Karol G and Tiësto Hit With Copyright Lawsuit Over ‘Don’t Be Shy’ Dance Hit: ‘Practically Identical’
Karol G and Tiësto are facing a copyright infringement lawsuit over their song “Don’t Be Shy,” filed by a Cuban-American songwriter who says their track features elements that are “practically identical” to his earlier tune.
In a complaint filed Tuesday in Puerto Rico federal court, lawyers for songwriter Rene Lorente claim that Karol G and Tiësto’s 2021 dance-pop hit infringed his 2000 song “Algo Diferente” by using a melody that “sounds identical.”
“It doesn’t take an expert or musician, to carefully listen to the melody/sounds of each, to recognize that one was copied from the other,” Lorente’s lawyers wrote in their complaint. “In this case, defendants’ ‘Don’t be Shy’ is a blatant violation of plaintiff’s copyrighted ‘Algo Diferente’.”
Karol G, who is currently sitting atop Billboard’s Hot Latin Songs chart with her “Qlona,” teamed up with Tiësto to release “Don’t Be Shy” in August 2021. The song, which hit No. 4 on the Hot Dance/Electronic Songs chart, was the Columbian star’s first released in English.
But in his lawsuit, Lorente claims Karol G and Tiësto’s song “misappropriated his beloved copyrighted work” – a tune released in May 2000 that currently has 3,647 total streams on Spotify. A version of “Algo Diferente” on YouTube, uploaded just nine days ago by CD Baby, has been streamed 6,423 times.
According to Lorente’s lawyers, a comparison of the two songs shows that they are “substantially similar” – the requirement to prove copyright infringement.
“Expert analysis of musical arrangement fragment of the copyrighted and infringing works, show exact rhythm, note arrangement, same intervals, harmony, with the only change being limited perhaps to the pitch, within 8 musical bars, repeated throughout infringing work,” Lorente’s lawyers wrote in his lawsuit. “However, for a lay listener and a jury, this combination of musical notes sounds identical.”
The lawsuit is seeking a whopping $52 million dollars, but attorneys who file lawsuits can claim any damages total they want. Even if Lorente’s lawsuit was successful – and that is not a given – such demands are typically not good indicators for what a judge or jury might ultimately award.
Reps for Karol G and Tiësto did not return requests for comment on Thursday.
Listen to the two songs below and compare for yourself:
Earth, Wind & Fire Tribute Band Hits Back At Trademark Lawsuit: You Abandoned Your Name
A tribute band that was sued by Earth, Wind & Fire for trademark infringement is firing back with a bold counterargument: That the famed R&B act has actually abandoned any intellectual property rights to its name.
In a court filing on Wednesday (Aug. 30), the smaller band — which calls itself Earth Wind & Fire Legacy Reunion — argued that the original group had allowed so many tribute bands to use its name without repercussion that it can no longer claim exclusive rights to it.
“Due to the unchecked third-party use of the phrase, [EW&F] has abandoned ‘Earth, Wind & Fire,’ and [the name] has lost its trademark significance,” wrote attorneys for Substantial Music Group, which operates Legacy Reunion.
The new filing listed out a dozen other tribute acts that allegedly feature “Earth, Wind & Fire” as part of their name, including “September: A Tribute to Earth, Wind & Fire” and “Let’s Groove Tonight: The Ultimate Earth, Wind & Fire Tribute Band,” as well as even simpler names like simply “Earth Wind & Fire Tribute.”
“[The band] has taken no action to enforce its purported trademark rights against any of the third-party vocal and instrument groups that have been using the phrase,” Legacy Reunion wrote in Wednesday’s filing. “The present civil action represents the first occasion on which Counter-Defendant has sought to enforce its registered trademarks against another party.”
Earth, Wind & Fire has continued to tour since founder Maurice White died in 2016, led by longtime members Philip Bailey, Ralph Johnson and White’s brother, Verdine White. The band operates under a license from Earth Wind & Fire IP, a holding company owned by Maurice White’s sons that formally owns the name.
In a March lawsuit, that company accused Legacy Reunion of trying to trick consumers into thinking it was the real Earth Wind & Fire. Though it called itself a “Reunion,” the lawsuit said the tribute band contained only a few “side musicians” who briefly played with Earth, Wind & Fire many years ago.
“Defendants did this to benefit from the commercial magnetism and immense goodwill the public has for plaintiff’s ‘Earth, Wind & Fire’ marks and logos, thereby misleading consumers and selling more tickets at higher prices,” the group’s lawyers wrote.
Tribute acts — groups that exclusively cover the music of a particular band — are legally allowed to operate, and they often adopt names that allude to the original. But they must be clear that they are a tribute band, and they can get into legal hot water if they make it appear that they are affiliated with or endorsed by the original. In 2021, ABBA filed a similar trademark lawsuit against a band that had been touring under the name ABBA Mania, calling it “parasitic”; that suit was quickly settled after ABBA Mania agreed to stop using the name.
According to Earth, Wind & Fire’s lawyers, the use of “Legacy Reunion” was not a clear enough distinction. The lawsuit cited alleged examples of angry consumers who mistakenly bought tickets for the wrong band, including one that read, “This was not Earth Wind and Fire. NO Philip Bailey or Verdine White. It was just a band playing Earth Wind and Fire music. I purchased 3 tickets and I was very disappointed. It was truly false advertisement. I want my money back!!!!!”
Wednesday’s filing came as a so-called “answer and counterclaims” — a standard response to any lawsuit, in which a defendant like Legacy Reunion can formally deny the accusations and level their own at their opponent.
In its counterclaims, Legacy Reunion argued that the band’s lack of enforcement against other tribute bands means that its trademark to “Earth, Wind & Fire” should be formally “cancelled.”
Backstreet Boys member Nick Carter is facing a third sexual abuse lawsuit, this time from an unnamed woman who claims he assaulted her when she was 15 years old.
In a complaint filed Monday in Las Vegas court, a Jane Doe accuser identified as “A.R.,” claims that Carter sexually assaulted her on multiple occasions in 2003, when he was in his early 20s, including several times on a yacht and once on a tour bus.
She claims Carter “knowingly provided alcohol and drugs” and then assaulted her “despite her repeated refusals and requests for him to stop.” The incident left her with sexually-transmitted diseases and other lasting effects, she claims.
“The impacts of Carter’s sexual abuse are ceaseless, causing plaintiff severe emotional distress, physical anguish, intimacy issues, and other complex trauma,” the accuser’s lawyers write.
Carter is already facing lawsuits from Shannon “Shay” Ruth, a woman who says he raped her on a tour bus when she was 17 years old, and from Melissa Schuman, a former member of teen-pop group Dream who has long claimed that she was assaulted by the singer.
The singer strongly denies the accusations and is countersuing both women for defamation, saying he’s victim of “conspiracy” that aims to “to harass, defame and extort” him by exploiting the #MeToo movement.
In a statement responding to the latest case, Carter’s lawyers called the new accusations “ridiculous,” saying they had been thoroughly investigated and rejected as “meritless” by law enforcement at the time — and that police even concluded that A.R. “could herself have been charged with a crime” over the incident. They claimed she was also later “threatened with criminal charges for filing a false police report” over a separate matter.
“Now she’s at it yet again,” Carter’s lawyer Dale Hayes Jr. said in the statement. “But repeating the same false allegations in a new legal complaint doesn’t make them any more true. Nick is looking forward to the evidence being presented and the truth about these malicious schemes coming to light.”
Like the previous cases, the new lawsuit against Carter includes graphic details of alleged sexual assault.
The lawsuit claims the first incident occurred in August 2003 on Carter’s yacht, where he allegedly “directed” the intoxicated plaintiff to a cabin and “engaged in oral sexual intercourse with A.R. and penetrated her vagina with his genitals” without her consent.
Days later, she claims that Carter’s sister “encouraged” her to meet him on a bus, where he “coerced A.R. to orally copulate his genitals.” A month after that, another alleged assault took place on the yacht, during which Carter allegedly “enticed three other men” to watch them have sex.
“Defendant Carter instructed these same three male friends to observe his assault of A.R. through a window hatch on the boat,” her lawyers write, adding that he “attempted to perform anal sex” on her during this incident “despite her repeated refusals and requests for him to stop.”
Later that year, the accuser claims she and her mother reported the incident to police in Pennsylvania, where she lived at the time.
In their statement on Wednesday, Carter’s attorneys insisted that police had cleared him of wrongdoing after that investigation. But John Kawai, the lawyer who filed Monday’s case, said in a statement that his civil allegations were not foreclosed by the lack of criminal charges: “Abusers can take notice that just because they avoided prison doesn’t mean they don’t have to answer to a jury for their actions.”
The other lawsuits against Carter remain pending, as does his counter-suit. Lawyers for his accusers pushed to dismiss Carter’s defamation case under Nevada’s so-called anti-SLAPP law, arguing that he was using litigation to retaliate against an accuser who was speaking out. But in March, a Nevada judge rejected that request and allowed Carter’s case to move forward.
A company that owns the rights to the “Space Jam” theme is suing a minor-league baseball club for using it – the latest in an increasingly active legal campaign to demand payment for a song that has been heavily used in internet memes and mashups for the past twenty years.
Watson Music Group, which bought the rights to “Space Jam” in 2019 from its original songwriters, has filed three federal lawsuits in the last three months, accusing companies of infringing its copyrights by using the song on the internet without permission. It’s also sent legal threats to an unknown number of others, arguing that unauthorized users must pay a “retroactive license” to avoid legal liability.
The latest target? The Wisconsin Timber Rattlers – a minor league affiliate of the Milwaukee Brewers that Watson sued on Monday, accusing the team of briefly using the “Space Jam” song in a 2017 Facebook video. The 35-second clip, still live as of Tuesday, features the track playing in the background as the team’s mascot dunks a basketball.
“Despite plaintiff’s efforts and willingness to address defendant’s infringing activity, defendant failed to respond and plaintiff was forced to seek judicial intervention for defendant’s infringing activity,” the lawsuit claims, before demanding as much as $150,000 in statutory copyright damages from the team.
Performed by Florida hip-hop trio Quad City DJ’s, “Space Jam” was released as a theme song for the 1996 movie of the same name – a classic live-action/animated flick featuring NBA superstar Michael Jordan and the characters from Looney Tunes squaring off in a basketball game against alien invaders. The song plays during the opening credits, blasting its mix of pumped-up raps and bass-heavy dance beats over archival footage of Jordan’s career.
The movie was a hit, but the music was a smash. A star-studded soundtrack album, also featuring R. Kelly’s chart-topping “I Believe I Can Fly,” reached No. 2 on the Billboard 200 in April 1997. And while Quad City’s theme song didn’t reach the heights the group’s earlier “C’mon N’ Ride It (The Train),” the track was also a hit in its own right, eventually hitting No. 37 on the Hot 100.
In legal filings, Watson (which also goes by Quadrasound Music) says it acquired the rights to the “Space Jam” composition in 2019 from its original songwriters: Quad City’s Jay “Ski” McGown and Nathaniel “C.C. Lemonhead” Orange, as well as Van “Thrill Da Playa” Bryant of the closely-affiliated Miami hip hop group 69 Boyz.
Since then, the group has not been shy about enforcing those rights. On a website focused exclusively on Watson’s “100%” ownership of the “Space Jam” rights, a large-print banner reads: “Did you receive a notice from us?” Below that question, the site informs visitors that “U.S. copyright law provides large financial penalties for using someone’s copyrighted work without permission.”
The site then features a frequently-asked-questions section, warning readers that any use of the theme song on social media would require payment: “If your post contains any elements of the original composition ‘Space Jam’, you will need permission (a license) from Quadrasound Music.” Another question in the FAQ asks whether removing such a post, or offering credit, would suffice to avoid litigation. “None of these actions limit your liabilities as a copyright infringer,” the site answers, before explicitly stressing that copyright damages can reach $150,000 for a single infringed work.
But, the Watson website says, it doesn’t need to come to all that: “We would rather save you the expense and worry of litigation by having you work with us to resolve this matter outside of the courts by issuing you a retroactive license.”
Depending on how aggressive they want to get, Watson/Quadrasound could have plenty of targets to send those notices demanding payment.
That’s because, in the mid-2000s, Quad City’s “Space Jam” theme enjoyed a bizarre second act as a meme. Across early internet sites like Something Awful and 4chan, users published hundreds of absurdist “slam remix” videos, combining the track with other songs and video clips, often inexplicably featuring NBA star Charles Barkley.
By the early 2010s, the trend had largely faded away – most memes do. But dozens of slam remixes still exist on YouTube, and whole websites dedicated to the art of slamming are still live in 2023. During a late-night appearance in 2021, Tony-winning playwright Lin-Manuel Miranda heaped praise on Slamilton, a full-length LP splicing “Space Jam” with his musical Hamilton: “Kudos to the genius who made that. The internet remains undefeated.”
In a 2021 Billboard story recounting the long, strange history of slam remixes, Quad City member Jay Ski seemed to love the fact that his song had been meme-ized: “I feel so honored that the community embraced us and said, ‘Hey, let’s use this.’ Think about all the records they could’ve used,” he said at the time. “For ours to take on its own direction and own little world, that’s awesome.”
Do the creators of all those remixes have licenses to use “Space Jam”? Almost certainly not. So, is every one of them going to get letters from Watson, demanding they take “retroactive licenses” or risk costly litigation? Darren Heitner, a Miami lawyer who serves as the company’s outside general counsel, said he could not answer that question and that every case would be treated individually.
“I can’t speak broadly to whether our client is seeking payment from everyone who has used the content as part of a meme, given the facts vary on a case-by-case basis and there are instances where a meme may be commercialized or be used as part of a larger commercial enterprise,” Heitner told Billboard.
Heitner would not say how many legal notices Watson/Quadrasound had sent out, nor how much money the company typically demanded in licensing fees to avoid litigation.
“Our client’s policy is to send out a notice when it, with reasonable diligence, discovers the infringement,” Heitner said. “It has recently become much more active in policing such infringement with the intent to engage in thorough discourse with the infringer before escalating each matter.”
Over the past three months, the company has begun rapidly filing lawsuits against those who refuse to pay or ignore demands. In May, Watson sued SportsGrid, a New York-based sports betting media company, over allegations that it featured “Space Jam” repeatedly in videos and podcasts without licenses. Then in June, the company sued a Florida company called CPPM Leasing LLC, claiming it had used the song in a basketball-themed Facebook video in 2019. And now this week, Watson filed its suit against the Wisconsin Timber Rattlers over its slam-dunk video.
Those cases are a far cry from suing every creator of a meme, of course. They target sophisticated business entities who chose to use a copyrighted song in commercial contexts to help promote themselves, not random individuals who mashed-up two songs for fun. But if you believe Watson’s own language, the company does not make that kind of distinction between different types of alleged infringers.
“Is an unauthorized version of the composition ‘Space Jam’ considered copyright infringement?” the company asks in its FAQ. “Yes (there are a few exceptions). Without permission from Quadrasound Music, you most likely are an infringer.”
Eminem Demands GOP Candidate Ramaswamy Stop Using ‘Lose Yourself’ At Campaign Stops
Eminem is demanding that Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy stop using “Lose Yourself” on campaign stops — and he’s invoking the unique rules of BMI’s special “political entities” license to do so.
In a letter obtained by Billboard, BMI formally asked Ramaswamy’s campaign last week to stop using Eminem’s music, less than two weeks after the candidate was captured in a viral video rapping the lyrics to the smash hit song at an event in Iowa.
The letter alerted the campaign that Eminem had invoked his rights under BMI’s Political Entities License, which allows an artist to immediately withdraw their music from the more than 20 million songs made available to political campaigns under the blanket license.
“This letter serves as notice that the Eminem Works are excluded from the Agreement effective immediately,” the group wrote in the letter. “BMI will consider any performance of the Eminem Works by the Vivek 2024 campaign from this date forward to be a material breach of the agreement for which BMI reserves all rights and remedies.”
A spokesman for the Ramaswamy campaign could not immediately be reached for comment.
Top artists have long chafed at the use of their music by politicians, particularly conservatives. Foo Fighters and John Mellencamp blasted John McCain for using their music during the 2008 presidential election, while Neil Young, Guns N’ Roses, Pharrell, Rihanna and the estate of Tom Petty have all spoken out about their music being used at campaign events for Donald Trump.
Like any other group hosting large public gatherings, political campaigns pay ASCAP and BMI for blanket licenses to publicly perform copyrighted music — meaning candidates have automatic access to songs without ever directly contacting the musicians themselves. But, owing to repeated backlash, both ASCAP and BMI now offer special licenses for political entities, which allow artists to exclude individual songs from a particular campaign’s blanket deal.
It was this provision that was invoked by Eminem, according to BMI’s letter: “BMI has received a communication from Marshall B. Mathers, III, professionally known as Eminem, objecting to the Vivek Ramaswamy campaign’s use of Eminem’s musical compositions and requesting that BMI remove all Eminem Works from the Agreement.”
In the past, there had been some confusion about whether the existing ASCAP and BMI licenses held by venues themselves — hotels, convention centers, event spaces and so on — gave campaigns some legal cover to keep using disputed songs even after they had been withdrawn. Back in 2018, Axl Rose claimed that the Trump campaign was doing exactly that when it came to Guns N’ Roses songs.
“Unfortunately, the Trump campaign is using loopholes in the various venues’ blanket performance licenses, which were not intended for such craven political purposes without the songwriters’ consent,” Rose wrote in a tweet at the time.
But BMI’s rules now expressly avoid that problem, warning licensees that “a venue license does not cover events and functions hosted by political campaigns and organizations held at venues.”
“Political campaigns must obtain a BMI Political Entities License to authorize to use of the musical works, whether at a traditional location such as a hotel or convention center, or at a nontraditional location such as airport hangars or community fields, where political events take place,” BMI states on its website.