability of the drum pattern, interplay of compositional elements, or the combination of these elements.”

In other words, the massive copyright action is proceeding, and it’ll be worth closely monitoring the case in the approaching months.

Photo Credit: Solen Feyissa

OpenAI has revealed documents related to its casting call for the ChatGPT 4.0 update that features a voice assistant. Scarlett Johansson sought legal counsel after saying she believes the voice was modeled on her own. OpenAI says that’s not the case.

The Washington Post has reviewed documents for the OpenAI casting call including requirements that include being a non-union actor, between 25 and 45 years-old, and must have a “warm, engaging, and charismatic” voice. No where on the casting call did the request to “sound like Scarlett Johansson” appear.

Johansson says she found the similarities between her own voice in the 2013 movie “Her” and that of OpenAI’s new voice assistant as striking.

The verdict on whether Sky—OpenAI’s virtual assistant—sounds like Scarlett Johannson’s voice is still out. OpenAI says they hired an actress in June 2023 to create the Sky voice, months before Altman contacted Johansson about becoming the voice of the assistant. The voice actresses’ agent says neither Johansson or the movie ‘Her’ were ever mentioned by OpenAI.

“The actress’s natural voice sounds identical to the AI-generated Sky voice, based on brief recordings of her initial voice test reviewed by The Post,” writes Nitasha Tiku for The Washington Post. “The agent said the name Sky was chosen to signal a cool, airy, and pleasant sound.”

Following Scarlett Johansson’s public statement about the voice assistant, OpenAI paused the use of Sky in the most recent version of ChatGPT. It published a blog post detailing the lengthy process of developing AI voices. Meanwhile, Altman himself released a statement saying that OpenAI never intended for the voice to sound like Scarlett Johansson’s at all—even if he did tweet the word ‘her’ shortly before its reveal.

In a statement from the Sky actress provided by her agent, she writes the backlash “feels personal being that it’s just my natural voice and I’ve never been compared to her by the people who do know me closely.”

A Renaissance Tour performance from Beyoncé, who, along with Big Freedia, is facing a fresh copyright infringement lawsuit. Photo Credit: Raph_PH

Beyoncé and Big Freedia are facing a copyright infringement lawsuit for allegedly copying elements of a New Orleans-based bounce group’s work on “Explode” and “Break My Soul.”

Da Showstoppaz, a four-piece act that formed back in 2002, just recently submitted the firmly worded complaint to a Louisiana federal court. Besides Beyoncé and Big Freedia, the action names as defendants Jay-Z, Sony Music, Kobalt, and several others.

According to the multifaceted suit, the plaintiffs met in 2001 and, capitalizing on a shared interest in music, became Da Showstoppaz. With the CD still reigning supreme at the time, that decision set the stage for an opportunity to create a track for a local mixtape (Fire on Da Bayou Vol. 1) made by one of the member’s family friends.

A few twists and turns later, July of 2002 saw the group pen and record “Release a Wiggle,” according to the legal text. The plaintiffs say they were focused mainly on the “opportunity to showcase their song” and, after recording it at the direction of the family friend/businessman, “did not request any documentation or paperwork.”

Per the suit, that family friend called on the group to provide a “shout-out” in the recording for a label that he hadn’t yet formed. The individual released the mixtape but seemingly failed to register “Release a Wiggle” with the Copyright Office, the action shows.

Nevertheless, the ostensibly well-received track enabled Da Showstoppaz to find success with local shows in 2003 and the beginning of 2004, recording an album during the same window, the plaintiffs explained. But the family friend is said to have cut professional ties in 2004; that development, in addition to Da Showstoppaz members’ relocations in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, ultimately marked the end of the group.

Fast forward to 2010, when one member of the bounce act established a personal YouTube channel “primarily to showcase wig and make-up tutorials.” On said channel, the plaintiff in March of 2014 decided to upload “the original version” of “Release a Wiggle.”

And as the plaintiffs describe things, it isn’t a coincidence that elements of the song soon thereafter made their way into New Orleans-born Big Freedia’s “Explode” – without their permission.

(Big Freedia is said to have had a hand in “popularizing bounce music,” with the plaintiffs further alleging a connection between the artist and the aforesaid family friend/businessman.)

“‘Explode’ infringes on Da Showstoppaz’ ‘Release A Wiggle’ twelve times,” the suit reads, “as the infringing phrase ‘release yo’ wiggle’ and several other substantially similar phrases are featured prominently in the song… Any reasonable person listening to ‘Release A Wiggle’ and ‘Explode’ would conclude that the songs are substantially similar.”

While the alleged infringement in the fairly popular track didn’t immediately catch the plaintiffs’ attention, they promptly noticed in 2022 when Beyoncé’s “Break My Soul” (part of Renaissance) sampled “Explode” – and, in turn, their own track, according to the lawsuit. Said sampling includes Big Freedia’s “release yo’ wiggle” vocals – or what the plaintiffs say is a central component of “Release a Wiggle.”

Predictably, given the complaint, steps towards a resolution outside the courtroom failed to bring about the desired result for the plaintiffs, who in 2022 and 2023 registered “Release a Wiggle” (the composition as well as the recording) with the Copyright Office.

Earlier this month, Universal Music settled a separate unauthorized-sample lawsuit, centering this time on a Kanye West track. And in March, Daddy Yankee and others were slapped with an infringement suit over an allegedly unauthorized sample in “Bailar Contigo.”

A breakdown of publicly announced catalog acquisitions between January-May 2023 and 2024. In the 2024 period, May encompasses the month’s first three weeks.

Amid an uncertain economic climate and cooling industry funding, how are catalog acquisitions faring in 2024? We crunched the numbers to see where the space is positioned and where it could be heading during the rest of the year.

This latest check-in on the song-rights arena is made possible by our Music IP Acquisition Tracker, a comprehensive, searchable database of catalog deals large and small. From the Hipgnosis Songs Fund bidding war to Pophouse Entertainment’s reportedly $300 million acquisition of the KISS catalog, much has changed since we last broke down the multibillion-dollar subsector.

Report Table of Contents

I. Introduction: A Recap of the Catalog Space’s Early 2024 Showing

II. Catalog Deals’ Volume Has Slowed in 2024 — Does the Decrease Paint a Complete Picture?

Graph: Music Industry IP Acquisitions, January-May 2023 and 2024

III. Confidence in Catalogs: With Capital Commitments Exceeding $3 Billion, Is a Wave of Purchases Forthcoming?

Graph: By the Numbers: 2024’s Catalog Capital Commitments

IV. The Bottom Line: Where Will the Catalog Space Go During the Rest of 2024?

The Warsaw Marriott Hotel. Photo Credit: Michal Mrozek

Sony Music Entertainment (SME) is suing Marriott International for copyright infringement over the alleged unauthorized use of protected music in social media promo videos.

The major label and several of its subsidiaries recently submitted the complaint against Bethesda-headquartered Marriott to a Delaware federal court. Spanning north of 50 pages, the suit promptly dives into the relevant social media clips uploaded by the “behemoth of the hospitality industry.”

As described by the plaintiffs, Marriott also “operates a social media empire” across its owned accounts, the accounts of the hotels it manages, influencer partnerships, and, owing to control over posted content, the profiles of its franchised hotels.

In keeping with that purported empire, Sony Music maintains that a number of Marriott promotional videos – to the tune of 931 identified instances of alleged stateside infringement – have utilized recordings without authorization. That includes works from the likes of Beyoncé, Harry Styles, Mariah Carey, Michael Jackson, and Miley Cyrus.

Services such as TikTok and Instagram (which are among the platforms where the alleged infringement occurred) have licensing deals in place covering the non-commercial use of music on the part of individuals. Also available are commercial music libraries from which brands can safely add songs to their own content.

However, these pre-cleared commercial libraries lack prominent releases attributable to especially well-known acts, songs from which must be licensed separately. While not an existential threat to Marriott (NASDAQ: MAR), the market cap of which exceeds $67 billion, the requirement has proven extremely costly for different companies in similar major-label actions.

Running with that point, history and evidence suggest that Universal Music and Warner Music could potentially join SME in suing Marriott. All three majors ended up taking legal action against Bang Energy (which now belongs to Monster), and per SME’s Marriott complaint, the hospitality company has further infringed on “many sound recordings owned and controlled by numerous other record labels” as well as an abundance of compositions.

Staying focused on SME’s suit for the time being, though, the major label is said to have reached out to Marriott on multiple occasions about the alleged “rampant infringement.”

Those warnings date back to mid-January of 2020, according to the action, with related communications having ostensibly occurred in November of the same year and then March of 2021, 2022, and 2024.

An initial tolling agreement was finalized (presumably in the final nine months of 2022 or the opening three months of 2023), but Marriott sometime thereafter allegedly refused to “enter into reasonable extensions or new tolling agreements,” on top of allegedly opting against requests “to timely identify which hotels Sony Music identified were managed or franchised, necessitating this lawsuit.”

“At least forty-seven of the infringements Sony Music has identified were posted in the month of May alone,” the suit reads, “and dozens of those videos were posted to Instagram Stories. … Marriott and its managed and franchised hotels are making a concerted effort to avoid detection by posting infringing content to Instagram Stories, which are only available for twenty-four hours.”

All told, Sony Music is suing Marriott (which didn’t respond to a request for comment in time for publishing) for direct, vicarious, and contributory infringement alike. This past October, SME levied a complaint, centering on the same type of alleged “blatant, willful, and repeated” infringement, against OFRA Cosmetics.

Where will Spotify’s bundling adventure take us next?

On Tuesday, NMPA president David Israelite advanced a different licensing schema to members of Congress that would change the game for music publishers — and complicate the game for everyone else.

Just moments after the Mechanical Licensing Collective (MLC) filed suit against Spotify, the National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA) dropped another bomb. In a letter floated on Tuesday (May 21st) by NMPA chief David Israelite to members of Congress (see the full text here), a brand-new licensing schema was advanced.

Under the proposed update, the MLC and statutory mechanical licensing would remain, but music publishers would also have the freedom to negotiate their rates directly with streaming platforms like Spotify.

This is the type of change that music publishers have always wanted. However, Israelite was clearly motivated by Spotify’s sneaky shift into bundling and the statutory licensing discounts that come with it.

“The continued abuse of the statutory system by digital services, most recently Spotify, has made clear that additional action by Congress is needed,” Israelite wrote while pointing to routine, fraught renegotiations before the US Copyright Office’s Copyright Royalty Board (CRB).

“In these proceedings, music publishers and songwriters must face off against some of the biggest tech companies in the world: Spotify, Apple, Amazon, Google, among others, to establish rates for the use of musical works.”

But what if music publishers could call the shots with direct licensing negotiations, just like record labels? “Rather than picking who wins and who loses, Congress should allow rights holders the choice to license through the MLC using the statutorily set royalty rates or to withdraw from the MLC and operate in a free market if they meet certain conditions,” the proposal continues.

All of which sounds like a fantastic change for music publishers and a long-overdue shift — though for obvious reasons, Spotify would rue the day that publishing direct-licensing arrived.

There are many details that need to be clarified. But under the new plan, if a publisher or songwriter decides they’d like a higher rate than what is currently offered under statutory rates, they simply withdraw their catalog and demand more. Spotify (and other streaming platforms) must then negotiate or risk losing the song entirely.

That’s great for publishers and a worthwhile shift toward normalizing music licensing. But for Spotify, there’s plenty to hate here. For starters, licensing costs for publishing IP would quickly increase, and recording owners might not budge. The result is that songs would become more expensive to license, which is bad news for Spotify’s profitability ambitions.

Wall Street, now firmly focused on profitability instead of growth and pushing Spotify in this direction, would also seriously dislike this change given that Spotify’s core asset — the music — could become significantly more expensive. Those riding the wave on Spotify’s stock (SPOT) might decide it’s an opportune time to sell.

But beyond the direct content costs, there would be serious administrative and logistical issues to weather. Instead of sending data to the MLC and writing a fat check, Spotify would suddenly have to manage millions of individual negotiations with songwriters and publishers that want more money.

Nearly every IP owner behind a song with significant plays will likely demand more cash. And this isn’t something you can staff up against. Instead, Spotify would have to retool its entire licensing framework to manage millions of micro-negotiations at scale.

That’s not to say this isn’t the right answer and a step in the right direction. But it’s not a step that Spotify ever wants to take.

And make no mistake, there will be prices Spotify won’t pay, which means more grayed-out content and more dissatisfied customers. Though the exact details haven’t been hashed out, it’s possible that a single songwriter could remove a popular track from Spotify at any time, simply because they want a higher rate that Spotify doesn’t want to pay.

Which brings us to the next loser in this scenario: the labels.

It’s not that recording owners aren’t winning in this equation. They enjoy unfettered, direct negotiations with platforms like Spotify and receive far more than their music publishing counterparts. Theoretically, publishers should enjoy the same freedoms, though that doesn’t mean recording owners want to hand over a slice of their (far more significant) pie.

There’s a reason major label bigwigs haven’t been rallying to the defense of music publishers. Any substantive gains by music publishers probably translate into less money for recordings. Beyond that, a shift towards publisher direct licensing also means more disruption to the smoothly running, streaming gravy train.

Suddenly, publishers and songwriters can yank their content if they’re unhappy. At any moment, Spotify and other streaming platforms can get dinged by serious content holes and spotty selections.

Right now, Spotify has everything listeners want — except for the now-rare holdout like Garth Brooks. But what if users were routinely hitting unplayable potholes? None of that is good news for the billion-dollar streaming music pipeline that is now express-pumping cash into every major label coffer.

That might explain why major label CEOs like Universal Music Group’s Lucian Grainge haven’t been vocal on Spotify’s bundling fiasco. And why they’ll likely remain disinterested in a direct-licensing future for music publishers.

For major recording owners like UMG, this boat is best left un-rocked.

Books & Music: So simple, yet so complicated (photo: Andrea Piacquadio)

Late yesterday, Digital Music News first reported on the Mechanical Licensing Collective’s lawsuit against Spotify over allegedly underpaid publishing royalties. Now, Spotify is pushing back and seriously questioning the merits of the MLC’s claims. Here’s what they relayed to DMN early this morning.

Spotify is now responding to an aggressive lawsuit filed by the Mechanical Licensing Collective (MLC), and it looks like we may have a fight on our hands. Late yesterday, the MLC filed its complaint against Spotify USA in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (here’s the complete 23-page filing). In summary, the MLC alleges that the streaming music platform is illegally undercutting its royalty obligations by bundling its various music, audiobook, and podcast offerings.

Not so fast, Spotify says. In comments issued to Digital Music News this morning, the DSP asserts that everything is above board, fair and square, and by the book. Specifically, Spotify notes that bundling discounts were baked into the most recent royalty agreement approved by the Copyright Royalty Board — dubbed ‘Phonorecords IV’ — and publishers are refusing to follow their own terms.

“The [MLC] lawsuit concerns terms that publishers and streaming services agreed to and celebrated years ago under the Phono IV agreement,” Spotify told DMN, while linking to a ‘celebratory’ announcement issued at the time by the National Music Publishers’ Assocation (NMPA).

Everyone signed off on Phonorecords IV and popped the champagne afterward, Spotify says, with bundling terms clearly agreed upon. “Bundles were a critical component of that settlement, and multiple DSPs include bundles as part of their mix of subscription offerings,” the streaming platform continued.

It’s worth noting that other streaming music platforms also bundle, with Apple and Amazon both masters of high-priced bundled offerings that span media, e-commerce, and other perks. Exactly how those platforms employ bundling to their advantage on the royalty front is unclear at this stage, though more details could surface if a court battle ensues.

Further flexing its clout — and this could come into play later — Spotify also pointed to its massive royalty contributions to the music industry overall.

“Spotify paid a record amount to publishers and societies in 2023 and is on track to pay out an even larger amount in 2024,” the Spotify executive continued.

That comment was carefully calculated and part of an interesting power dynamic between the platform, the music industry, and music publishers. So far, the recording side of the business has been quiet on the bundling royalty question, with major label toppers like Lucian Grainge (UMG) and Robert Kyncl (WMG) mostly praising Spotify’s bundling strategies. Part of the reason is that Spotify is more intelligently pushing price increases by diversifying its product mix, a strategy likely to spill even more revenues into major label coffers.

DMN Pro Weekly Report: As Spotify Embraces Bundles, Mechanical Royalties Take a Hit — But Are We Missing the Big Picture Here?

Despite lingering fears of a streaming subscription plateau, major labels are still posting double-digit quarterly revenue gains, with paid subscriptions a big reason for the uptick. That might explain why publishers are fighting this battle alone, even though major publishers are often subsidiaries of major label conglomerates.

Back to the MLC situation, Spotify hesitated to spell out its next moves.

That could include a combative legal response, though some negotiations may be in order first. “We look forward to a swift resolution of this matter,” the company offered.

As for the allegations, the MLC alleges that Spotify has sneakily classified its Premium Individual, Duo, and Family plans as bundled subscriptions by including audiobook access. This classification allegedly reduces the reported service provider revenue for music, leading to lower royalty payments.

The MLC argues that Spotify’s bundling approach does not comply with applicable laws and regulations—though Spotify begs to differ on that point. The lawsuit seeks corrected reporting and unpaid royalties from March 2024 onwards, along with future compliance.

The MLC, created by unanimous Congressional mandate in 2018 and designated by the Register of Copyrights, is tasked with collecting and distributing blanket mechanical license royalties and enforcing payment obligations. Since its inception in January 2021, the MLC says it has distributed over $2 billion to songwriters and music publishers.

More as this develops.

A 78 RPM vinyl record featuring a rendition of ‘Jingle Bells’ by Stanley Fritts and The Korn Kobblers, one of the many works available in digital via the Great 78 Project. Photo Credit: Mick Haupt

Universal Music’s copyright infringement lawsuit against the Internet Archive is proceeding after the presiding judge rejected multiple dismissal motions.

This latest development in the infringement dispute emerged in a new order from Judge Maxine Chesney. UMG Recordings (UMG), Sony Music Entertainment (SME), and others initially submitted the $400 million action in August of 2023.

As we reported at the time, the suit alleges largescale infringement in the Internet Archive’s “Great 78 Project.” As described by the non-profit, that initiative, through which north of 450,000 recordings have been made available for streaming and download, “is a community project for the preservation, research and discovery of 78rpm records.”

But as the filing parties (which are also suing Internet Archive founder and chief executive Brewster Kahle, his foundation, audio engineer George Blood, and the latter’s company) see things, the project constitutes “mass infringement” and the “wholesale theft of generations of music.”

The defendants moved to dismiss the suit in January of this year, with perhaps the most noteworthy of the involved arguments centering on allegedly time-barred elements of the complaint. That the RIAA had sent a cease-and-desist letter over the Great 78 Project back in July of 2020, the Internet Archive and others maintained, should render invalid “a substantial swath of alleged instances of direct infringement.”

(At the time of this writing, attempting to access via the Great 78 Project several of the allegedly infringed works brought up a “no longer available” message reading “Items may be taken down for various reasons, including by decision of the uploader or due to a violation of our Terms of Use.”)

According to the highlighted order, however, the court doesn’t agree with the assessment at this stage. The 2020 RIAA “letter on which defendants here rely does not identify any specific sound recording, let alone any of the” allegedly infringed works, Judge Chesney wrote.

With that said, the court didn’t entirely close the door on the potential use of the cease and desist at some point during the legal battle.

“Although, at a later stage of the proceedings, Internet Archive Defendants may be able to use the letter to show one or more of the alleged acts of infringement described in the AC [amended complaint] occurred outside the limitations period,” the judge penned, “such showing has not been made at the pleading stage.”

From there, the court rejected as well the call to toss the contributory infringement allegation against Kahle’s aforementioned foundation. (“The Foundation facilitates, encourages, and materially contributes to the direct infringement of Plaintiffs’ protected sound recordings by financially sponsoring and specifically funding the infringement,” Universal Music and the other plaintiffs claimed in the original filing.)

Regarding Kahle’s alleged control and funding of the Internet Archive through this foundation, the court determined in part that “the plaintiffs’ contributory infringement claim is not based solely on the Foundation’s donations but also on the control its President, Kahle, allegedly has over the activities of Internet Archive.”

Thus, the foundation may have materially contributed to the Archive’s alleged direct infringement, according to the legal text.

Last month, Twitter/X pushed back against the remaining allegations it’s facing in a National Music Publishers’ Association infringement suit, and ISP Cox Communications remains embroiled in a long-running courtroom confrontation with the majors.

Photo Credit: Spotify

Make no mistake, music publishers aren’t thrilled about Spotify’s big shift towards bundled offerings.

NMPA head David Israelite has condemned in no uncertain terms Spotify’s “perversion of the settlement” behind Phonorecords IV, making clear as well that “all options” are on the table when it comes to pushing back against the “potentially unlawful” change. And the Association of Independent Music Publishers (AIMP) has likewise decried the “deeply cynical move.”

Others are far less concerned. Book publishers are for obvious reasons thrilled about Spotify’s overarching audiobook buildout, which has reportedly paid them “tens of millions” of dollars already. And notwithstanding the pessimistic assessment from the NMPA, key music industry stakeholders – referring here to UMG CEO Lucian Grainge and WMG CEO Robert Kyncl – have had largely positive things to say about the change.

All of which raises the question: is this really bad news for the music industry?

Report Table of Contents

Introduction: The Estimated Mechanical Royalties Impact of Spotify’s Audiobook Bundles

Smaller Payments for Music Publishers? A Look At Spotify’s Audiobook Bundles and the Involved Mechanical Rate

What Mechanical Royalties Falloff? The Major Labels’ Curiously Optimistic Responses to Spotify’s Bundling Classification

Spotify’s Audiobook Pivot and the Evolving Entertainment Landscape: Possible Positives from the Embrace of Bundles

The Bottom Line: What’s the Net Impact of Spotify’s Audiobook Bundles?

Please note: redistribution of this report is not permitted. Thank you.

Photo Credit: King Crimson for Atlantic Records, 1974

Universal Music Group has settled a lawsuit over mechanical royalties for prog rock band King Crimson’s 1969 sample used in Kanye West’s 2010 track ‘Power.’

King Crimson and Declan Colgan Music have settled their lawsuit with Universal Music Group (UMG) over a Kanye West song that samples the prog rock band’s 1969 track, “21st Century Schizoid Man.” Declan Colgan Music owns the mechanical rights to the King Crimson song, with the company claiming UMG had underpaid them on streaming royalties earned from the sample’s use in West’s track “Power.”

The lawsuit was filed in London’s High Court in March 2022, and the case was due to go to trial in the UK this week before reaching a settlement out of court. West, who now goes by Ye, used King Crimson’s signature song for his 2010 hit, “Power.” But he was not a party to the lawsuit, which focuses specifically on allegedly underpaid mechanical rights.

Still, the filing asserts that West originally sampled the prog rock band’s track without license when “Power” and the album on which it was featured, My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy, were released in 2010. After the release of the song and album, UMG and West’s production company, Rock the World, signed a deal with Declan Colgan Music to grant the company royalties.

The deal stated that Declan Colgan Music would receive royalties on the same terms as West, whose deal with UMG stipulated his royalties for both streaming and physical CDs would be comparable. But in their lawsuit, Declan Colgan Music claimed the royalties they received for streaming were not comparable to those they received for CD sales.

The terms of the settlement have not been disclosed, though Law360 and Variety have been told that Declan Colgan Music received payment as part of the agreement. Neither representatives for Declan Colgan or UMG responded to media requests for comment. Declan Colgan Music was represented by Clintons, while UMG was represented by Russells.

Back in March of 2023, a federal court dismissed a copyright infringement lawsuit filed against Childish Gambino, Sony Music, and others over “This Is America.” Now, an appellate court has upheld the ruling.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals just recently affirmed the dismissal of the suit, which the plaintiff, a Florida-based musician named Emelike Nwosuocha and known professionally as Kidd Wes, had submitted in 2021. (That artist isn’t to be confused with the identically named Florida attorney who’s made unrelated headlines.)

Importantly, the three-judge appeals panel didn’t rule on whether “This Is America” actually infringes on Nwosuocha’s “Made in America” (2016). According to the filing party, the defendants’ commercially prominent track lifted without permission elements including “flow” as well as “structure and lyrical content.”

However, the appellate court likewise found that the plaintiff lacks the necessary copyright to levy the complaint. In short, Kidd Wes registered his recording but not the underlying composition.

(Upon dismissing the suit last year, the presiding judge rejected the infringement claims themselves, citing a perceived lack of similarity between the involved songs, and also pointed out the copyright-protection shortcoming preventing the action from proceeding.)

“Rather, Nwosuocha’s problem is that his copyright registration is simply for the wrong work—his sound recording rather than his musical composition,” the appeals court spelled out in the newly penned order. “That distinction is important. It is the difference between forgiving technical mistakes in a copyright application and allowing applications to create registrations in material never mentioned.

“Nwosuocha could not have filed an application for one song and then expanded the registration to another by claiming that he meant to register both after the fact. He likewise cannot apply for only a sound recording and expand the registration to the underlying musical work,” the court proceeded.

At the time of this writing, Kidd Wes didn’t appear to have commented publicly on the ruling; Childish Gambino today unveiled a massive tour in support of his surprise-release album. But Kidd Wes still looks to be making music and will presumably protect his recordings and compositions alike moving forward.

On a related note, towards the top of 2024, French Montana won a copyright suit over “Ain’t Worried About Nothin’” despite the “apparent similarities” between the commercially successful song and the allegedly infringed work.

The plaintiff in the case, having uploaded the relevant track to a music-sharing platform as a minor, ultimately registered only the recording (not the composition) with the Copyright Office. Had the composition been protected as well, the outcome “might have been very different,” the presiding judge noted when dismissing the suit.

Photo Credit: BoliviaInteligente

In a sudden turn of events, Universal Music Group and TikTok have announced a new licensing agreement, signifying a hopeful step forward in the fraught relationship between the music industry giant and the global social media platform. The development closely follows the passage of the ‘TikTok ban bill’ in the United States.

The agreement, announced early this morning from Los Angeles, marks the end of a contentious period while potentially setting the stage for a deal benefiting artists, songwriters, labels, and the billion-plus user community of TikTok. Terms of the updated agreement were not disclosed, though UMG executives had cited problems with overall compensation and AI licensing.

The UMG-TikTok deal comes after a months-long standoff, which also included threats of legal action from UMG against TikTok for alleged DMCA violations, as Digital Music News first reported last month. UMG first began removing its entire catalog from the platform at the end of February, causing howls of protests from TikTokers and artists alike.

Also worth noting: TikTok’s agreement comes just days after President Biden signed into a law that would effectively ban the platform in the United States. TikTok and its parent, ByteDance, have vowed to challenge the law in court, though the serious development may have prompted TikTok to play nicer with the music industry.

Separately, sources to DMN pointed to tens of thousands of DMCA takedown notices being issued by UMG, part of a larger, systemic issue of unauthorized content proliferating on the platform. Those concerns may have been alleviated by the terms of the freshly-inked deal, though more details are undoubtedly forthcoming.

For now, there’s a new era of cooperation between the companies, with UMG artists back on the platform.

Sir Lucian Grainge, Chairman and CEO of Universal Music Group, expressed enthusiasm about the renewed partnership, emphasizing the value of music, the importance of human artistry, and the welfare of the creative community. Grainge highlighted the potential for collaborative innovation in fan engagement and the advancement of social music monetization, promising a brighter future for UMG’s artists and songwriters.

“This new chapter in our relationship with TikTok focuses on the value of music, the primacy of human artistry and the welfare of the creative community,” Grainge stated. “We look forward to collaborating with the team at TikTok to further the interests of our artists and songwriters and drive innovation in fan engagement while advancing social music monetization.”

Shou Chew, CEO of TikTok, echoed these sentiments, reaffirming the platform’s commitment to driving value, discovery, and promotion for UMG’s roster of artists and songwriters. Chew emphasized the integral role of music in the TikTok ecosystem and the company’s dedication to deepening the ability of artists to grow, connect, and engage with the community.

“Music is an integral part of the TikTok ecosystem and we are pleased to have found a path forward with Universal Music Group,” Chew said. “We are committed to working together to drive value, discovery and promotion for all of UMG’s amazing artists and songwriters, and deepen their ability to grow, connect and engage with the TikTok community.”

The agreement promises including improved remuneration for UMG’s songwriters and artists, new promotional and engagement opportunities, and protections regarding the use of generative AI in music creation.

That includes artist-centric tools like “Add to Music App,” which TikTok expanded during the standoff. That helps to shuttle fans towards DSPs like Spotify when songs or artists are trending. But more importantly for TikTok, the UMG deal reopens a critical license for TikTok Music, a new-fangled Spotify competitor that is still in its infancy.

Additionally, DMN understands that UMG will be given enhanced data and analytics on artist activity. Separately, TikTok has also been busy integrating ticketing capabilities, part of a continued expansion into music that could further benefit UMG-inked artists.

Both organizations have also pledged to work together on ensuring AI development in the music industry respects human artistry and contributes positively to the economics that flow to artists and songwriters. Efforts will be made to remove unauthorized AI-generated music from TikTok, alongside introducing measures to improve artist and songwriter attribution.

Ole Obermann, TikTok’s Global Head of Music Business Development, and Michael Nash, Chief Digital Officer and EVP of Universal Music Group, both expressed optimism about the potential of this partnership to foster deeper connections between artists, creators, and fans, and to promote an environment in which artists and songwriters prosper.

“We are delighted to welcome UMG and UMPG back to TikTok,” Obermann said. “We look forward to working together to forge a path that creates deeper connections between artists, creators, and fans. In particular, we will work together to make sure that AI tools are developed responsibly to enable a new era of musical creativity and fan engagement while protecting human creativity.”

“Developing transformational partnerships with important innovators is critical to UMG’s commitment to promoting an environment in which artists and songwriters prosper,” Nash relayed.

“We’re gratified to renew our relationship with TikTok predicated on significant advancements in commercial and marketing opportunities as well as protections provided to our industry-leading roster on their platform. With the constantly evolving ways that social interaction, fan engagement, music discovery and artistic ingenuity converge on TikTok, we see great potential in our collaboration going forward.”

More as this develops.

The Young Americans are listening: Edison’s ‘Share-of-Ear’ data for Q2 2023–Q1 2024

The data is both encouraging or depressing — and the landscape is more complicated than ever. But where does radio stand in 2024, given a quick-evolving streaming landscape and an increasingly digital music space? Six experts tackled the complex question and discussed the medium’s path forward during our latest DMN Pro event. Here are some of the takeaways.

If radio is dead, listeners haven’t quite noticed. Nielsen, in its Radio Today report, pointed out that AM/FM reaches 91% of American adults each month. Edison Research found in its Share of Ear survey that radio reaches 53% of Americans between the ages of 13 and 34 on a daily basis, with 56% of that group listening only in the car.

But how engaged are all those listeners — and how are they listening? More importantly, where will this space find itself in five or ten years, especially considering the breakneck gains in on-demand streaming and rapid in-car dashboard upgrades?

In this DMN Pro Weekly Report, we take a closer look at the data while interviewing leading experts in the space. Everyone — from will.i.am to SoundExchange CEO Michael Huppe — had unexpected insights into this space. And nobody was willing to write this format off.

Report Table of Contents

I. Where Radio Stands in 2024: The Surprising Stats

• • • Graph: Young Adult Listeners and Terrestrial Radio In the U.S.
    • Graph: Median Age by Platform

II. What’s Right With This Format: A Look at Radio’s Competitive Strengths

III. How Exactly Is Radio Coming Up Short in 2024? A Look At the Medium’s Missed Opportunities

IV. The Bottom Line: How Can Radio Evolve to Remain Popular and Reestablish Its Relevance?

Please note: redistribution of this report is prohibited.

Photo Credit: Hipgnosis Songs Fund

Let the bidding war commence! After getting one-upped by Blackstone, Concord is now back with a slightly better all-cash bid of $1.51 billion.

Over the weekend, Blackstone bested Concord Chorus’ $1.4 billion all-cash offer for Hipgnosis Songs Fund Limited with a juicier $1.5 billion offer. Now, Concord is quickly responding with a slightly-better, $1.51 billion offer.

The offer, emailed to Digital Music News moments ago, outlined a revised cash offer of $1.25 per share, a 7.8% increase from its original offer. The offer values Hipgnosis at approximately $1.5115 billion, which edges out Blackstone’s weekend offer.

In its offer summary, Concord noted that the revised offer represents a significant premium over Hipgnosis’s recent trading price and its Net Asset Value (NAV). Concord also relayed that the Hipgnosis Board of Directors has unanimously recommended the increased offer to Hipgnosis shareholders.

Specifically, ‘Concord Bidco’ noted that shareholders representing 31.27% of Hipgnosis’s issued shares have already agreed to support the offer. Other shareholders can vote on the deal here.

“We are pleased to announce this increased offer for Hipgnosis, which has again been unanimously recommended by its Board and has the support of shareholders representing 31.27 percent of Hipgnosis’ issued share capital,” relayed Bob Valentine, CEO of Concord.

“We continue to believe that this is the best outcome for Hipgnosis shareholders as it provides them with the opportunity to realize their investment in cash at a significant premium to the price where the shares were trading before our bid last week.”

“The Hipgnosis Directors believe that the Increased Concord Offer is in the best interests of Hipgnosis Shareholders as a whole, and accordingly unanimously recommend that Hipgnosis Shareholders vote in favor of the resolutions required to implement the Increased Concord Offer to be proposed at the Court Meeting and the General Meeting which are due to be held on or around 10 June 2024,” the statement continues.

Concord noted that it would finance the acquisition offer through a combination of debt (provided by Apollo Funds) and its own equity, with Apollo holding a minority position.

Scroll down through the various details of the offer, and you’ll find this: Concord also noted that it plans to continue its previous plans with Hipgnosis as an asset but may sell up to 30% of the assets within 18 to 24 months.

“The Increased Concord Offer does not change Concord Bidco’s intentions as regards Hipgnosis as set out in the Rule 2.7 Announcement, save that Concord Bidco now intends to sell up to 30 percent of Hipgnosis’ assets within 18 to 24 months following completion of the Acquisition,” the offer stated.

The offer shifts the attention back to Blackstone, though Digital Music News is also hearing rumblings of other potential bidders coming forward.  Blackstone already owns parts of Hipgnosis, so a successful bid for Hipgnosis Songs Fund would give them more control over the music rights industry.

Separately, all eyes are now glued to Hipgnosis Songs Management, which is stubbornly sticking to its contractual rights and signaled its willingness to fight. HSM, Hipgnosis Songs Fund’s investment advisor, appears resolutely ready to protect its position amidst the bidding war.

A key issue is a “call option” in the investment advisory agreement between HSM and HSF. This option would allow HSM to acquire HSF’s assets in specific scenarios, potentially hindering a sale to a third party.

HSM insists that the company cannot legally terminate the agreement without honoring HSM’s contractual rights. In a notice issued this week, HSM clearly stated that they are prepared to take legal action and even exercise the call option to protect their interests.

Separately, Blackstone, which owns a majority stake in HSM, emphasized that its offer for HSF is independent of any influence from founder Merck Mercuriadis.

Looking ahead, the ‘HSM factor’ could spark legal battles or drive up the price in an intensified bidding process.

Stay tuned.

Photo Credit: Pixabay

Even the sexiest music industry deals crash into reality when the contracts come out. Flou is determined to simplify the necessary evil.

Unfortunately, music industry contracts and licensing agreements are typically intricate and dense documents fraught with legal terminology, making them difficult to generate and manage. Once filed away, they become challenging to store and retrieve efficiently.

It’s a mess we’ve all experienced, but the confusion often lasts for the life of the deal. Headaches are best enjoyed with a confusing paper trail or contentious disagreement, with piles of legalese and contradictory details adding to the excitement.

Sadly, the cliché that ‘only the lawyers win’ seems to fit more often than not, though one guy is trying to change that.

His name is Alexiomar Rodríguez, and his disruptive vision doesn’t revolve around new-fangled AI or anything tech-sexy. Instead, Rodríguez’s company, Flou, has a simple mission to revolutionize the cumbersome, painful, and inefficient process surrounding music agreements.

“As an attorney myself, I realized that there’s no central software package for all music contracts,” Rodríguez said. Flou just recently joined forces with DMN to further expand awareness of the platform.

In a nutshell, Flou is an all-in-one platform designed to streamline and simplify every aspect of music contract management.

Think of the aspirin required to get through a music contract and multiply it by 10,000. That’s the general idea here.

Flou’s platform manages every micro-step of the music contracting process, starting with the document creation phase. That’s where a range of industry-specific templates come into play, with subsequent collaboration features guiding the reviewing, negotiating, and editing stages with AI assistance.

The platform also includes other steps and details, including e-signature approvals, centralized storage, deliverable tracking, and reminders.

“Flou is not just a software solution; it’s a revolution in music contract management. We’re committed to empowering music companies, artists, and other stakeholders with the legal tools they need to thrive in today’s industry,” Rodríguez continued.

Of course, many different types of music industry contracts and legal agreements exist. Flou aims to address them all, including work-for-hire agreements, production contracts, collaboration agreements, copyright assignments, artistic management and representation agreements, split sheets for dividing royalties, and good, old-fashioned artist-label contracts.

Unfortunately, all of these contracts face similar pitfalls. Traditionally, music contracts have been notoriously time-consuming and expensive to create and manage. Once finalized, these agreements often become buried within filing cabinets or lost in digital voids, posing significant legal risks and liabilities to music companies.

Additionally, the dynamic nature of music contracts, with their deliverable contingencies, critical dates, ongoing rights, and complex royalty payment triggers, further complicates their management. Apart from the initial challenges, music contracts must also account for tracking recoupments and documenting each release properly (including splits and side-artist agreements, among other specifics.)

These ‘living contracts’ demand a meticulous tracking system, which has been sorely lacking until now. By enabling music companies to create, review, approve, sign, store, and track all their contracts in a centralized platform, Flou seeks to bring unparalleled efficiency and clarity to contract management.

There’s also the business of translating legalese for better tracking, accountability, and understanding.

Through the application of AI, Flou translates complex contract obligations into manageable, actionable tasks. This process simplifies legal compliance and management through reminders, updates, and tracking necessary deliverables.

“We designed Flou to address the unique challenges faced by the music and entertainment industry,” Rodríguez explained. “Our platform offers a much-needed solution for contract management, ensuring that nothing falls through the cracks.”

Flou is to the music industry what platforms like Contractbook and LinkSquares are to other sectors — a digital revolution in contract management. By ensuring greater contract clarity, both pre-and post-execution, Flou also hopes to significantly reduce litigation risk.

Additionally, Rodríguez noted that Flou recognizes the importance of education in contract management, offering resources and tools to aid users in navigating the complexities of legal agreements.

Having successfully raised $250,000 in March 2023, Flou is now focused on expanding its capabilities to keep pace with the rapidly evolving music industry. The roadmap includes drafting a wider variety of contracts from automated templates.

Furthermore, Flou aims to incorporate music data analytics, facilitating better deals for music companies, whether signing an artist or buying and selling intellectual property.

By simplifying the process and providing educational support, Flou is striving to make legal compliance easier and helping the industry forge better, more transparent deals. This sounds like great news for the music business — and bad news for anyone in the business of racking up billable hours.

The Capitol Building in Washington, DC: Ground zero for TikTok deliberations.

The ‘TikTok ban bill’ is back with a vengeance: The House of Representatives passed a modified bill on Saturday (April 20th) that could lead to a nationwide TikTok ban — or something close to it.

The vote saw the measure clear the chamber with overwhelming support (360-58), the second lopsided vote on the TikTok problem. The bill, which includes a measure that could effectively ban TikTok in the United States, now moves to the Senate, where a vote could come within a matter of days.

Digital Music News reported last week that the latest version of the TikTok ban bill extends the deadline for ByteDance, TikTok’s Chinese parent company, to sell the app to a US-based buyer or face a forced shutdown in the United States. The new deadline of approximately nine months, with a potential three-month extension, provides additional time for negotiations.

But this is suddenly much bigger than TikTok. After a lull in the Senate, momentum for the bill accelerated when it was attached to a broader foreign aid package supporting Ukraine, Taiwan, and Israel, dramatically elevating its legislative priority.

Such is the horse-trading and re-packaging that often defines Congressional legislative deliberation — and leads to bills becoming law. On that note, President Biden has indicated his willingness to sign the bill into law despite the potential for significant legal challenges and far-reaching consequences for US-China relations.

What happens after TikTok gets banned in the US?

In this comprehensive white paper, DMN Pro breaks down the likely winners and losers in the music industry over the short and long terms. The breakdown spans major and indie labels, publishers, songwriters, various artist tiers, and sync platforms. If Congress hits delete on TikTok, here’s where you’ll likely stand.

The latest vote has been a surprise slap for ByteDance and its US-based TikTok executives. In the months leading up to this legislation, executives like TikTok CEO Shou Chew found themselves getting dragged through Congressional grill sessions, though the sentiment internally was that a ban was off the table. That assessment now turns out to be a critical miscalculation.

However, while the Senate is expected to pass the ban legislation, potential delays from opponents like Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) could arise. TikTok is also gearing up for a vigorous legal challenge against the bill.

On that front, courts typically defer to the government in national security matters, but TikTok may argue that the ban unfairly singles the company out, raising questions of constitutionality.

If the bill becomes law, TikTok’s headaches multiply. Finding a buyer willing to meet the massive price tag is difficult, compounded by China’s restrictions on exporting TikTok’s core algorithm technology. ByteDance and China have already indicated an unwillingness to sell TikTok, which would effectively result in a shutdown.

The push for banning TikTok stems from concerns that the Chinese government could exploit the app to collect user data, spread propaganda, or interfere in elections. Chew assured lawmakers that data was being treated carefully and not being shared with ByteDance. However, TikTok ex-employees have contradicted those claims and pointed to outright data-sharing with ByteDance’s Chinese headquarters.

What Will UGC Licensing Look Like After the UMG-TikTok War?

In this DMN Pro Weekly report, we offer an analysis of where the high-stakes impasse stands – and how the episode’s fallout could drive a fundamental shift in how music factors into the UGC space.

Looming in the background is the simmering standoff between Universal Music Group and TikTok — and Taylor Swift’s recent embrace of the platform.

The latest Congressional vote closely follows TikTok’s splashy partnership with Taylor Swift to promote her just-released album, The Tortured Poets Department. That makes sense for Team Taylor, though Universal Music Group hardly welcomed the news.

Swift, signed to Republic/UMG, was given the royal treatment by TikTok in a move that could easily be construed as a slap in the face for both UMG and the broader music industry. Once upon a time, Swift was a staunch defender of music valuation and artists’ rights, though perhaps those are now quaint ideological ideas for an artist of her stature.

TikTok’s direct engagement with Swift could also be seen as part of a broader attempt by TikTok to solidify its influence over the music industry by leveraging its extensive user base to overrule protests by labels, publishers, and other music IP stakeholders.

Separately, sources to Digital Music News have pointed to rekindled negotiations between UMG and TikTok, though progress appears to be plodding. DMN’s sources have also shared details of a possible legal attack against TikTok and its parent ByteDance, specifically over issues tied to repeat infringer violations and clear violations of DMCA regulations.

Incidentally, Elon Musk has also chimed in with his two cents, arguing on Saturday that a ban would set a dangerous precedent undermining free expression.

Musk tweeted, “In my opinion, TikTok should not be banned in the USA, even though such a ban may benefit the X platform. Doing so would be contrary to freedom of speech and expression. It is not what America stands for.”

(Separately, it should be noted that X/Twitter ranks highly on the music industry’s s—t list, thanks to a complete refusal to pay music royalties. Here’s a deep-dive into the latest on X/Twitter’s legal battle against the music industry, including the very real prospect that X will never pay for music rights.)

On a broader scale, the debate surrounding TikTok spotlights the ongoing tension between national security concerns and the protection of free speech rights in the digital age.

This complex issue raises questions about the extent of government power in regulating technology and social media platforms.

A forced sale or ban of TikTok in the US would be unprecedented, sending ripples through the global tech industry and potentially straining already tense US-China relations. China has signaled strong opposition to a TikTok sale, and retaliatory moves against US companies operating in China are a distinct possibility.

Beyond the serious music industry implications, this legislation would have far-reaching consequences for the future of social media, national security policy, and the complex power dynamics between the US and China — not to mention the fate of supermodels like Leah Halton.

Stay tuned for more fireworks.

Got a tip? Send it confidentially to Digital Music News via Signal — our handle is digitalmusicnews.07.

Soundtrack Loops’ diverse portfolio of assets provides the foundation to enhance AI’s capabilities — with a focus on creativity with ethical AI.

On the forefront of recent discussions surrounding fair training practices for AI companies, Soundtrack Loops — with its diverse portfolio of assets — aims to ‘kickstart a shift into more widespread ethical AI training practices.’ Moreover, the company’s founders believe their catalog ‘presents an enormous opportunity for AI generation of incidental music.’

As music IP owners continue to clash with AI behemoths over what constitutes fair use, Soundtrack Loops’ latest expansion — specifically with its OneStop Audio Library for AI training — aims to remove copyright conflict from the picture entirely. The company believes that in the face of rampant litigation and raging copyright wars, its latest release is simply the right path for both developers and rights holders.

According to cofounders Matthew Yost and Jason Donnelly (aka DJ Puzzle), Soundtrack Loops’ expansion will generate new creative possibilities for AI. Yost explains, “AI imitates and mimics, and is incapable of evolving new genres and synths. That’s where the Soundtrack Loops OneStop Audio Library steps in.”

“For AI developers, seeking ways to source content ethically brings a lot more benefits to the table than plundering through endless amounts of copyrighted materials,” says Yost. Just recently, Soundtrack Loops partnered with DMN to expand its ethical AI footprint.

Speaking about the benefits of tapping into Soundtrack Loops’ AI library, Donnelly believes that a focus on ethics as a standard for AI model development and training will ensure AI output doesn’t cause copyright disputes.

“The thousands and thousands of samples and loops in Soundtrack Loops packs are unique because they are created by us, or purchased by us from others as a work for hire. This is very common practice. We hire producers to create original works, then we buy them outright,” Donnelly explains.

This transparency of training material is what the A2IM, RIAA, and related music organizations are pushing for: a system that mandates remuneration to the sources of AI training material.

Donnelly further clarified that Soundtrack Loops offers different tiers for broader licensing options beyond AI, but a ‘core focus is now on ethical AI licensing.’

Yost believes ethical licensing considerations while training sophisticated AI models ‘will lend credibility to the AI industry.’ Rather than risk litigation and shutdowns, AI developers might be better off using these platforms.

Only time will tell how copyright conflicts in the courtroom will ultimately shake out, but Yost thinks there’s a monumental benefit in store for AI companies that lead the way by adopting ethical AI training practices. “These developers could potentially score a larger chunk of the market.”

“Using protected and controlled compositions for training could have an exponentially positive impact on AI companies’ brand and image — and serve as a unique competitive advantage,” he says, adding, “It also allows developers to be on track to comply when the new regulations and bodies of law emerge — ones that enforce transparency of data and remuneration of artists.”

And Donnelly says the company ‘has the assets to pull this off.’ The holistically controlled catalog contains over 80,000 assets accumulated over 20 years, with a multitude of loops and samples, presets, and MIDI files — spanning almost every genre and category of music.

“We practically have almost all genres available and a network of producers to help fill in the gaps if needed. ” says Donnelly.

He further elaborates that licensers can analyze loops on the catalog, access raw samples, or utilize all the individual isolated notes and nuances of instruments for AI training.

AI developers can tap into Soundtrack Loops’ licensing zones for a myriad of use cases — but Yost and Donnelly believe it could be an especially powerful asset for music directors that require bulk generation of ‘incidental’ production music.

“Incidental music is one of the places where AI has a very serious chance of having a huge impact within the next two to five years, because these producers have to churn out tons of music,” explains Donnelly. “The job requires a giant pool of music, which is exactly what Soundtrack Loops offers — a comprehensive library of loops in all genres.”

Donnelly points out that an AI tool backed by Soundtrack Loops for incidental music could fill a gap in the market, be a big time saver for huge productions, and represents an ‘enormous opportunity.’

Then there’s the theoretical downstream catalog of AI-generated works that can result from this initiative, all of which is legal. Donnelly believes that the ‘right AI program’ capable of mixing, matching, and constructing unique music from these different elements, ‘could create a huge library of incidental music.’

“AI companies have to take a step back and evaluate the current ethics of their practices, and make better decisions for training. They should willingly be offering clean, ethical AI.”

What music licenses? Lana Del Rey’s recent Coachella performance plays on X/Twitter

X (formerly Twitter) is grappling with a copyright infringement lawsuit from 17 NMPA-corralled music publishers demanding hundreds of millions of dollars in damages. But given a number of setbacks in the case for publishers, will the Elon Musk-owned platform ever pay for the use of music?

Many are asking that question now that the case is proceeding on a scaled-down set of contributory infringement claims. We’ve covered the legal battle since it kicked off with a mid-June 2023 complaint from Concord, Sony Music Publishing, Hipgnosis, Warner Chappell, and other “member companies of the National Music Publishers’ Association.”

In the original action, the plaintiffs maintained that about 1,700 of their compositions had been infringed on X, which allegedly “failed to take the most basic step of expeditiously removing, or disabling access to, the infringing material” and “continued to assist known repeat infringers with their infringement.”

Predictably, X refuted and sought to dismiss the allegations. Multiple months and developments later, the presiding judge in March 2024 granted this dismissal motion in part, tossing the publishers’ direct and vicarious infringement claims altogether and doing away with a portion of the contributory allegations.

All of which raises serious questions about what X/Twitter will actually end up paying for music — if they pay anything at all.

Report Table of Contents

I. Introduction: A Recap of the NMPA’s X Copyright Infringement Lawsuit

Graph: The NMPA’s X Copyright Infringement Lawsuit At a Glance

II. X’s Potential Licensing Agreement: What the NMPA’s Roblox and Peloton Disputes Tell Us About the Possibility

III. Licensed At Last? What Twitch’s Embrace of Rightsholder Deals Means for X’s NMPA Battle

IV. Music’s Role on X: How Important Are Songs to the User Experience?

Graph: Competing Social Media Platforms’ Usership Overlap With X

V. By the Dates: A Condensed Timeline of the NMPA’s X Copyright Infringement Lawsuit and Related Licensing-Dispute Developments

Please note that reproduction or redistribution of this report is not permitted — thank you!

Universal Music Group HQ in Santa Monica, CA (Photo Credit: Coolcaesar / CC by 3.0)

If you enjoyed watching Universal Music Group remove its entire catalog from TikTok, you’ll absolutely love what’s potentially coming next.

For those who enjoy high-stakes showdowns between major media companies and tech giants, Universal Music Group vs. TikTok has been action-packed. But you might need a fresh bowl of popcorn for what’s next.

According to multiple sources leaking details to Digital Music News, UMG has been flooding TikTok with DMCA takedown notices following its stern content removals in late January. But that may be a prelude to more serious legal action in the coming weeks.

As for the takedown notices being sent, one estimate pegged the number of notices ‘in the tens of thousands,’ with TikTok allegedly still hosting enormous quantities of UMG-controlled content despite the recent pulldown.

What happens after TikTok gets banned in the US?

In this comprehensive white paper, DMN Pro breaks down the likely winners and losers in the music industry over the short and long terms. The breakdown spans major and indie labels, publishers, songwriters, various artist tiers, and sync platforms. If Congress hits delete on TikTok, here’s where you’ll likely stand.

Part of the problem involves altered or modified music. Most commonly, songs are sped up, even slightly, though a range of modifications abound on TikTok. Those altered versions become more challenging to detect and remove, but they’re just as infringing. The situation has forced UMG to put teeth to its takedown and chase down remaining songs on the platform.

Under the rules of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) in the US, user-generated platforms are required to remove infringing content when formally notified. A failure to properly comply with a legitimate request can subject the platform to massive infringement penalties if the content isn’t quickly removed.

That’s hardly new: rights owners like UMG have been sending DMCA takedown notices for decades. However, according to sources, those takedown notices are merely the first step in a potentially severe legal attack against TikTok and its Chinese owner, ByteDance.

Here’s how this might work: according to sources with knowledge on the matter, UMG is not only focused on stripping its music from the popular social media site, but also on holding TikTok accountable for failure to comply with the repeat infringer policy, a requirement under the DMCA.

In a nutshell, the DMCA’s repeat infringer policy dictates that platforms must have a procedure for terminating the accounts of repeat infringers or face serious penalties or legal action. In the case of TikTok, it appears that repeat infringers aren’t facing account suspensions or removals — with TikTok either unwilling or unable to successfully scrub its platform of these problematic accounts.

And that’s a potentially huge problem for TikTok.

Suddenly, a more sophisticated strategy is emerging. UMG wants to remove infringing content, but their deluge of DMCA takedowns may also be targeting a serious vulnerability in TikTok’s content management policies.

“Sure, these DMCA takedown notices are part of UMG’s dispute with TikTok, but the goal isn’t really about scrubbing UMG’s music from TikTok,” one source relayed.

Universal Music Group has yet to offer any comment, and it’s unclear if legal filings will emerge. Separately, the parties are understood to be working through a negotiation process, though so far, those talks have yet to bear fruit.

Who owns what?

DMN Pro’s exclusive Music IP Acquisition Tracker covers every IP acquisition deal across masters, publishing, and related assets happening over multiple years. This information simply isn’t available anywhere else — subscribe now to gain access.

Meanwhile, it’s understood that UMG is not just considering, but actively preparing to take legal action within weeks, with DMCA’s repeat infringer policy a crucial part of their upcoming complaints. “They’re not just sending notices; they’re meticulously tracking TikTok’s response to users who have been the subject of multiple notices,” the source continued, while further noting that “TikTok’s inaction” about its repeat infringer issue is a significant concern.

Separately, one informant noted that ‘easily more’ than 100 million videos on TikTok are being muted. That may not include videos with modified music content, altered for fun or specifically to evade detection by UMG or TikTok.

The removal of a vast number of videos from TikTok—now in its eleventh week—has unsurprisingly initiated a wave of discontent among content creators and their audiences. Strategically, TikTok appears willing to ride out those concerns, potentially due to the prevalence of modified workarounds peppering the platform. Separately, Taylor Swift’s decision to “cross the picket line” and license TikTok also makes life easier for ByteDance.

For UMG, dropping the hammer on TikTok helps to safeguard creative assets while sending a stern message. In that context, the Taylor Swift situation—an event labeled as “a big fat disappointment” by one UMG insider—raised concerns about whether other defecting superstars could further weaken UMG’s position.

In response to the relentless takedown campaign by UMG, some content creators are turning to royalty-free music or independently published tracks to continue their work unobstructed by copyright scuffles.

More at this develops.