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: DMX’s estate wins a legal battle with his ex-wife over his music catalog; Nelly’s former St. Lunatics bandmate drops a lawsuit over his debut solo album; Soulja Boy is hit with a $4 million civil verdict for assault and sexual battery; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: DMX Estate Battle
Back in 2016, the late great DMX (Earl Simmons) signed a divorce settlement with his then-wife Tashera Simmons, ending a long marriage that had extended through his turn-of-the-century heyday, as he released Billboard Hot 100 hits like “Party Up (Up In Here).”
Among other provisions, the deal mentioned “intellectual property,” a key marital asset for a chart-topping musician. Tashera says that clause gave her co-ownership of his copyrights and trademarks, but DMX insisted that it only granted her the right to receive royalty payments — an argument his estate has maintained in the years since his 2021 death.
That’s a crucial distinction. Royalties are all well and good, but ownership would give Tashera approval power over the use of DMX’s catalog and name. That would mean an effective veto over potentially lucrative projects, like a biopic about the legendary rapper.
In a ruling last week, a New York judge ruled against Tashera on that question, declaring that DMX’s estate (run by an ex-fiancée and a daughter by another woman) was the “sole owner of all intellectual property rights.” Why that ruling? To find out, go read our full story here, with access to the full decision issued by the judge.
Other top stories this week…
NELLY CASE CLOSED – OR IS IT? – Nelly’s former St. Lunatics bandmate Ali moved to voluntarily dismiss a lawsuit that had accused the rapper of failing to pay him for his alleged work on Nelly’s 2000 debut album Country Grammar. But Nelly’s lawyers quickly opposed the move, arguing that Ali and his lawyers must face sanctions for filing a “ridiculous” case that “should never have been brought.”
SOULJA BOY VERDICT – Following a month-long trial, a Los Angeles jury held Soulja Boy liable for assault, sexual battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress in a civil lawsuit filed by a former personal assistant who claimed that he raped her. Jurors awarded the Jane Doe accuser more than $4 million in damages, and she could win even more in so-called punitive damages in future proceedings.
“PATENTLY FALSE” – Record executive Kevin Liles asked a federal judge to throw out a lawsuit accusing the 300 Entertainment founder of sexual assault in the early 2000s, arguing there’s zero evidence for the “salacious” allegations because they are “entirely false.” His lawyers argued the allegations — that Liles harassed and sexually assaulted an unnamed female employee while serving as the president of Def Jam Records in 2002 — are both “patently false” and were filed far past the statute of limitations.
LIMITATIONS OF STATUE – Former Migos rapper Quavo (Quavious Marshall) was hit with a copyright lawsuit centered on a recent music video he released on TikTok — not over an uncleared sample or a stolen melody, mind you, but a quartz sculpture of a 1961 Ferrari that he used as a prop. The case, filed by sculptor Daniel Arsham, claimed that Quavo “unlawfully exploited” the piece by rapping in front of it during the December social media video: “Mr. Arsham never consented to the artwork being used in the infringing content.”
KAROL G RULING – A court in Colombia ruled that Karol G’s “+57” violated that country’s laws because its lyrics “sexualized” minors, capping off months of controversy over the track. “Sexualizing minors reduces them to becoming objects of desire, and exposes them to risks that can affect their development,” the court wrote in the ruling. The song, also featuring J Balvin, Maluma, Feid, Blessd, Ryan Castro and DFZM, has faced a barrage of criticism after it originally included a line about a woman being a “mamacita” since she was 14 years old.
AI LEGISLATION – A federal law that would ban unauthorized AI deepfake impersonations, known as the NO FAKES Act, was reintroduced in Congress — only this time with public support from AI powerhouses including OpenAI and YouTube. First introduced last year, the bill would create a federal right of publicity for the first time, allowing individuals to police how their name, image and likeness are used by others, an issue that has become far more pressing as AI video generators make it far easier to create uncanny deepfakes.
