This is not the first time that the easyGroup have apparently sued over their trade mark word ‘easy’. Back in 2018 Stelios Haji-Ioannou allegedly sued the company Netflix for using Easy in a new TV series title, at the time Haji-Ioannou had this to say, “This is a case of typically arrogant behaviour by a very large American tech company who never bothered to check what legal rights other companies have outside the US.”

Easy Life, through a social media statement, expressed their disbelief that the alleged lawsuit has been filed solely due to the likeness between their name and the company’s. They said “Okay…never imaged having to do this.” They went on to say, “easy jet are suing us for being called easy life, they’re forcing us to change our name or take up a costly legal battle which we could never afford.” They further added, “for those of you that bought gig tickets and ended up on a budget flight to tenerife, i apologise.”

Easy Life recently posted on their social media, stating that they had reached a rite of passage. It said, “we were joined by the BBC at @officialrandl . Reading And Leeds A Rite Of Passage available to stream now on Iplayer.”

Having made a huge imprint on the music scene at the Reading and Leeds festival, Easy Life are keen to maintain the brand name they have worked so hard to build. The group further commented on their Instagram post, “we’ve worked hard to establish our brand and I’m certain in no way have we ever effected their business.”

easyGroup, recently updated on the intended legal dispute with Easy Life. They stated Mr Matravers and his fellow band members were brand thieves and used the name easyLife without permission, and that they were confident they would stop Mr Matravers.

Fans of Easy Life, took to social media in support and expressed their disconcert. One fan’s comment said “This is (yet more) smoking-gun evidence of a big corporation bullying those that can’t feasibly afford to fight back. They’re actually, whole-heartedly lying. If you WERE brand thieves, then this would have happened in 2015-17. Not conveniently a year after they try– to start an easyLife branch. And the fact they have a whole page on their site proudly displaying everyone they’ve done this too?”

This is (yet more) smoking-gun evidence of a big corporation bullying those that can’t feasibly afford to fight back. They’re actually, whole-heartedly lying. If you WERE brand thieves, then this would have happened in 2015-17. Not conveniently a year after they try-

— Non-Newtonian Snake (@GuzBugs) October 3, 2023

During The 1975’s headline set in Kuala Lumpur, Healy had launched into a profanity-laden speech, declaring: 

“I don’t see the fucking point of inviting The 1975 to a country and then telling us who we can have sex with. […] Unfortunately, you don’t get a set of loads of uplifting songs because I’m fucking furious. And that’s not fair on you, because you’re not representative of your government. Because you’re young people, and I’m sure a lot of you are gay and progressive and cool.”

In an attempt to demonstrate his disdain for the country’s punitive anti-LGBTQ+ laws, he then kissed bassist Ross MacDonald, initially inducing cheers and wolf-whistling from the crowd. Thirty minutes later and seven songs into their set, the band were asked to leave with immediate effect. 

Watch Healy’s speech below:

The following day, Communications and Digital Minister Fahmi Fadzil announced the cancellation of the entire three-day festival, much to the disappointment of thousands of ticket-holders. 

“There will be no compromise with any party that challenges, belittles or violates Malaysian laws,” he said in a statement on Facebook.

The incident divided the court of public opinion, with some praising Healy for drawing global attention to the country’s persecution of its queer citizens, and others condemning him for disrespecting their culture.

Now, the Good Vibes festival promotors, Future Sound Asia (FSA) are threatening to take legal action against The 1975 if they do not acknowledge liability and pay £2.1m in damages within the next seven days.

The official statement adds: 

“FSA would like to reiterate their strong disapproval of the band’s behaviour during their performance at GVF 2023. In particular, lead singer Matthew Timothy Healy’s use of abusive language, equipment damage, and indecent stage behaviour not only flagrantly breached local guidelines and Malaysian laws but also tarnished the reputation of the 10-year-old festival.”

According to the promotors, Healy’s representative had provided a pre-show assurance that The 1975’s live performance would adhere to all local guidelines during their set – yet the assurance was ignored, with the band breaching the terms of their contract with FSA.

During his speech, Healy admitted he had “made a mistake” by agreeing to play in Malaysia, but decided to go ahead with the show anyway, since he couldn’t “let the kids down because they’re not the government”.

See below for The 1975 UK tour dates:

27/08/2023 – Leeds Festival – Leeds

Get tickets here.

As reported in Variety; “When DCM became aware of West’s copyright infringement, they contacted UMG, who — along with West and his production company Rock the World — signed an agreement with DCM two months later legally allowing West to sample the King Crimson track in return for a 5.33% royalty on each copy of “Power” that was sold or “otherwise exploited. According to the terms of the license agreement, UMG are required to pay DCM a royalty on the same terms that West receives royalties from the track. And under the terms of West’s agreement with UMG at the time, the royalty figure for a streaming track was equivalent to that of a track on a physical CD.”

“However, DCM claim in their lawsuit, which was filed in the U.K. High Court last month, that UMG “has failed, and continues to fail, to comply with its royalty accounting obligations in respect of one mode of exploitation, namely the making available of the Power recording to consumers through so-called ‘streaming’ services.”

Essentially, this makes UMG potentially liable to pay back all of the streaming royalties based on the sums they would be receiving through physical CD sales (as was stipulated in the 2010 contract). Yet up until now, UMG has been paying a proportionate percentage of what they receive from the streaming platforms. With Spotify for instance, it is estimated that each stream makes an earning of $0.0033. This therefore means that members of King Crimson have been cultivating far less than what was proposed in the contractual obligation.

The KC guitarist Robert Fripp made his feelings clear in a Facebook post. Stating that he has enlisted the help of Ian Mill QC of Blackstone Chambers, who recently won the case which saw Ed Sheeran charged with plagiarism. You can see Fripp’s post down below:

Sheeran took to his socials after the victory, summarizing, “where a claim is made with the idea that a settlement will be cheaper than taking it to court, even if there’s no basis for the claim.” Adding, “It’s really damaging to the songwriting industry. There’s only so many notes and very few chords used in pop music. Coincidence is bound to happen if 60,000 songs are being released every day on Spotify. That’s 22 million songs a year and there’s only 12 notes that are available.” At the ruling, Judge Antony Zacaroli completed proceedings by saying, “similarities between the one-bar phrase [share] such similarities are only a starting point for a possible infringement”, concluding, “differences between the relevant parts [of the songs, which] provide compelling evidence that the ‘Oh I’ phrase.”.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Ed Sheeran (@teddysphotos)

This result comes with a great sigh of relief for Sheeran, who back in 2017 took the particularly unusual step of counter-suing Sami Chokri and Ross O’Donoghu in an attempt to clear himself of any charges. This ultimately failed.

On the subject of copyright lawsuits, pop sensation Dua Lipa was being sued by Florida reggae band Artikal Sound System; the group claimed that in reference to their own track “Live Your Life”, it was “highly unlikely that ‘Levitating’ was created independently.”. The case is still in process, and I don’t have enough background to comment, but in a conversation with Rolling Stone, Musicologist Joe Bennett weighed in on the situation. While the melodies may be similar, copyright infringement is about confluence – and according to Bennett “In my opinion, for what it’s worth, I think this is a coincidence.”

According to a TMZ report and the legal documents uploaded by Pitchfork, Elden has sued all Nirvana band members as well as Nevermind album artwork photographer Kirk Weddle and designer Robert Fisher; the labels responsible for the album’s release, including Universal Music and Geffen Records; and Nirvana’s drummer from 1988 to 1990, Chad Channing.

The lawsuit was filed on August 24 claiming that the defendants have “violated” federal child pornography statutes and that Elden sustained “injuries” and “lifelong damages” due to the defendants’ “commercial child sexual exploitation of him from while he was a minor to the present day”. Neither Grohl, Novoselic, or the estate of Cobain has responded publicly to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleges that the band “failed to take reasonable steps to protect Spencer and prevent his widespread sexual exploitation and image trafficking. Cobain agreed to redact Spencer’s image with a sticker bearing the text If you’re offended by this, you must be a closet pedophile” which was in fact detailed by the 1993 Nirvana biography Come As You Are: The Story of Nirvana, however, the album was ultimately released without a said sticker.

The lawsuit further claims “Neither Spencer nor his legal guardians ever signed a release authorizing the use of any images of Spencer or of his likeness and certainly not of commercial child pornography depicting him.” It also alleges that Elden never received any compensation following the commercial success of Nevermind.

Elden is seeking actual damages, or liquidated damages amounting to $150,000 per defendant, attorney’s fees, and a trial by jury. Elden now aged 30, was only a few months old when he was photographed for the cover of Nevermind. In a 2016 TIME interview on the 25th anniversary of the album’s release, he revealed that he had had not come fully to terms with appearing on the cover and that he had previously looked into legal action against the label Geffen Records.

“It’s hard not to get upset when you hear how much money was involved, [When] I go to a baseball game and think about it: ‘Man, everybody at this baseball game has probably seen my little baby penis,’ I feel like I got part of my human rights revoked.” Elden also told TIME that he tried reaching out to the band, but was unsuccessful.

According to the Hollywood Reporter, many legal experts say the lawsuit is likely to be dismissed. Bryan Sullivan, an entertainment litigation partner at Early Sullivan, stated that the suit was “ridiculous,” and that even if there wasn’t a written agreement, Elden’s claims are weak. “I think it is highly unlikely that a record company would use a photograph for an album cover without verifying the existence of a release signed by the parents, but, if is there is no release, it does not mean he has a claim for child pornography. As to the right of privacy, you can waive it by your actions or by his parents’ actions in allowing him to be photographed.”

Entertainment lawyer Andrew Brettler agreed that publicity will be a key issue: “What I think really damns their case is the fact that this kid sat for all these interviews and re-created the album art.”

Elden’s lawyer, Mabbie told CNN the cover is an “overly sexualised” image and said that it was “child exploitation in the way that they created it and the way they distribute the image today.” She also states that Elden is expecting another invasion of his privacy as the album approaches its 30th anniversary, which takes place next month.

Since the US has very specific rules in terms of copyright and new music registration, Townsend had to start a new legal battle, involving a newly registered version of ‘Let’s Get It On’ and its music sheets. Judge Abrams commented the accusation: ‘it allows the court to reasonably infer that plaintiff has ownership of the 2020 copyright’, confirming the song as being eligible for a copyright lawsuit. The Judge added: ‘The court concludes that the 2020 registration sufficiently alleges plaintiff’s beneficial ownership in that copyright for purposes of this motion, and that the registration’s incorporation of new musical elements precludes a finding that plaintiff’s two suits are duplicative.’

Hence, Abrams found potential to review the alleged overlap with the 1973 Marvin Gaye composition – as well as acknowledging the similarities between the previous lawsuits and this litigation – and ruled out to put the case on hold. On the other side, Sheeran’s lawyers and Sony representatives still haven’t commented on these events, with the prosecution asking for up to $100 million in damages.

Released in 2014, ‘Thinking Out Loud’ culminated at number 2 on Billboard Hot 100 in February 2015, winning a Grammy award for the Song of the Year and being nominated for Record of the Year and Best Solo Pop Performance. On the other hand, in 1973 Marvin Gaye’s ‘Let’s Get it On’ peaked at number two for US’s Billboard Top LPs, and number 1 for Billboard Soul LPs.

The American pop star has been slammed with a hefty lawsuit after her song Stars has been criticised for containing “material taken from the original Sleigh Bells song “Infinity Guitars”  without proper credit. This comes from a statement found in documents gathered by Digital Music News.

Sleigh Bells are an American noise-pop duo formed in 2008 from New York. The songs Infinity Guitar comes from their debut album Treats, which was released back in 2010.

The claim was originally stated last year by Sleigh Bells on Twitter, when they posted:

“@ddlovato Demi Lovato flattered you guys sampled Infinity Guitars & Riot Rhythm for “Stars” but we were not contacted. Gotta clear those.”

However, Demetria Lovato’s producers denied the accusations, telling Rolling Stone, “We did not use any samples in Demi Lovato’s song,” adding “Demi was also not involved with the production.”

The song Stars appeared as a bonus track on her fifth album Confident. Confident debuted at at number one in Canada, while reaching the top 10 in fifteen other countries, including the United Kingdom and the United States.

Nothing was resolved and now a year on, Krauss and Miller have launched legal proceedings against Lovato, Falk, Yacoub, and Universal Music Group.

The lawsuit names Lovato, UMG Recordings and producers Carl Falk and Rami Yacoub as defendants. It states that: “A comparison of the two songs reveals that, at the very least, the combination of the hand claps and bass drum, structured as 3 quarter beats and a rest, with the bass drum providing a counter-rhythm to the hand claps, is at least substantially similar in both works,” states the complaint. “This infringing material repeats throughout the Defendants’ song.”

According to The Hollywood Reporter, the complaint also alleges that “signal decay and other sonic signatures” reveals “virtually identical content” and “transcend the realm of coincidence.”

The lawsuit also states that Sleigh Bells have “suffered actual damages including lost profits, lost opportunities, and loss of goodwill,” going on to say that they are asking for $150,000 “per infringement” along with a “permanent injunction prohibiting the reproduction, distribution, sale, public performance or other use or exploitation of “Infinity Guitars” by defendants.”

Demi Lovato released Confident in October 2015 and is currently on a North American tour to promote the album.

This isn’t the first time Lovato has been called out on controversy within the media. Earlier this year the former Disney star commented on an Instagram ‘meme’ that compared Ariana Grande and Mariah Carey, sparking a barrage of fan wars between the stars. She also posted a video with her mother stating that those competing in Rio this year would contract the Zika virus, which also sparked debate.

Lovato is yet to comment on the claims. The full complaint can be found here. The videos of Stars and Infinity Guitars have been posted below for readers to compare.