IPRMENTLAW WEEKLY HIGHLIGHTS (AUG 26- SEP 1, 2024)

IPRMENTLAW WEEKLY HIGHLIGHTS (AUG 26- SEP 1, 2024)

by | Sep 7, 2024 | Entertainment Law, Music Business, Podcast News


Bombay Excessive Courtroom Grants Interim Aid to Burger King in Trademark Infringement Case

The Burger King Company had sought a everlasting injunction from the Bombay Excessive Courtroom with the intention to restrain Pune’s Burger King restaurant from exploiting its trademark ‘Burger King’.

The Bombay Excessive Courtroom has granted interim reduction to Burger King Company on this trademark infringement case towards the Pune-based burger additionally utilizing the identify, ‘Burger King.’ The choice follows an attraction by Burger King difficult a July 16, 2014, order by Pune district choose Sunil Gangadharrao Vedpathak, which had been in favor of the Pune restaurant. The Excessive Courtroom has now issued an ad-interim keep on that order.

The Division Bench of Justices A.S. Chandurkar and Rajesh Patil dominated that the ad-interim keep would stay in impact till the following listening to, scheduled for September 6.

Case: Burger King Company v. Anahita Irani and One other

You’ll be able to learn extra about it right here.

Airtel to Shut Down Wynk Music, Companions with Apple for Content material Presents

Airtel is about to discontinue its Wynk Music app, because the telecommunications large enters a strategic partnership with Apple to offer prospects with unique music and video content material. Later this yr, Airtel prospects in India will obtain particular provides for Apple TV+ and Apple Music, marking a big shift in Airtel’s content material supply technique. The corporate has confirmed that each one workers of Wynk Music shall be absorbed inside the broader Airtel ecosystem.

As a part of the brand new deal, Apple TV+ shall be built-in into Airtel’s Xstream platform, which shall be out there via premium subscription plans. The monetary phrases and pricing particulars of this partnership stay undisclosed.

You’ll be able to learn extra about it right here.

PIL Filed in Punjab and Haryana Excessive Courtroom In opposition to Kangana Ranaut’s Movie ‘Emergency’

A Public Curiosity Litigation (PIL) has been filed within the Punjab and Haryana Excessive Courtroom looking for the cancellation or revocation of the certification granted to the movie ‘Emergency,’ starring Kangana Ranaut. The petitioners, Gurinder Singh and one other particular person, allege that the film targets the Sikh neighborhood by projecting false and misguided info, thereby making an attempt to “destroy the social material of Punjab” and selling hatred between spiritual teams.

The PIL requests that the Union of India and the Central Board of Movie Certification (CBFC) be directed to delete the objectionable scenes from the movie, which is scheduled for launch on September 6.

You’ll be able to learn extra about it right here.

Former Indian Ocean Band Members File Criticism Alleging Non-Fee of Royalty

Susmit Sen, a former member of the Indian Ocean band, and Sunita Chakravarty, the widow of co-founder of the band Ashim Chakravarty, lodged a police criticism towards present band members Rahul Ram and Amit Kilam. The criticism, filed in New Delhi, additionally named Kandisa Music Productions Pvt Ltd, the corporate managing the band.

Based on reviews, Sen and Chakravarty accused Ram and Kilam of failing to pay royalties since 2020-21. The allegations embrace costs of felony conspiracy, felony breach of belief, dishonest, misappropriation, falsification of accounts, cash laundering, and embezzlement. The complainants declare they’ve been disadvantaged of royalties amounting to over half a crore rupees per particular person, with Chakravarty not receiving any funds since 2021.

You’ll be able to learn extra about it right here.

OpenAI Asserts Truthful Use Protection in Response to Copyright Allegations

OpenAI responded in California federal courtroom to allegations that it misused the works of authors, together with Michael Chabon, Ta-Nehisi Coates, and comic Sarah Silverman, to coach its synthetic intelligence language mannequin. The corporate defended its practices, arguing that its use of copyrighted content material constitutes honest use, important for educating fashions just like the one behind ChatGPT to generate authentic materials.

In its courtroom submitting, OpenAI said, “The fashions study, as all of us do, from what has come earlier than,” emphasizing that the honest use doctrine exists to foster the event of latest concepts that construct on earlier works. Whereas each OpenAI and Meta beforehand persuaded the judges to dismiss some claims, the courts have but to deal with the basic challenge of whether or not coaching AI fashions utilizing internet-scraped materials constitutes widespread copyright infringement.

You’ll be able to learn extra about it right here.

Vee Information Copyright Infringement Lawsuit In opposition to Guru Randhawa and T-Sequence

Vikram Shapribhan Singh, professionally often called Vee, has filed a lawsuit towards singer Guru Randhawa, T-Sequence, and Hungama Digital Media Leisure Pvt. Ltd., within the Bombay Excessive Courtroom, alleging copyright infringement. The case facilities on claims that T-Sequence unlawfully used Vee’s sound recordings, works, and performances with out correct authorization, leading to important monetary and reputational injury.

The dispute dates again to Vee’s collaboration with Guru Randhawa, starting in December 2016. Vee contends that Randhawa had promised monetary compensation, applicable credit, and a 50 p.c share of publishing royalties for his contributions. Nonetheless, these guarantees had been by no means formalized, and Vee claims he was not credited for a number of tracks, together with the hit track “Excessive Rated Gabru.”

You’ll be able to learn extra about it right here.

Delhi Excessive Courtroom Declares ‘Boroline’ a Properly-Recognized Trademark

The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has formally acknowledged ‘Boroline’ as a “well-known trademark” underneath the Commerce Marks Act and has ordered an organization to vary its product’s commerce gown to keep away from resemblance to the widely known antiseptic cream. The courtroom emphasised the numerous goodwill and market recognition of the ‘Boroline’ trademark, noting its recognition not solely in India but in addition in international locations like Oman and Turkey.

The ruling got here in response to a lawsuit filed by G D Prescription drugs, the proprietor of the Boroline model, towards Cento Merchandise (India) for manufacturing and promoting a “deceptively comparable” product named ‘Borobeauty.’ It was argued that Cento Merchandise adopted Boroline’s distinct “commerce gown,” particularly the darkish inexperienced tube with an octagonal black cap, for its soothing cream, which constituted a violation of mental property legislation.

The courtroom restrained Cento Merchandise from persevering with to fabricate and promote ‘Borobeauty’ in its present type and directed the corporate to switch its commerce gown and trademark to make sure they’re utterly distinct from Boroline’s well-known model id.

You’ll be able to learn extra about it right here.

Delhi Excessive Courtroom Orders Removing of Fraudulent Web sites Misusing the ‘Mudrex’ Trademark

The Delhi Excessive Courtroom issued a directive to take down a number of web sites which are allegedly misusing the emblems related to the crypto-investment platform “Mudrex” to deceive prospects.

The plaintiff accused numerous entities of unauthorized use of the “Mudrex” trademark, claiming that the web sites had been operated in a dishonest method to mislead the general public into making investments. The courtroom, recognizing the potential for irreparable hurt to the plaintiff, granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction, restraining the defendants from utilizing the “Mudrex” emblems or any deceptively comparable marks.

Justice Mini Pushkarna, within the interim order, directed the offending events, recognized as John Doe or unknown entities, to take down the infringing web sites inside 48 hours. The courtroom additional clarified that if the defendants fail to conform, the competent authorities would take instant motion to dam entry to the fraudulent web sites.

You’ll be able to learn extra about it right here.

Supreme Courtroom Stays Notification issued by Ministry of Ayush

The Supreme Courtroom stayed a notification issued by the Ministry of Ayush that had omitted Rule 170 of the Medication and Cosmetics Guidelines, 1945 that prohibits deceptive commercials of Ayurvedic, Siddha, and Unani medication. A bench comprising Justices Hima Kohli and Sandeep Mehta said that the ministry’s notification was in direct violation of the Courtroom’s earlier order.

On Might 7, 2024, the Supreme Courtroom had mandated that earlier than any commercial is issued, a self-declaration have to be obtained from the advertisers, following the rules laid down by the Ministry. Regardless of this directive, the Ministry of Ayush issued a notification on July 1, 2024, omitting Rule 170, opposite to the Courtroom’s order. Due to this fact the Courtroom stayed the impact of this notification till additional orders.

You’ll be able to learn extra about it right here.

MIB Eases Self-Declaration Certificates Necessities for Meals and Well being Sector Adverts

The Ministry of Info and Broadcasting (MIB) has proposed that solely commercials within the meals and well being sectors be required to submit a Self-Declaration Certificates (SDC), in keeping with an affidavit filed within the Supreme Courtroom, as reported by Hindustan Instances. The Ministry clarified that the duty for submitting these SDCs rests solely with personal corporations and advertisers, not promoting businesses. Moreover, the MIB beneficial that start-ups and micro and small enterprises (MSMEs) be exempt from submitting SDCs.

This follows the MIB’s July advisory, which directed advertisers and promoting businesses within the meals and well being sectors to add annual SDCs on the Broadcast Seva Portal (for TV/Radio) or the Press Council of India’s portal (for print media/web). The advisory, issued in compliance with a courtroom order, required advertisers to make sure declarations concerning deceptive commercials.

You’ll be able to learn extra about it right here.

NCLT Approves Merger of Viacom 18 Media with Star India

On Friday, the Nationwide Firm Regulation Tribunal (NCLT) authorised the merger of Reliance Industries-owned Viacom 18 Media with Star India. This determination, made by a two-member NCLT bench, additionally features a composite Scheme of Association involving Viacom 18, Digital 18, and Star India.

The NCLT, noticed that the scheme seems honest and affordable, complies with authorized provisions, and doesn’t contravene public coverage. The NCLT famous within the order that the scheme will solely grow to be efficient after receiving approval from the Competitors Fee of India. The proposed scheme includes transferring Media Operations Enterprise from Viacom 18 and Jio Cinema to Digital18, a Viacom 18 subsidiary, adopted by the demerger and switch of the V18 Enterprise from Digital18 to Star India.

You’ll be able to learn extra about it right here.

Zee and Sony enter right into a Settlement Settlement, following the failed Sony-Zee Merger

The $10 billion merger between Zee Leisure and Sony India (Culver Max Leisure) has a brand new growth the place each events have entered right into a settlement settlement. Zee Leisure introduced on August 27 that it had reached a settlement with Culver Max Leisure Personal Restricted (previously Sony India) and Bangla Leisure Personal Restricted. This follows after the merger between Zee and Sony didn’t happen and was referred to as off by Sony, resulting in sure claims being made by Zee to recuperate its prices and damages.

You’ll be able to learn extra about it right here.

Bombay Excessive Courtroom Imposes Rs 50 Lakh Price on Premier Stationery for Trademark Violation

The Bombay Excessive Courtroom has imposed a penalty of Rs 50 lakh on Premier Stationery Industries Pvt. Ltd. for “wilful and deliberate disregard” of its August 2017 order, which had restrained the corporate from utilizing a deceptively comparable trademark to Pidilite Industries Ltd.’s ‘Fevicol’.

Pidilite had initially filed a swimsuit towards Premier Stationery Industries for infringing on their FEVICOL MR Inventive Work and FEVICOL MR Bottle emblems. The courtroom’s 2017 order barred Premier from violating Pidilite’s trademark rights. In 2021, Pidilite approached the courtroom once more, claiming Premier resumed reproducing the important options of its merchandise.

Premier Stationery Industries argued that the present house owners, who acquired the corporate after 2017, had been unaware of the courtroom’s order and prior undertakings. The unique house owners contended they shouldn’t be held liable for violations occurring after the sale of the corporate. Justice Riyaz Chagla, nonetheless, rejected these arguments, noting that each previous and current house owners had been associated and had offered false statements. The choose decided that the violations constituted willful and deliberate contempt of courtroom, resulting in the imposition of a Rs 50 lakh price as a penalty.

You’ll be able to learn extra about it right here.

Calcutta Excessive Courtroom permits Launch of “The Diary of West Bengal”

The Calcutta Excessive Courtroom declined to challenge an interim order restraining the discharge of the Hindi movie The Diary of West Bengal, observing that in a democratic setup, wholesome criticism shouldn’t be stopped .

A public curiosity litigation (PIL) had been filed looking for to halt the movie’s launch, alleging that it portrays the Chief Minister of West Bengal in a unfavorable mild. Though the courtroom was not inclined to grant instant reduction, it agreed to record the matter for a listening to in three weeks, permitting the senior advocate representing the petitioner to make detailed submissions in help of the petition.

You’ll be able to learn extra about it right here.

Delhi Excessive Courtroom Points Injunction and Damages in Louis Vuitton Copyright Infringement Case

In a current swimsuit filed by Louis Vuitton Malletier, the Delhi Excessive Courtroom granted a everlasting injunction towards the defendants concerning using pictures and pictures owned by the plaintiff. Justice Mini Pushkarna emphasised that the core challenge was the unauthorized use of those copyrighted supplies by the defendants.

The Courtroom restrained the defendants from utilizing the images, photos, and promotional materials in query. Moreover, it ordered the defendants to pay Rs. 5,00,000 on to Louis Vuitton Malletier in France, as prices had been requested by the plaintiff to be paid on to France.

You’ll be able to learn extra about it right here.

Telugu Movie Trade Girls Push for Launch of Sexual Harassment Report from Telangana authorities

Main ladies actors, producers, and administrators within the Telugu movie business are urging the Telangana authorities to launch a two-year-old report on sexual harassment as a vital step in direction of making certain a safer working atmosphere. There are ongoing discussions by the Film Artistes Affiliation and the Telugu Movie Chamber of Commerce on addressing these points.

On August 30, the Voice of Girls (VoW), a help group for ladies within the business, issued a press release highlighting the necessity for transparency and motion, drawing comparisons to the Hema Committee’s findings on sexual exploitation in Malayalam cinema. The assertion has gained important traction, thereby amplifying requires the report’s launch and efficient measures to fight harassment.

You’ll be able to learn extra about it right here.

Spotify vs. Taylor Swift and Taylor Yorke – Music Business Research

Spotify vs. Taylor Swift and Taylor Yorke – Music Business Research

by | Aug 31, 2024 | Entertainment Law, Music Business, Podcast News

Spotify has been constantly criticized for underpaying designers while still collecting about 30 % of its profits from music streaming. The two Radiohead vocalist Thom Yorke and Taylor Swift’s unsuccessful efforts against Spotify, which led to decades of their superstars boycotting the site, attracted significant media attention. This site article attempts to answer the question of what the boycott eventually ended up accomplishing by bringing attention to the causes of this conflict.

Part 11 of The Music Streaming Economy: Taylor Swift and Thom Yorke vs. Spotify

Thom Yorke, singer of the American rock group Radiohead, summed up the issue of Spotify’s rewards to audio creators as follows:” Make no mistake, fresh artists you discover on Spotify will not get paid. In the meantime, owners will soon be rolling in it. Simples”. [1 ] Yorke was ultimately proven correct even though Spotify only became widely known five years later. The song degrees who had secured shares in the company were not the painters who benefited from the Investor. Thom York removed all the stuff from his single job and the group job” Atoms for Peace” from Spotify as a show of opposition. And in a series of posts on Twitter in mid-July 2013, he and his manufacturer, Nigel Godrich, followed fit:” ]N] gross artists get paid ass all with this model”. ]2 ] By” this model”, Godrich was referring to the business model of music streaming, which he believes generates less revenue than radio airplay royalties. To the issue in a post that” Pink Floyd” and” The Eagles” had also made their songs available on Spotify, Godrich responded:” It’s funds for old wire… But making fresh recorded songs needs funding. Some records may be made in a computer, but some have musician and experienced technicians. These items cost money. It makes sense to put Pink Floyd’s library on a streaming site since it has already made billions of dollars for the artist ( not necessarily the group ). However, I doubt that the film “dark area” would have been produced if people had been listening to Music rather than purchasing data in 1973. It would just be very expensive”. ]3 ]

Thom Yorke followed this up with an appointment for the Mexican site Sopitas, in which he described Netflix as” the final desperate laugh of a dying dead.” ]4 ] The critic was directed less at the Swedish music streaming service, which Yorke saw as a symptom of an undesirable development, than at the “old” music industry:” I feel like as musicians we need to fight the Spotify thing. What is happening in the mainstream, in my opinion, is the last of the ancient market in some ways. And it is dominated by the music disciplines, whose business model Yorke immediately attacks:” But because they’re using old song, because they’re using the majors … the majors are all over it because they see a way of re-selling all their old products for free, make a fortune, and hardly die”. Yorke, who describes Spotify as the “handmaiden of the music majors,” says that the way that new music and young musicians are marketed in the streaming era is all about how people change their ways of listening to music, how technology develops, and how conversational it is with one another regarding music, and a lot of it could be incredibly fucking bad. ]5 ]

Additionally, other music industry stars expressed disapproval or even hostility toward Spotify and music streaming. The Beatles ended their streaming boycott on Christmas Day 2015 by announcing on Twitter that their entire music catalog would be accessible to stream on Spotify, Apple Music, Amazon Prime Music, Tidal, Deezer, and four other providers starting at 0 am on December 24th, 2015. [6 ] The Australian heavy metal cult band’s recordings were not made available on music streaming platforms until the end of June 2015. ]7 ]

The biggest stir, however, came from US superstar Taylor Swift, who announced on November 3 that she would no longer be releasing her recently released album” 1989″ on Spotify, removing her entire back catalogue from the service. She stated in an interview with Time magazine that the Swedish streaming service’s ad-supported free model was devaluing her music and that it was “increasingly important” that art belonged in the world of music. I did n’t see that happening, perception-wise, when I put my music on Spotify. Everybody’s complaining about how music sales are shrinking, but nobody’s changing the way they’re doing things. They keep running towards streaming, which is, for the most part, what has been shrinking the numbers of paid album sales”. She stated in the interview that because of its premium tier, her music would still be accessible on Apple and iTunes. ]8 ]

Scott Borchetta, whose Big Machine label released Swift’s albums, made a similar point. In a radio interview on” Sixx Sense With Nikki Sixx”, he criticised the free availability of Taylor Swift’s music on Spotify as disrespectful, pointing out that her songs could still be streamed on paid platforms:” We determined that her fan base is so in on her, let’s pull everything off of Spotify, and any other service that does n’t offer a premium service. You will find her catalogue if you are a premium subscriber to Beats, Rdio, or any of the other services that do n’t just offer a free-only. ]9 ] In an interview with Time Magazine, he calculated that his label, Big Machine, had received just US$ 496, 044 for Taylor Swift’s recordings in the US home market over the past twelve months. That would not equal the revenue generated by the music video streams on YouTube’s hosted ad-funded platform Vevo. ]10] The contradiction is striking. Taylor Swift’s music was removed from both Spotify’s free and paid services, but remained available for free on YouTube via Vevo. Even its founder and CEO, Daniel Ek, who was quoted on the Spotify blog as pointing out that a Taylor Swift superstar could earn US$ 6 million annually worldwide on Spotify, had to react. ]11] The Swedish company also commented on Scott Borchetta’s statements to Time Magazine, calculating that in the twelve months prior to the boycott, US$ 2 million had been paid to Taylor Swift’s label for all streams worldwide, including US$ 500, 000 in label and publishing royalties in October 2014 alone. ]12]

Even if US versus international figures can account for the differences between Borchetta’s and Spotify’s figures, it is still believed that Swift and her label’s major PR campaign was the source of the Spotify boycott. It served as a way to promote the 1989 CD release, which sold 1.7 million copies in just its first two weeks in the US. [13] At the beginning of November 2014, there were also rumors that Scott Borchetta intended to buy his label company for$ 200 million. [14] He may also have stoked the Spotify controversy, which would have troubled his top-stakes collaborator Taylor Swift, who had been hired to make a sixth album for” Big Machine.” Five years later, when Borchetta did indeed sell, the same dispute broke out over the master rights to Swift’s recordings.

Anyway, Taylor Swift and Thom Yorke have both agreed to work with Spotify, and they can now stream their music there. When her five studio albums could be streamed on the platform once more, four of which immediately entered the Billboard 200 albums chart and generated US$ 500, 000 in streaming revenue, Taylor Swift gave up her resistance to Spotify two and a half years after the boycott was declared in June 2017. The singer and her management team were aware that the streaming service is a key component of a star’s commercial success and that the promotional power of Spotify cannot be underestimated. In December 2017, Thom Yorke had his two singles as a solo artist,’ The Eraser ‘ ( 2006 ) and ‘ Tomorrow’s Modern Boxes’, as well as the album ‘ AMOK’ by his band project ‘ Atoms for Peace’, placed on Spotify, but without commenting on Twitter, he referred to critical Twitter posts by Geoff Barrow of the band Portishead, in which he complained about the low payouts from music streaming. ]16] But even Thom Yorke had to accept Spotify’s market power.

Endnotes

]1 ] The Twitter posts have since disappeared from Thom York’s account and can only be reconstructed indirectly through quotes cited in the media., e. g. in The Guardian,” Thom Yorke blasts Spotify on Twitter as he pulls his music”, July 15, 2013, accessed: 2024-08-27.

]2 ] Nigel Godrich’s Twitter post can be read on Business Insider,” Radiohead Singer Thom Yorke Pulls His Music From Spotify, And Blasts It On Twitter”, July 15, 2013, accessed: 2024-08-27 and on his Twitter/X account ( @nigelgod ).

]3 ] Ibid.

]4 ] Cited in The Guardian,” Thom Yorke calls Spotify ‘ the last desperate fart of a dying corpse ‘”, October 7, 2013, accessed: 2024-08-27.

]5 ] Ibid.

]6 ] The Guardian, “AC/DC becomes latest act to get on the streaming bandwagon”, June 30, 2015, accessed: 2024-08-27.

]7 ] Twitter,” The Beatles Now Streaming”, December 23, 2015, accessed: 2024-08-27.

]8 ] Time Magazine,” Taylor Swift on 1989, Spotify, Her Next Tour and Female Role Models”, November 13, 2014, accessed: 2024-08-27.

]9 ] Cited in Billboard,” Big Machine’s Scott Borchetta Explains Why Taylor Swift Was Removed From Spotify”, November 8, 2014, accessed: 2024-08-27.

]10] Time Magazine,” Taylor Swift’s Spotify Paycheck Mystery”, November 12, 2014, accessed: 2024-08-27.

]11] Ibid.

]12] Ibid.

]13] Billboard,” Taylor Swift’s ‘ 1989’ Spends Second Week at No. 1 on Billboard 200 Chart”, November 12, 2014, accessed: 2024-08-27.

]14] New York Post,” Taylor Swift’s label on the block for over$ 200M”, November 1, 2014, accessed: 2024-08-27.

]15 ] Forbes,” Why Did Taylor Swift Really Rejoin Spotify”?, June 27, 2017, accessed: 2024-08-27.

]16] MNE,” Radiohead’s Thom Yorke still is n’t a fan of Spotify”, December 29, 2017, accessed: 2024-08-27.


BMG Purchases BMG Music Catalog Throughout Tina Turner

BMG Purchases BMG Music Catalog Throughout Tina Turner

by | Aug 24, 2024 | Entertainment Law, Music Business, Podcast News

AI restrained from exploiting Arijit Singh’s character rights

AI restrained from exploiting Arijit Singh’s character rights

by | Aug 17, 2024 | Entertainment Law, Music Business, Podcast News


In Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP[i], the Bombay Excessive Court docket restrained third events, resembling AI platforms, eating places, merchandise sellers, digital music occasions, and so forth., from violating the character rights of the famend Bollywood singer Arijit Singh.

These entities  had been restrained from utilizing Arijit Singh’s title, voice / vocal fashion and approach / vocal preparations, {photograph}, picture or its likeness, and so forth., in any kind, for any industrial or private achieve in any method in any respect, with out Arijit Singh’s consent.

Info

It was submitted that Arijit Singh hailed from Murshidabad, a small city in West Bengal, and got here from humble beginnings. From a younger age, Arijit Singh had a robust ardour for music, which led him from being a contestant on the musical actuality TV present “Fame Gurukul” to changing into a celebrated playback singer and foremost singer worldwide. Subsequently, Arijit Singh established that he had the place of a star in India.

On this case, Arijit Singh sought safety of his character rights, together with his title, voice, signature, {photograph}, picture, caricature, likeness, persona, and different private attributes from unauthorized industrial exploitation and misuse. The case additionally concerned the violation of Arijit Singh’s ethical rights in his performances, as offered below Part 38-B of the Copyright Act, 1957.

There have been a number of infringing actions being completed by third occasion entities which necessitated submitting the current swimsuit by Arijit Singh, a couple of of which had been:

(i) AI Platforms Misusing Arijit Singh’s Voice and Picture:

  • AI platforms misused Arijit Singh’s voice and picture by using refined algorithms to duplicate his voice, picture, and different character traits with out permission, exploiting his popularity.
  • These platforms enabled the conversion of audio recordsdata into his voice utilizing unauthorized datasets and promoted these actions by movies and on-line tutorials.
  • Web sites had been created to provide AI voice fashions of Arijit Singh, providing instruments that transformed textual content or speech into his AI voice, and even produced music and deepfake movies that mimicked his voice and likeness, all with out authorization.

(ii) False Affiliation with Arijit Singh:

  • A restaurant/pub, hosted an occasion in Bengaluru utilizing Arijit Singh’s title and picture with out authorization.
  • One other individual marketed a digital music occasion falsely implying Arijit Singh’s participation and endorsement.

(iii) Unauthorized Sale of Merchandise:

  • An individual exploited Arijit Singh’s publicity rights by promoting merchandise bearing his title, picture, and likeness on numerous e-commerce platforms.

(iv) GIF Platforms Exploiting Arijit Singh’s Picture:

  • An individual allowed customers to create and share GIFs of Arijit Singh’s performances, exploiting his picture and likeness for revenue with out authorization.

(v) Infringing Area Names:

  • Unknown entities registered domains containing Arijit Singh’s title, with one redirecting to a third-party web site.

Arijit Singh argued that the situations of character rights violations talked about weren’t exhaustive, noting that a number of entities operated clandestinely, concealing their identities. Defendants whose particulars had been identified had been named, whereas unidentified ones had been listed as “Ashok Kumar” or “John Doe”.

Allegations

Arijit Singh argued that Defendants Nos. 3 to eight offered instruments for unauthorized AI-generated voice fashions of celebrities, whereas Defendants Nos. 9, 11 to 25 exploited Arijit Singh’s character traits on merchandise. He emphasised that this misuse jeopardized his profession and couldn’t be justified below freedom of speech. Rapid aid was sought to forestall irreparable hurt.

It was acknowledged that the protectable elements of Arijit Singh’s character and publicity rights, which had been the main focus of this swimsuit, included the next:

  • Arijit Singh’s title;
  • His voice, vocal fashion and approach, in addition to his vocal preparations and interpretations;
  • His mannerisms and method of singing;
  • His picture, {photograph}, caricature, and likeness;
  • His signature.

It was argued Arijit Singh held the proper to command and management the usage of his character traits, as these shaped a part of his unique Persona Rights and Publicity Rights. Any misappropriation of Arijit Singh’s character traits for industrial functions with out his categorical permission was to be restrained not solely primarily based on his publicity rights, which is the unique proper to commercially exploit his character, but additionally on the idea of the tort of dilution, particularly tarnishment.

Moreover, any unauthorized distortion, mutilation, modification, or dissemination of Arijit Singh’s performances, voice, or video recordings that harmed his popularity would represent a violation of his ethical rights below Part 38-B of the Copyright Act, 1957.

Court docket’s Evaluation

The Court docket was satisfied that Plaintiff was a notable singer in India who gained immense goodwill throughout his profitable profession and had subsequently acquired a movie star standing in India.

It was noticed that celebrities are entitled to safety of the sides of their character resembling their title, photos, likeness, voice, signature, and so forth. towards unauthorized industrial exploitation by third events.

The Court docket quoted a couple of related observations from Karan Johar v. Indian Pleasure Advisory[ii] and Anil Kapoor v. Merely Life India[iii] case, that are as follows:

  • The movie star’s proper of endorsement is a significant supply of livelihood for the movie star, which can’t be destroyed fully by allowing illegal dissemination and sale of merchandise with out their lawful authorisation.
  • Technological instruments, together with AI, now enable anybody to illegally use, produce, or imitate a star’s persona.
  • The Court docket can’t overlook the misuse of a character’s title and persona. Dilution, tarnishment, and blurring are actionable torts requiring safety.
  • Superstar’s title, likeness, picture, and persona deserve safety, not just for the Superstar but additionally for his household and associates, to forestall tarnishing or unfavorable use of his likeness.

In an motion for safeguarding character rights and proper to publicity, establishing the movie star standing of the plaintiff is barely the first ingredient. It should even be established that the plaintiff is identifiable from the defendant’s unauthorized use and that such use by the defendant is for industrial achieve.

The Court docket noticed that the file prima facie indicated that Defendant Nos. 1 to 9, 11 to 25, 37, and 38 had been unauthorizedly utilizing Arijit Singh’s character traits—resembling his title, picture, and likeness—in ways in which clearly determine him. This exploitation seemed to be for industrial and private achieve, with none permission or authorization from Arijit Singh.

Making AI instruments out there that allow the conversion of any voice into that of a star with out his/her permission constitutes a violation of the movie star’s character rights. The Court docket was significantly involved about the usage of AI to create counterfeit content material that misuses Arijit Singh’s id, probably jeopardizing his profession and livelihood.

The unauthorized commercial, promotion, and sale of merchandise bearing Arijit Singh’s character traits by defendants had been deemed a transparent violation of his character rights and proper to publicity. The Court docket famous that Arijit Singh had made a acutely aware option to keep away from model endorsements or commercialization of his character traits for years.

The Court docket noticed that although freedom of speech and expression permits for critique and commentary, it doesn’t grant the license to use a star’s persona for industrial achieve. In these circumstances, the Court docket was inclined to guard Arijit Singh towards any wrongful exploitation of his character rights. 

Judgement

The Court docket acknowledged that in view of the circumstances outlined, and as described in paragraph 60 of the Plaint, offering discover to the Defendants would defeat the aim of Arijit Singh’s utility. Consequently, an ex-parte ad-interim order was issued by way of the prayer of the plaintiff, which is inter alia as follows:

  • Restraining defendants from violating Arijit Singh’s Persona Rights and Publicity Rights through the use of his title, voice, likeness, or some other attributes of his character in any kind, with out his consent or authorization, together with by AI know-how, on-line platforms, or merchandise.
  • Directing sure defendants to take away, cancel, or droop the domains containing Arijit Singh’s title, or alternatively, transferring these domains to Arijit Singh.
  • Ordering defendants to take down, take away, or block entry to all infringing content material and URLs recognized by Arijit Singh in his plaint exhibit.
  • Requiring defendants to reveal all particulars of the registrants of the impugned domains.
  • Regardless that there was no justification for the violation of Arijit Singh’s character rights, the Court docket noticed that eradicating complete movies weren’t pointless for sure defendants. As an alternative, sure defendants had been ordered to edit or delete all references to Arijit Singh’s title, voice, picture, and different character traits from the required YouTube movies.

Conclusion and Ideas

Using deepfakes and AI has grow to be more and more widespread in India and worldwide. Individuals now have the power to create content material utilizing the character traits of celebrities, usually misusing this content material to tarnish their picture or unfold unendorsed messages to the general public.

India

In India, this situation is especially severe as a result of many customers could not understand, or could not try to confirm, if the video is pretend, resulting in a completely tarnished picture of celebrities amongst most of the people. This drawback has led to a number of authorized instances in India lately.

In a latest interim order within the case of Jackie Shroff v. The Peppy Retailer,[iv] the Delhi Excessive Court docket safeguarded the character and publicity rights of actor Jackie Shroff and has restrained numerous entities, together with e-commerce shops, Synthetic Intelligence (“AI”) chatbots, and social media accounts, from utilizing Shroff’s title, picture, voice, and likeness with out his specific consent.

In Anil Kapoor vs Merely Life and Others., the defendants had been discovered misappropriating Anil Kapoor’s character rights utilizing generative synthetic intelligence to superimpose his face on different well-known actors’ our bodies and creating cartoon characters, which led to the Court docket granting an interim aid to Mr. Anil Kapoor for defense of his title, likeness, voice, persona, and different attributes of his character towards unauthorized industrial use.

USA

Just lately, in america of America, new laws has been launched to counter this unrestricted violation of character rights of people with out correct authorization.

In Tennessee, United States of America, a brand new legislation was enacted, titled the Guaranteeing Likeness Voice and Picture Safety Act of 2024 (“Elvis Act”) changing the Private Rights Act. The Private Rights Act beforehand prohibited unauthorized industrial use of a person’s title, {photograph}, and likeness. The Elvis Act expanded the publicity proper by including voice as a protectable ingredient, probably aiming at Synthetic Intelligence firms that make out there providers or know-how whose major operate is to provide such voices or images which might be unauthorized. You may see the total publish explaining the Elvis Act right here.

Final week, U.S. lawmakers launched the Nurture Originals, Foster Artwork, and Maintain Leisure Protected Act (“No Fakes Act”). The most recent model of the draft No Fakes Act was launched only some days after the U.S. Copyright Workplace referred to as for brand spanking new laws to control the usage of digital replicas on-line in its report.

Presently, rights of publicity fluctuate by state within the USA (as will be seen from the Elvis Act which is barely relevant within the state of Tennessee), with some states missing statutory or widespread legislation protections for these elements of a person’s id. If No Fakes Act is handed, the legislation would create the primary nationwide harmonized proper of publicity, and create safety towards unauthorized extremely sensible, digital replicas that use a person’s voice or likeness.[v]

Finish Notes:

[i] Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP, Interim Software (L) No.23560 of 2024 in Com IPR Go well with (L) No.23443 of 2024.

[ii] Karan Johar v. India Pleasure Advisory Pvt. Ltd., Interim Software (L) No.17865 Of 2024 in Com IPR Go well with (L) No.17863 Of 2024.

[iii] Anil Kapoor v. Merely Life India, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6914.

[iv] Jaikishan Kakubhai Saraf alias Jackie Shroff v. The Peppy Retailer, CS(COMM) 389/2024.

[v] https://www.reedsmith.com/en/views/2024/08/ai-and-publicity-rights-the-no-fakes-act-strikes-a-chord

Picture generated on Dall-E

Spotify in The Pirate Bay – Music Enterprise Analysis

Spotify in The Pirate Bay – Music Enterprise Analysis

by | Aug 10, 2024 | Entertainment Law, Music Business, Podcast News


Spotify is by far the world’s main music streaming service. This success was something however pre-programmed, and except for the advertising and marketing abilities of its two Swedish founders, it was primarily likelihood that introduced Spotify to this place. Spotify has its roots within the P2P file-sharing neighborhood and owes its rise to some extent to the lawsuit in opposition to the creators of the torrent tracker The Pirate Bay, which made worldwide media headlines in 2008 when Spotify was launched. This a part of the weblog sequence traces the event of Spotify throughout the The Pirate Bay trial and the early years that laid the foundations for its success.

The Music Streaming Financial system – Half 8: Spotify in The Pirate Bay

On 7 October 2008, Spotify introduced the launch of operations in Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Spain, Sweden and the UK with a Fb put up titled “We’ve solely simply begun!”, a Nineteen Seventies marriage ceremony hit by The Carpenters,[1] and shortly after opened places of work in London, Berlin and Madrid.[2] The timing was good. On 31 January 2008, Swedish prosecutors filed prices in opposition to torrent tracker The Pirate Bay,[3] which had turn out to be probably the most in style P2P file-sharing networks. For months, media consideration had been targeted on the forthcoming The Pirate Bay trial, which was lastly set to start in Stockholm on 16 February 2009. Supporters and opponents of the favored P2P file-sharing community had been slinging mud at one another for months within the run-up to the trial, so it comes as no shock that the announcement of a authorized music service on the Web, which was even be free, attracted lots of consideration not solely in Sweden however far past. Daniel Ek even admitted in an interview that The Pirate Bay was the supply of inspiration for the creation of Spotify.[4]

Nevertheless, the true purpose for Spotify’s official launch initially of October 2008 was signing of licensing offers with the 4 music majors of the time – Common Music Group, Warner Music Group, Sony-BMG and EMI – in addition to with the indie labels’ music licensing company MERLIN, for the usage of their music catalogues. It might appear shocking that the 4 greatest music corporations on the planet have been doing licensing offers with a small software program firm from Sweden. The Pirate Bay additionally performed an vital position. In 2008, document corporations have been nonetheless underneath huge financial stress and blamed file-sharing for his or her financial issues. Because the quickest rising service, The Pirate Bay was a first-rate goal for the music majors, who have been desperately searching for another. Spotify was the perfect associate. With music streaming, not like music downloads, the rights holders didn’t lose management over music distribution, and so they have been additionally in a position to make Spotify depending on them by licensing their music catalogues. Even the CEO of Sony-BMG Sweden, Per Sundin, admitted in an interview that with out the chaos The Pirate Bay had brought on within the document market, the majors would have felt little stress to enter into shaky licensing offers with an underfunded start-up.[5]

The e-book “Spotify Teardown” from 2019 due to this fact doesn’t discuss concerning the launch of Spotify in October 2008, however concerning the legalisation of the music providing.[6] The music streaming service, which was registered on 23 April 2006 by Daniel Ek and Martin Lorentzon as a software program firm known as Spotify AB in Stockholm, was primarily based on a P2P file-sharing protocol to be able to save the prices of digital music distribution and on the identical time have the ability to faucet into the additional bandwidth of web customers.[7] Daniel Ek, who had dropped out of KTH Royal Institute of Expertise in Stockholm, had briefly labored as CEO of μTorrent, the supplier of the file-sharing programme of the identical identify for the BitTorrent protocol, in 2006. The software program was developed by Ludvig Strigeus, who offered his firm to BitTorrent Inc. in December 2006 to hitch Spotify, which had simply been based by Ek and Lorentzon. Strigeus’ experience in P2P file sharing was wanted to develop the technical foundations for the streaming service. This consisted primarily of a P2P community.[8]

This allowed Spotify to save lots of on server assets and related prices, which was important for a start-up. When Spotify customers streamed a music on their desktop computer systems, it was extremely doubtless that it was not coming from the corporate’s personal server, however from different customers who had unwittingly turn out to be a part of the file-sharing community. Requested by TorrentFreak’s Ernesto Van der Sar about Spotify’s know-how, firm spokesman Andres Sehr mentioned: “Spotify makes use of a hybrid p2p system the place music is delivered each by our servers and utilizing P2P. (…) This enables us to ship the lengthy tail of music which will not be highly regarded, in addition to shortly serve up the most recent hits that almost all of customers take heed to. P2P permits us to each enhance the velocity that we ship music and in addition decrease the price of streaming it.”[9]

It was not till 2014, six years after the operational launch of Spotify, that the P2P file-sharing know-how was regularly migrated to a purely server-based mannequin. Till then, Spotify, which had efficiently positioned itself as a substitute for music piracy, was primarily based on the identical know-how because the frowned upon and legally prosecuted torrent tracker ‘The Pirate Bay’. Nevertheless, not like the same old file-sharing providers, Spotify was simple to make use of, freed from malware and nonetheless allowed free music consumption.

Spotify had confirmed that it was attainable to construct a enterprise mannequin round file sharing. This was thanks to 2 advertising and marketing specialists, Lorentzon and Ek, each of whom had beforehand constructed profitable advertising and marketing businesses. Lorentzon co-founded affiliate internet marketing company TradeDoubler in 1999, which went public in 2005. In March 2006, TradeDoubler used recent capital to purchase Advertigo, a small advertising and marketing firm based by Daniel Ek that specialised in contextual advertising and marketing on the web. That is how Ek and Lorentzon met and determined to depart TradeDoubler to begin Spotify.[10] At launch, Spotify was a community of corporations: The software program firm Spotify AB, primarily based in Stockholm, Spotify Expertise Gross sales Ltd. and Spotify Expertise Holding Ltd., which holds the patent and trademark rights, primarily based within the tax haven of Cyprus, which in flip are a part of the holding firm Spotify Expertise SA, primarily based within the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, which can be identified for its experience in tax optimisation.[11]

So in October 2008, the entire company construction nonetheless existed when the licensing agreements with the music majors and MERLIN have been signed. The ink was barely dry when beta customers found they may not entry lots of their playlists. Spotify had pre-emptively eliminated a lot of the unlicensed music from its service, and within the spring of 2009 extra music titles disappeared as a result of country-specific copyright restrictions.[12] The one innovation within the official launch of the streaming service in October 2008 was the introduction of a premium subscription mannequin, which remodeled Spotify from an ad-supported free service to a freemium mannequin. A freemium mannequin consists of constructing it engaging for customers of a restricted free service to modify to a premium service that is freed from promoting however for which they should pay. Initially, customers may select between two pricing choices: a day cross for EUR 0.99 and a month-to-month subscription for EUR 9.99.[13] Nevertheless, evaluation of consumer numbers (fig. 1) by market analysis agency Analysys Mason reveals that Spotify’s ad-supported free service was initially the preferred.

Determine 1: Spotify’s consumer numbers, 2008-2011

Supply: Analysys Mason cited in Selvakumar, Ekambar et al. (2012).

The two million consumer mark was damaged for the primary time in April 2009, though lower than 2 per cent of those have been paying subscribers. The proportion of premium customers continued to fall till August 2009, and it was solely when the Spotify app turned obtainable for iPhone and Android cell phones that the proportion of paying customers started to rise, though by March 2011 solely just below 10 per cent of customers have been paying to stream music on Spotify.

Along with the supply of Spotify on smartphones, which have been launched in 2007,[14] and the engaging free service, the bundling of the Spotify app with TeliaSonora’s choices was a key success issue. In 2009, Spotify signed a two-year unique take care of the Swedish telco, which built-in Spotify into its cell, broadband and IP-TV providers and promoted the streaming service closely. An identical deal was struck with TeliaSonora in Finland in 2010, and a yr later the partnership with TeliaSonora in Sweden was prolonged for an additional two years.[15] It was a win-win scenario for each companions. The telcos have been ready so as to add a hip music service to their providing, and Spotify gained entry to tens of millions of telco clients who have been additionally underneath the impression that the music service was free.

Nevertheless, the enlargement into different markets additionally led to a speedy enhance in Spotify’s consumer numbers. Spotify was already obtainable in the UK initially of 2009,[16] adopted by the Netherlands in Could 2010,[17] the USA in July 2011,[18] Denmark, Belgium, Austria and Switzerland in October and November 2011[19] and, after prolonged negotiations with the music rights organisation GEMA, Germany in March 2012, making Spotify obtainable in 13 international locations.[20]

However, Spotify’s monetary scenario and financial survival have been removed from safe. It wanted traders to cowl the prices of launching the service and, particularly, the licensing offers with the labels. In a primary funding spherical led by Swedish enterprise capital agency Northzone, Spotify US raised US $20 million in alternate for an 11.9 per cent stake within the firm and a seat on the board. Nevertheless, this was not sufficient to begin operations.[21] Not solely did Spotify conform to pay royalties, however it additionally needed to make advance funds to the document corporations (i.e. the labels) that may very well be offset in opposition to future streaming revenues to make use of the music catalogues in any respect. One such contract between Spotify and Sony from 2011 was leaked. It reveals that the streaming service needed to pay Sony Music Leisure an upfront charge of US $42.5 million over three years, with US $9 million due within the first yr, US $16 million within the second and US $17.5 million in an elective third yr.[22] It’s doubtless that the opposite three main labels and MERLIN have comparable offers with Spotify, leading to an upfront cost of between US $160 million and US $200 million. It’s clear {that a} financially weak start-up like Spotify couldn’t simply shoulder this expenditure and due to this fact paid for not less than a part of it with shares within the firm.

It was later revealed that Common, Warner, Sony, EMI and the licensing company for impartial labels, MERLIN, held a mixed 18 per cent stake in Spotify in 2008 (see fig. 2).

Determine 2: The document corporations’ share of Spotify in 2008

Firm Variety of shares Share in %
Common Worldwide Music BV 97,827 5.0%
Sony BMG Music Leisure Worldwide Ltd. 117,392 6.0%
Warner Music Luxembourg S.à.R.L. 78,261 4.0%
EMI Data Ltd. 39,131 2.0%
Merlin BV 19,565 1.0%
Complete 352,176 18.0%
Complete variety of Spotify shares 1,956,531 100%
Supply: After Music Enterprise Worldwide, “Right here’s precisely what number of shares the key labels and Merlin purchased in Spotify – and what these stakes are price now”, Could 14, 2018, accessed: 2024-08-04.

From the labels’ perspective, the deal was additionally dangerous. Spotify wouldn’t have been the primary streaming service to close down prematurely. The music corporations would have needed to write off their losses, though they’d have been manageable.

The following a part of the sequence will take a look at the lengthy highway that Spotify needed to journey to go public in 2018.

Endnotes

[1] Spotify press launch, “We’ve solely simply begun!”, October 7, 2008, accessed: 2024-08-04. Nevertheless, the announcement to make Spotify obtainable in Germany and Italy needed to be withdrawn shortly afterwards as a result of the native music accumulating societies had not but agreed to a licence deal. Spotify solely launched in Germany in March 2012 and in Italy nearly a yr later in February 2013. See Maria Eriksson et al., 2019, Spotify Teardown. Contained in the Black Field of Streaming Music, Cambridge, Mass. und London: The MIT Press, p 45.

[2] Music Enterprise Worldwide, “Spotify. Streaming Service”, n.d., accessed: 2024-08-04.

[3] Wired, “Pirate Bay Future Unsure After Operators Busted”, January 31, 2008, accessed: 2024-08-04.

[4] The interview with Daniel Ek happened on the Nice Escape Pageant in Brighton in Could 2009 and was performed by Paul Brindley for MusicAlly: “Spotify was ‘impressed by the Pirate Bay’”, Could 18, 2009, accessed: 2024-08-04.

[5] The interview was initially revealed within the Swedish newspaper Breakit and quoted on TorrentFreak: “How The Pirate Bay Helped Spotify Grow to be a Success”, Could 19, 2018, accessed: 2024-08-04.

[6] Maria Eriksson et al., 2019, Spotify Teardown. Contained in the Black Field of Streaming Music, Cambridge, Mass. und London: The MIT Press, p 45.

[7] Ek and Lorentzon opened their first workplace at Riddargatan 20 in Stockholm’s previous city in August 2006, the place they developed the beta model of the Spotify software program, see ibid., p 42.

[8] See TorrentFreak, “Spotify Begins Shutting Down Its Large P2P Community”, April 16, 2014, accessed: 2024-08-04.

[9] Cited in TorrentFreak, “Spotify, An Various to Music Piracy”, January 2, 2009, accessed: 2024-08-04.

[10] Spotify Teardown, 2019, p 41.

[11] Ibid., pp 41-42.

[12] Ibid., p 45.

[13] MusicAlly, “Daniel Ek talks Spotify, social options and ISP partnerships… again in 2008”, March 26, 2012, accessed: 2024-08-04.

[14] Wikipedia, “Smartphone”, within the model of February 22, 2024, accessed: 2024-08-04.

[15] Ekambar Selvakumar et al., 2012, p 6.

[16] Billboard, “Spotify Opens To U.Ok. Public”, February 11, 2009, accessed: 2024-08-04.

[17] Billboard, “Spotify Launches In Netherlands, Gives New Providers”, Could 18, 2010, accessed: 2024-08-04.

[18] Billboard, “Spotify Lastly Launches within the U.S. — Full Particulars Right here”, July 14, 2011, accessed: 2024-08-04.

[19] Billboard, “Spotify Launches In Denmark, Its Ninth Nation”, October 12, 2012, accessed: 2024-08-04 and Futurezone, “Spotify in der Schweiz und Belgien gestartet”, November 16, 2011, accessed: 2024-08-04.

[20] The Hollywood Reporter, “Spotify To Launch in Germany Tuesday”, March 12, 2012, accessed: 2024-08-04.

[21] Spotify Teardown, 2019, p 46.

[22] The Verge, “This was Sony Music’s contract with Spotify”, Could 19, 2015, accessed: 2024-08-04.

Launch a plan to support artists ‘ jobs after the cash app is launched.

Launch a plan to support artists ‘ jobs after the cash app is launched.

by | Aug 3, 2024 | Entertainment Law, Music Business, Podcast News

Unknown, rich people have found a bankroller for their most recent job, Cash App, thanks to independent artists. The smart pay support today launched Cash App Studios, an program designed to help separate creatives, including artists, musicians, directors, and designers, fund their projects.

Any artist working with Cash App will keep ownership of their work and wo n’t have to pay back the money, according to the company, which makes the partnerships seem more like grants than advances. This includes whether there are limits on how much money they’ll invest. Artists will be hired throughout the program, and Cash App Studios did remain invited-only.

Among the list of original music artists Cash App has brought into the system are Grammy-winning singer Victoria Monét — whose credits include Ariana Grande’s” Thank U, Future” and” Seven Rings” — together with artist-producer Cristoforo Donadi, music songwriter Jacquie Lee, artist Angelnumber8, rapper-producer Tyrese Pope, and Texas musicians Reggie and Monaleo. Additionally, Cash App provides financing for artists in the fields of film and clothing.

” We’ve longer upheld the importance of artistic expression at Cash App”, Brian Grassadonia, result at Cash App, said in a statement. ” With the introduction of Money App Studios, we’ll continue to support the flexibility of the designer, both economically and effectively. We are excited to help emerging performers who are unlimited in their perception with this new program in line with our guiding theory of financial independence.

It’s not as difficult as it first seems to think that Cash App is launching designer collaborations because its advertising and content campaigns have included Megan Thee Stallion’s work. The company is constantly name-checked in hip-hop verses. Square, the parent company of Cash App, purchased a majority stake in Tidal earlier this year, with Square CEO Jack Dorsey citing the acquisition as another way to support music artists.

Editor’s picks

Finding new ways for artists to support their work is the guiding principle, Dorsey said in March. It’s unknown how any of these artists will be connected to Tidal.

Companies looking to collaborate with independent artists and offer alternatives to the major-label system are using financial assistance more frequently as marketing tools. While fellow distribution and publishing service Create Music Group launched real-time payments for its artists earlier this year, according to a report from Rolling Stone in August, independent distributor UnitedMasters would begin offering cash advances and real-time payments to a select group of artists on its platform.

And while you should n’t expect the broader music business to embrace free payouts, the program’s first round of creators are welcoming the new partnership. ” When an artist is able to fully own the catalog but still get the funding, you are getting what you need in the present to set you up for 50 years into the future”, Ezra Averill, Reggie’s manager and a partner at Stomp Down Management, said in a statement. Money can flow in and out in a single day, but the value you create does n’t. You want to ensure that your holdings on to that value. The value is constant despite the cash’s fluctuation.