Analyzing Law in the Music Industry

I recently was challenged to pay closer attention to legal controversies in the music industry that might relate to me. I want to accomplish success with my music business, so I do not mind the extra preparation. I was shocked to learn that managers, songwriters and solo artists were still being wrongfully treated and pulled into cases that could have been prevented. For the purpose of this topic I will provide three examples of recent legal controversies.

I will first look at the case with the gospel song “Nobody Greater”. According to Examiner.com in August 2011, a singer/songwriter filed a copyright infringement claim against another songwriter who was noted as the sole creator of the chart topping gospel song Nobody Greater, sung by Vashawn Mitchell. The plaintiff claimed that he was a co-writer and should have received credit and royalties. The attorney of the case expressed his doubts of how the music was created, but resolved to let the court decide who wrote the music. Apparently the plaintiff lost the case. According to Elev8.com, as of July 2012, this case was dismissed. I wonder what the details were that led the court to decide the plaintiff did not create the music. I can imagine however being on both sides of this situation. I have collaborated officially and unofficially in the studio with singers. It is tricky to create music for a singer who already has their lyrics and melody because if we do not write down what just took place on to a split sheet, then there is room for me, the musician, to not get credit for the song. I also can imagine what it would feel like to create the lyrics and melody as a testimony of a hard experience I went through only to have the musician who played music while I was in the studio working on my song with to claim the song was not written by me alone. That is a little tricky. All the more reason why I prefer to sign a contract first or at least complete a split sheet before we leave the studio.


The second example is a case due to lack of right counsel. A guy, who happens to be the son of an industry executive, claims that he discovered the chart topping rap artist Drake and has not received credit or royalties for it from the manager who allegedly went behind the plaintiff’s back and signed an exclusive management agreement with the artist, Drake. According to NewsOne.com, the plaintiff contended in the court document that he and the defendant made a deal to divvy up all of Drake’s profits. The fact that stands out to me is that they had a verbal agreement. This is a big mistake, no matter who you are in the industry. According to Billboard.com, this case took a turn in the right direction when the plaintiff and defendant negotiated a Settlement Agreement & General Release Agreement. However, the defendant has breached this agreement. The case has become more complicated. The attorneys and the management company have upset Drake to the point where he has addressed them with a formal written notice. The business between Drake, the management, as the case defendant and the plaintiff is not resolved yet. The plaintiff is suing several parties in this case now in addition to seeking money and official overseers of how the profits are handled going forward. In my opinion, this could have all been avoided if there was a written agreement from the beginning under the guidance of professional counsel. I realize the agreement could have still been breached, but at least the written agreement would have been proof to resolve this case sooner than later. I am aware there are different reasons why people trust in verbal agreements. Sometimes it feels better to trust a business relationship without the hassle of contracts. When it comes to making money, it is better to consult and advise with the wise.

The third example is a case that is unique. It involves superstar pop singer Lady Gaga, a children’s toy and entertainment product manufacturer, the Universal Music Group merchandising company and her management company. According to the New York Daily News in July 2012, the toy product manufacturer claimed that Lady Gaga and her management company needs to provide final approval of an upcoming doll product to promote Lady Gaga in order to accommodate the $1 million payment the manufacturer made to the Universal Music Group merchandising company. The unique part is that $1 million should not have been paid to the UMG merchandising company without Lady Gaga’s approval of the doll. The manufacturer is arguing that they were told by the UMG merchandising company that Lady Gaga did approve. Did somebody lie or did two people just miscommunicate? This is a major blow for anyone who spends $1 million with expectation of getting a return on their investment only to find that they have been lied to, misled or failed at taking advantage of a business venture. I look forward to having products manufactured to help promote my brand. This case alerts me to remember people are not perfect and going over and beyond in communication might be necessary to get things right. If I were involved in this situation, I would have had the final approval in writing before submitting a $1 million payment. That is a lot of money! There is a way to avoid misunderstanding and litigation.