SHEmazing!
follow us
more
 
HomeTagsPosts tagged with "lawsuit"

lawsuit

by

Something tells us the judge that dismissed this case for Taylor is a bit of a Swifty.

Jessie Braham accused Taylor of taking lyrics for her song Shake it Off from his track Haters Gone Hate, which he claimed 92% of the song was plagiarised from his. 

The case was brought to court this week and was dismissed due to lack of evidence. But the way the verdict was delivered by Judge Gail Standish is going to win the hearts of Taylor Swift fans everywhere.

“At present, the Court is not saying that Braham can never, ever, ever get his case back in court,” Judge Standish wrote. “But, for now, we have got problems, and the Court is not sure Braham can solve them.

"As currently drafted, the Complaint has a blank space—one that requires Braham to do more than write his name. And, upon consideration of the Court's explanation . . . Braham may discover that mere pleading Band-Aids will not fix the bullet holes in his case. At least for the moment, Defendants have shaken off this lawsuit.”

Trending

by

After it was reported this week that Taylor Swift is taking action against a radio DJ for "groping" her, it seems the singer now has another lawsuit to fight. 

TMZ reports that Ms Swift is being sued by a man who says she stole his lyrics. 

Songwriter Jessie Braham says Taylor's hit song, Shake It Off, "borrows heavily" from a song he wrote in 2013 called, Haters Gone Hate. 

Jessie says his lyrics are "Haters gone hater, playas gone play. Watch out for them fakers, they'll fake you everyday." The issue, as he sees it, is that she repeats the first part of that phrase 70-times in her song, and that's a serious problem for him.

Now, we're no legal eagles, but it seems like a flimsy claim at best and a bit embassarring. 

And even more embarrassing is what Jessie is asking in the lawsuit; Mr Braham is seeking $42 million dollars (€38m) and his name added to any new prints of the song. 

But all this doesn't seem to be bothering Taylor because she had an EPIC show in Florida last night.

Here's the tune he thinks is SO like Taylor's (LOL):

 

Trending

by

Apple is facing a $5m (€4.5m) lawsuit after two users claimed the company didn't properly warn customers of a feature in the iOS9 update that could leave them with an empty wallet.

Wi-Fi Assist, which is part of the new update, is supposed to ensure users have the strongest Internet connection possible at every time of the day.

But it does this by automatically turning on Wi-Fi Assist if your mobile data or regular Wi-Fi is weak. 

Apple explain to function on their website:

"With Wi-Fi Assist, you can stay connected to the Internet even if you have a poor Wi-Fi connection. For example, if you're using Safari with a poor Wi-Fi connection and a webpage doesn't load, Wi-Fi Assist will activate and automatically switch to cellular so that the webpage continues to load."

William Scott Phillips and Suzanne Phillips, who filed the lawsuit claim that the result of Wi-Fi Assist is huge data charges for every user. They argue that Apple has failed to properly inform users of potential costs, and because of this, everyone should be reimbursed.

"Apple intentionally chose to have the default setting of the Wi-Fi Assist as activated while at the same time chose to omit the likelihood of data overcharges to consumers that do not have an unlimited data plan," Suzanne told AppleInsider.

While Apple say on their site that the increased data usage "should only be a small percentage higher than previous usage" the lawsuit argues this isn't the case.

"Reasonable and average consumers use their iPhones for streaming of music, videos, and running various applications — all of which can use significant data. Defendant's corrective statement does not disclose any basis for its conclusion that an average consumer would not see much increase in cellular usage."

The costly function is turned on by default so it might be worth checking your setting to make sure you don't find yourself with a hefty bill at the end of the month.

Trending

by

Beyoncé, Jay Z, Rihanna, Pharrell Williams and Kanye West are all taking legal action against French sportswear label, EvelenParis. 

The celebs and their respective holding companies are alleging that the brand has used each of their names and likeness without their permission on garments they are selling. 

The garments in question also have their faces printed onto them as well as slogans like "Kanye is my Homie" and "Pharrell is my Brotha."

The Paris-based company retails relatively inexpensive products including jumpers, t-shirts, backpacks and phone covers – although the garments in question have all now disappeared from the brand's website. 

Almost 60 violations against the musicians are listed in the lawsuit and the high-profile group is seeking the end of manufacturing for all offending items.

They also want unspecified damages including not only legal fees but the profits made from the items that were sold too.

But the plot thickens, as this isn't the first time that the company has fallen foul on celebrities, as the lawsuit details a prior warning: 

"Even after receiving warning to cease selling the infringing goods, defendants continue to sell unauthorised products and to trade upon the goodwill associated with the plaintiffs, all for defendants' profits."

We can see a long road ahead of this one! 

Trending

by

You might think it's all fun and games when it comes to sweets and candy; but apparently not so.

There's been a long-running legal battle between Haribo and Lindt Chocolate —and you won't believe why. 

Back in 2012, the gummy bear company decided that the Swiss chocolatier's famous gold-foil chocolate bears too closely resembled its cartoon mascot.

But this week, a federal court judge finally settled the debate.  

"Lindt's sales of bear-shaped chocolates wrapped in a golden foil with a red ribbon is neither a violation of Haribo's 'Gold Bear' trademark nor an illegal imitation of the fruit gum products." 

And Lindt wins!

According to Agence France-Passe, the main argument for Lindt was that the chocolate bears were inspired by another of its successful sellers, the famous gold-foil bunny offered at Easter that also dons a red ribbon around its necks.

The gold bunny was first created in 1952. In comparison, the first batch of Haribo Gold Bears was produced in 1967. 

A German court originally ruled in favour of Haribo before an appeals court countered that verdict by siding with Lindt and stating that the chocolate bears could not be mistaken for Haribo's sweets.

To reach a final verdict, the case was taken to the Federal Court of Justice where Lindt was the ultimate victor.

Trending

by

Singer JoJo has just released three new tracks in a package she's calling her "tringle".

The singer – who seemed to drop off the face of the earth for a few years – is now prepping for her third album release. 

Yesterday evening the singer dropped three new songs on her website, called Say Love, Save My Soul and When Love Hurts. 

It's been ten years (!) since the singer kick started her career with Leave (Get Out), and it looks like she's finally ready for a comeback.

The Massachusetts-born singer was just 13 when she created her first album, but things went sour with her record company soon after.

JoJo went through a major lawsuit for nearly seven years against her former label Blackground Records, saying they caused her career "irreparable damage" by delaying the release of her third album.

Whenever she’d try to turn in a new album, she’d get no response from Blackground. But because she’d signed a seven-album deal with the label when she was only 12, JoJo was unable to break her contract.

She first filed a lawsuit in 2009 against Blackground, citing a breach of contract, alleging the label failed to secure distribution for her album and forced her into a state of limbo.

But JoJo lost the lawsuit and was forced to stay with the record company for the years following. 

Finally in 2013, JoJo had no choice but to file a major suit with the New York State Supreme Court, citing failure on the part of the label to release her third album and neglecting to pay producers she worked with. 

After winning her second lawsuit battle the singer signed with Atlantic Records last December and has been working on her new album ever since. 

Listen to her newly released songs here: 

 

Trending

by

This has been a BAD week for 50 cent.

Curtis Jackson (aka 50 Cent), filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection earlier today.

The court papers that were filed shows that the In Da Club singer’s economic woes are largely due to “consumer debts”. That must have been one serious shopping spree as it was only in May that Forbes had estimated his net worth as €127million.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the 40-year-old reported assets and debts ranging from €9-45 million.

Well, this makes us feel A LOT better about our own overspending problems.

It was only days ago that 50 Cent was ordered to pay a woman €4.5million for releasing her sex tape without her permission.

The 13-minute video was of Lastonia Leviston, the ex-girlfriend of 50 Cent’s nemesis and fellow rapper, Rick Ross. The sex tape includes explicit commentary by Mr Jackson and cuts to a shot of him wearing a wig and playing a character called Pimpin’ Curly.

The hefty sum obviously did more that tug on his purse strings as it was after the lawsuit that the hip hop mogul filed for bankruptcy. 

Trending

by

There seems to be more trouble in the ranks of camp-Beyoncé as of late.

One of the megastar's backing singers has accused the 17-time Grammy winner of plagiarising a song.

The hit XO is, according to claims made by backing singer Ahmad Lane, a copied version of his own song XOXO. XO was the first single released from Beyoncé’s incredibly successful self-titled album back in 2013.

However, Beyoncé has hit back at the $7 million (€6.2 million) lawsuit by claiming that the two songs have no similarities aside from their names.

The lawsuit was filed in 2014 with Mr. Lane claiming that while working with backing singer Chrissy Collins, he played his track for her. He alleges that Ms. Collins then passed the song on to Beyoncé, who incorporated the song into her own hit track.

The allegation is being denied by Beyoncé, and in legal documents which have been obtained by Radar Online, the singer dubbed the claims "vague and cryptic."

These documents state that "the two works at issue are entirely different songs that share no lyrical or musical similarity, other than perhaps the letters X and O." But an attorney for Beyoncé has pointed out to the court the lack of similarities between the tracks when they are played.

This isn’t the first track from the hit album that has generated legal issues for the multi-platinum recording artist.

Last year it was alleged to have taken certain parts of the track Bajba, Bajba Pelem from Hungarian singer Mitsou. The singer claimed that Beyoncé was using her vocal recordings in the opening of her song Drunk in Love without obtaining permission beforehand.

Beyoncé’s team has described her, in a most flattering way, as "an enormously successful entertainer, songwriter, recording artist, actress, music producer, winning 17 Grammy Awards and selling more than 118 million albums as a solo artist and a further 60 million albums with the recording group Destiny's Child.”

They put down the allegations that Ms. Knowles would need to take the work of any other artists and want the case from Mr. Lane to be thrown out with him being awarded nothing.

Trending

by

She’s never too far away from the drama, is our Miley?

The latest controversy surrounding the singer has seen her dragged into a lawsuit being brought against her sister, Brandi.

According to reports, Brandi is being sued by her neighbour, model Yolande Ngom, who is claiming that Brandi’s dog ‘Feather’ attacked her and ruined her career.

What’s that got to do with poor Miley, you ask?

As well as the fact that Miley’s company owns Brandi’s apartment, Ngom is claiming that it was an employee of the singer who was handling Feather at the time of the attack, and who failed to keep him under control.

After breaking free from his handler, Feather is reported to have bitten Ngom in the thigh, ripping it open and leaving her with scars so bad that she claims she will never work as a model again.

Now Ngom is suing Miley and Brandi’s company for the medical bills as well as lost wages.

It’s never a dull day in the Cyrus’ world!

Trending

by

Beauty blogger Michelle Phan is reportedly being sued for millions for copyright infringements.

The blogger, who made $5 million last year – we are definitely in the wrong job – is being sued by Ultra Records LLc and Ultra International Music Publishing LLC for using songs by the company’s artists in her video tutorials.

Michelle, who used songs by Deadmau5, Kaskade and Calvin Harris, faces paying damages of up to $150,000 for EACH song – which means she could face a bill worth millions!

However, Michelle is not taking this lying down. A statement issued by her team said: “Ultra’s lawsuit against Michelle Phan lacks any merit. Ultra agreed to allow Michelle to use the music and Michelle intends to fight this lawsuit and bring her own claims against Ultra. Michelle’s intention has always been to promote other artists, creating a platform for their work to be showcased to an international audience. Kaskade, whose music has been featured in Michelle’s videos, has publicly defended Michelle against Ultra’s claims and acknowledges the success he’s gained from her support.”

In fact, Kaskade, who’s music she used even offered her support saying: “I’m not suing @MichellePhan + @ultrarecords isn’t my lapdog. I can’t do much about the lawsuit except voice support for her.”

Wow, makes you think, doesn’t it?!

Trending

by

The 2003 film Honey told the story of a fiesty music video choreographer – played by Jessica Alba -who shakes up her life after her mentor gives her an ultimatum. It wasn’t the most successful of films, but according to the real life Honey Rockwell, it was a rip off of her life.

Rockwell is a hip hop dancer and teacher, and she’s suing the film-makers as the character shares her name, her ethnicity, occupation and hometown. According to her, they even used the same dance studio where she once taught.

It’s taken her a while to get her lawsuit in order, but she’s making up for it by suing for her share of the $70 million generated by Honey and its sequel.

1

Trending

by

Evan Rachel Woods has been sued by the producers of the 10 Things I Hate About You sequel, entitled 10 Things I Hate About Life, after she backed out of the film.

The actress is said to have been paid $300,000 for being cast as the lead in the film, which apparently shut down production in January 2013. However, when they resumed production in November 2013 Woods decided it wasn’t for her and turned the role down.

Woods rep said the lawsuit is a “bullying tactic from financially troubled producers”. According to him, the actress never got paid the money she was owed, and it was the producers who breached the contract.

Eek! Sequels can be a risky business but this one sounds particularly doomed!

 

Evan Rachel Wood-0025

Trending
© Copyright 2012-2024 - Shemazing.net. Déanta in Éirinn - Sheology.