{"id":5953,"date":"2025-05-21T03:21:48","date_gmt":"2025-05-21T03:21:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/jennifer-lopez-case-diddy-trial-post-malone-fight-more-music-law\/"},"modified":"2025-05-21T03:21:48","modified_gmt":"2025-05-21T03:21:48","slug":"jennifer-lopez-case-diddy-trial-post-malone-fight-more-music-law","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/jennifer-lopez-case-diddy-trial-post-malone-fight-more-music-law\/","title":{"rendered":"Jennifer Lopez Case, Diddy Trial, Post Malone Fight & More Music Law"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n

\n\tTHE BIG STORY: <\/strong>Jennifer Lopez is facing copyright lawsuits over paparazzi pictures \u2014 of herself.<\/p>\n

\n\tIn complaints filed this week in federal court, photographer Edwin Blanco and photo agency BackGrid USA accused the star of violating their rights by reposting images of herself outside a Golden Globes pre-party in January.<\/p>\n

\n\tA star getting sued for posting a picture of herself might sound unusual, but it\u2019s exceedingly common. Over the last few years, Dua Lipa, Miley Cyrus, Justin Bieber, Ariana Grande, Emily Ratajkowski, LeBron James, Katy Perry and others have all faced similar cases.<\/p>\n

\n\tUnfortunately for J. Lo, the law is pretty clear: Photographers own the copyrights to the images that they take, and using them without a license constitutes infringement. Simply appearing in an image does not give a celebrity co-ownership of it, nor does it give them the right to repost it for free.<\/p>\n

\n\tAs we\u2019ve written here previously, that probably seems unfair to stars hounded by paparazzi. When Khloe Kardashian was hit with such a case in 2018, she said as much: \u201cThey can legally stalk me and harass me and then on top of it all I can\u2019t even use the pictures of myself they take LOL what the f\u2014 is this,\u201d the reality star wrote on social media.<\/p>\n

\n\tThose arguments haven\u2019t gotten much play in court. When Ratajkowski was sued, she briefly argued she had legally re-used an \u201cexploitative image\u201d to criticize the \u201charassing and relentless behavior of paparazzi.\u201d But the vast majority of these cases quickly end in small settlements \u2014 and the Lopez case is unlikely to be any different.<\/p>\n

\n\tFor all the details on the case against J. Lo, go read our story on the new lawsuits from Billboard<\/em>\u2018s Rachel Scharf. And for more details on how these cases work, go read my in-depth explainer.<\/p>\n

\n\tYou\u2019re reading The Legal Beat, a weekly newsletter about music law from <\/em>Billboard Pro, offering you a one-stop cheat sheet of big new cases, important rulings and all the fun stuff in between.<\/em><\/p>\n

\n\tOther top stories this week\u2026<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n\tDIDDY TRIAL CONTINUES<\/strong> \u2013 The sex-trafficking trial of Sean \u201cDiddy\u201d Combs continued into its second week, first with more bombshell testimony from star prosecution witness Cassie Ventura \u2014 about Kid Cudi, a $20 million settlement and more vivid allegations of abuse. The singer was then cross-examined by defense attorneys, who showed jurors huge numbers of her emails and text messages \u2014 some loving, others sexually graphic \u2014 in an effort to prove she was a willing participant in the so-called \u201cfreak-off\u201d sex shows at the center of the case. Friday (May 16) and Monday (May 19) were dominated by testimony from Danity Kane singer Dawn Richard, who said she saw Diddy repeatedly attack Ventura, including once with a frying pan and another time at a restaurant with Usher and other celebs present. The trial is expected to run until early July.<\/p>\n

\n\tPOSTY CUSTODY FIGHT <\/strong><\/strong>\u2013 Post Malone legally opposed efforts by his ex, Hee Sung \u201cJamie\u201d Park, to move their two-year-old daughter to California, arguing that the child has lived in Utah most of her life and should remain a resident there. The filing came in response to a custody petition filed by Park last month, seeking sole physical custody of the girl following their split in November.<\/p>\n

\n\tCOVID COLLUSION? <\/strong>The Justice Department is conducting a criminal antitrust investigation into whether Live Nation and AEG illegally colluded in their concert refund policies at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. The probe was first reported by Bloomberg<\/em> and later confirmed by Live Nation, which strongly denied any wrongdoing: \u201cIt is not illegal for artist agents, promoters and ticketing companies to work together to solve the unprecedented challenges of a global pandemic,\u201d said Dan Wall<\/strong>, the company\u2019s regulatory chief.<\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cINFLAMMATORY ACCUSATIONS\u201d<\/strong> \u2013 Days after sending subpoenas to Taylor Swift and her lawyers, Justin Baldoni\u2019s attorneys made a shocking claim that Blake Lively asked Swift to delete text messages and used \u201cextortionate threats\u201d to try to get a statement of support from the pop superstar. Those allegations, credited to an anonymous source and denied by Lively\u2019s lawyers as \u201ccategorically false,\u201d were later thrown out of court by a federal judge, who called them a \u201cmisuse of the court\u2019s docket\u201d by Baldoni\u2019s attorneys: \u201cThe sole purpose of the letter is to promote public scandal by advancing inflammatory accusations,\u201d the judge wrote.<\/p>\n

\n\tDRAKE CASE IS \u201cDANGEROUS\u201d? <\/strong>A group of legal scholars warned a federal judge that Drake\u2019s defamation lawsuit against Universal Music Group over Kendrick Lamar\u2019s \u201cNot Like Us\u201d was \u201cdangerous\u201d because it would have a \u201cchilling effect\u201d on hip-hop and encourage prosecutors to use rap lyrics as evidence in criminal cases. The professors, hailing from UC Irvine, said that diss tracks are a form of creative expression, not a \u201cseries of news reports\u201d \u2014 and that Drake\u2019s case threatens to \u201cdeny rap the status of art and instead to flatten lyrics into literal confessions.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tTERMINATION LITIGATION<\/strong> \u2013 Salt-N-Pepa<\/a> sued Universal Music Group to win back control of their masters, claiming in a new lawsuit that the music giant has stonewalled their use of copyright\u2019s so-called termination rights. Rather than accepting the move, the case claims UMG has instead \u201cpunished\u201d the legendary hip-hop duo by removing some of its music from streaming and holding its music \u201chostage.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tDURK LYRICS BATTLE <\/strong>\u2013 Federal prosecutors fired back at Lil Durk\u2019s \u201cfalse narrative\u201d that they\u2019re unfairly using his lyrics against him, arguing that he was indicted because of a \u201cbrazen murder plot\u201d and not because of his music. Weeks after the feds removed all musical references from the case, they argued they still had more than enough to charge him for murder-for-hire: \u201cDefendant was charged for his murderous conduct, not his lyrics.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tSMOKEY POLICE REPORT<\/strong> \u2013 Attorneys for the housekeepers suing Smokey Robinson for sexual assault confirmed that they had filed a police report against the 85-year-old Motown legend, leading the Los Angeles County Sheriff\u2019s Department to open a criminal investigation. The singer\u2019s attorneys said such a probe was automatically required after the filing of a report, and said they \u201cwelcome that investigation\u201d: \u201cWe feel confident that a determination will be made that Mr. Robinson did nothing wrong.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tLIL NAS X CASE TOSSED <\/strong>\u2013 A federal appeals court dismissed an unusual lawsuit accusing Lil Nas X of copying Instagram posts by a freelance artist and model named Rodney Woodland, who claimed the rapper stole his distinctive semi-nude poses and used them in his own IG posts. The Ninth Circuit ruled that the disputed images \u201cshare few similarities\u201d and Lil Nas likely never saw them anyway.<\/p>\n

\n\tSHEERAN AT SCOTUS <\/strong>\u2013 Ed Sheeran urged the U.S. Supreme Court to finally end one of the long-running lawsuits claiming his \u201cThinking Out Loud\u201d infringed Marvin Gaye\u2018s \u201cLet\u2019s Get It On.\u201d The star\u2019s lawyers said the case, filed by a company that owns a partial stake in Gaye\u2019s 1973 song, was rightfully dismissed by a lower appeals court in November, which ruled that the two tracks share only basic \u201cmusical building blocks.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tTUPAC\/BIGGIE COPYRIGHT CASE <\/strong>\u2013 A pair of photographers who snapped photos of the late legendary rappers Tupac Shakur and The Notorious B.I.G. teamed up to sue Univision for copyright infringement, accusing the broadcaster of using the images without permission in a web article about \u201cunsolved\u201d murders.<\/p>\n

\n\tBANKRUPT STREAMER<\/strong> \u2013 Free music streaming service AccuRadio filed for bankruptcy, citing $10 million in debts to SoundExchange for artist royalties. The company, which describes itself as \u201cthe only online music streaming service curated by human beings, not algorithms,\u201d said it had been unable to reach a settlement to resolve a lawsuit filed by SoundExchange over those debts.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

THE BIG STORY: Jennifer Lopez is facing copyright lawsuits over paparazzi pictures \u2014 of herself. In complaints filed this week in federal court, photographer Edwin Blanco and photo […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":5954,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[294,296,835,3611,153,6032,6016,593,1228,342],"class_list":["post-5953","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-lawyers","tag-case","tag-diddy","tag-fight","tag-jennifer","tag-law","tag-lopez","tag-malone","tag-music","tag-post","tag-trial"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5953","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5953"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5953\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/5954"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5953"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5953"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5953"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}