This is The Legal Beat, a weekly newsletter about music law from Billboard Pro, offering you a one-stop cheat sheet of big new cases, important rulings and all the fun stuff in between. This week: Michael Jackson’s estate scores a victory in litigation over a $600 million catalog sale; Snoop Dogg is hit with a copyright lawsuit that cites Tracy Chapman; Melissa Etheridge faces a legal battle from her partners in her failed cannabis business; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: Jackson Estate Scores Legal Victory
Michael Jackson’s estate won a key ruling last week in a legal battle with the late singer’s mother — and though it’s only a “tentative” win, the stakes are enormous.
More than 15 years after Jackson’s death, his estate is still tied up in probate court, reportedly over unresolved tax issues. So when the King of Pop’s executors wanted to sell part of his catalog to Sony Music for more than $600 million, it asked a California judge for approval to do so. Katherine Jackson objected, arguing that the sale “violated Michael’s wishes” and that the catalog would likely continue to gain value over time if retained, among other arguments.
Last week, a California appeals court tentatively rejected Katherine’s objections — ruling that it would likely rule for the estate both procedurally (that she had failed to preserve arguments on appeal) and substantively (that the estate’s executors had the power to make the Sony deal.)
Go read our full story on the decision — and stay tuned for whether the court decides to finalize its ruling.
Other top stories this week…
LEGAL LEGEND – While we’re on the subject of the Jackson estate, go read Frank DiGiacomo’s excellent profile of estate co-executor John Branca, a music attorney who at various points in his career has represented Bob Dylan, The Beach Boys, Paul McCartney, the Elvis Presley estate and The Rolling Stones.
SNOOP LIABILITY – Snoop Dogg was sued for copyright infringement over allegations that the legendary rapper has refused to pay a veteran studio musician after using two of his backing tracks. The case offers a glimpse at industry practices surrounding the use of uncleared samples to privately “experiment” in the recording studio — and cites an earlier battle between Tracy Chapman and Nicki Minaj over that same issue.
WEED WAR – Melissa Etheridge is facing a legal battle over her brief foray into the cannabis business, filed by two business partners in Northern California (Josephine and D’Angelo Roberto) who say they “invested their life’s work into the businesses” but claim the singer “abandoned them” and left them in “financial ruin.”
AN “ABHORRENT SCHEME”– Attorneys for Priscilla Presley filed a lawsuit against four of her former business partners over allegations of elder abuse and fraud, accusing them of a “meticulously planned” scheme to drain Elvis Presley’s ex-wife of “every last penny she had” — including nearly $1 million to date and 80% of her future income.
ANOTHER DAY, ANOTHER JUDGE – Just two days after Judge Ural Glanville was ordered removed from Young Thug’s sprawling Atlanta gang trial, his replacement on the trial bench (Judge Shukura L. Ingram) said that she would also recuse herself. Later the same day, Judge Paige Reese Whitaker assumed control of the massive racketeering case and now appears to be settling in to run it for the long haul.
KANYE SUED AGAIN – Ye (formerly Kanye West) was sued yet again over claims of illegal sampling, this time over allegations that he used an instrumental track called “MSD PT2” in two songs from the album Donda even after he was explicitly denied permission. The case closely echoes a lawsuit filed against him by the estate of Donna Summer, which similarly claimed that he had used one of her songs even after being directly refused a license. That case settled last month.
GOSSIP OR DEFAMATION? Soulja Boy launched a defamation lawsuit against social media personalities Tasha K and William The Baddest, claiming that they made false statements on a podcast about the rapper having a sexual encounter with a man — or, in the words of his lawyers, “redefining his character as a man who is not straight.” If Tasha K’s name sounds familiar, it should: She’s the gossip host who Cardi B sued for defamation over claims about STDs, drug use and prostitution, eventually winning a $4 million judgment.
NBA MUSIC LAWSUITS – More than a dozen NBA teams were sued for copyright infringement by Kobalt and other music companies over allegations that the basketball teams used songs in social media videos without permission. The cases came with city-specific flair: The New York Knicks were accused of using songs by “New York legends” Jay-Z and Cardi B; the Philadelphia 76ers allegedly used music from Philly native Meek Mill; and the Atlanta Hawks took songs by “Atlanta’s own” Migos and OutKast.
MUSIC AI BATTLES – How are the copyright lawsuits against AI music firms Suno and Udio going to shake out? Billboard’s Robert Levine breaks down the fair use doctrine and how it might be applied to the new frontier of training artificial intelligence models, particularly in the wake of high-profile cases involving Google Books, the Android operating system and an Andy Warhol print of Prince.
ROYALTY ROW – SoundExchange sued a free streaming service called AccuRadio over allegations that the company has failed to pay royalties for music for years, claiming the streamer has “directly harmed creators.” The small streamer denied the allegations, saying it had reliably paid $12.5 million in royalties over the years but was struggling with high rates imposed on online radio.
BACKSTAGE MELEE – Chris Brown, Live Nation and several members of his entourage were hit with a lawsuit over an alleged assault that took place following Brown’s concert last week in Fort Worth, Texas. The case claims that Brown and others “brutally and severely beat” four men backstage in an unprovoked attack following the show.
CHIPPING AWAY – Attorneys for Live Nation asked a federal judge to dismiss part of the Justice Department’s antitrust lawsuit — specifically, that the concert promoter uses illegal tying arrangements to operate its amphitheaters. The company argued that this practice, described as a “refusal to deal,” is common in the concert business and protected by Supreme Court precedent.