1 00:00:00,120 --> 00:00:02,759 Speaker 1: Music Business Worldwide dot Com. Just a quick story, then 2 00:00:02,759 --> 00:00:05,559 we got to get to a break. Lizzo sued for 3 00:00:05,639 --> 00:00:11,000 alleged copyright violation and unreleased song snippet referencing Sydney sweeney 4 00:00:11,119 --> 00:00:15,039 jeans ad What did you see this? Yeah, this just happened. 5 00:00:15,039 --> 00:00:17,600 Come on this This went up a couple days ago. 6 00:00:17,640 --> 00:00:21,079 It says, Lizzo is facing a copyright infringement lawsuit over 7 00:00:21,120 --> 00:00:23,960 a snippet of a song the singer shared on social 8 00:00:24,000 --> 00:00:30,519 media that referenced the controversy around Sydney Sweeney's American Eagle ad. 9 00:00:30,559 --> 00:00:33,679 The GRC Trust at Georgia based Revocable Trust filed the 10 00:00:33,759 --> 00:00:37,560 lawsuit in federal court in California on Tuesday, the twenty first, 11 00:00:37,600 --> 00:00:42,159 alleging that Lizzo's track, known alternately as I'm Going in 12 00:00:42,320 --> 00:00:46,240 Till October or Good Jens that's the full title, sampled 13 00:00:46,280 --> 00:00:49,079 without permission the nineteen seventy song win or Lose We 14 00:00:49,240 --> 00:00:54,119 Tried by soul singer and songwriter samd's Lizzo's allegedly infringing 15 00:00:54,159 --> 00:00:57,960 work Quote incorporates interpolates and samples instrumental and vocal elements 16 00:00:58,240 --> 00:01:02,320 of the sam d's composition on quote States's GRC Trust complaint, 17 00:01:02,359 --> 00:01:04,159 which can be read and full. There's a link to 18 00:01:04,200 --> 00:01:07,239 it if you want to check it out. Quote representatives 19 00:01:07,239 --> 00:01:11,319 for Lizzo acknowledged the same unquote. However, a representative for 20 00:01:11,359 --> 00:01:15,120 Lizzo told BBC News in Bloomberg Law that they were 21 00:01:15,239 --> 00:01:20,040 quote surprised that the GRC Trust filed the lawsuit given 22 00:01:20,079 --> 00:01:23,359 that Lizzo's song has never been commercially released or monetized, 23 00:01:23,400 --> 00:01:26,400 and no decision has been made at this time regarding 24 00:01:26,439 --> 00:01:29,120 any future commercial will release of the song unquote. So 25 00:01:29,280 --> 00:01:31,040 this is an example. We talk a lot on the 26 00:01:31,079 --> 00:01:33,359 show about whether it's AI or whether it's something like this, 27 00:01:33,760 --> 00:01:36,319 all this new territory that we're entering in the music industry, 28 00:01:36,319 --> 00:01:38,239 because now this is something that was not has not 29 00:01:38,280 --> 00:01:41,840 been released. A snippet of this was shared on social media, 30 00:01:42,319 --> 00:01:44,719 and somebody's following a lawsuit over this. A snippet of 31 00:01:44,799 --> 00:01:48,480 this was shared on social media. That's interesting. I'm not 32 00:01:48,519 --> 00:01:50,560 making a judgment about whether it's right or wrong, or 33 00:01:50,599 --> 00:01:52,400 who's right or wrong here. I'd have to think this 34 00:01:52,439 --> 00:01:55,959 one over a little bit. But this is but this 35 00:01:56,040 --> 00:01:58,599 is a new but this is new territory, but. 36 00:01:58,560 --> 00:02:02,000 Speaker 2: It's not mentioning it's literally taking sounds. 37 00:02:02,400 --> 00:02:02,719 Speaker 1: Yeah. 38 00:02:02,760 --> 00:02:07,599 Speaker 2: And you know, so when you take somebody else's vocals 39 00:02:07,599 --> 00:02:10,199 and sound and put it in your music, I can 40 00:02:10,319 --> 00:02:13,120 understand why they say, hey, wait, you're infringing on my 41 00:02:13,400 --> 00:02:16,080 rights to control my music, my artistry. 42 00:02:16,439 --> 00:02:17,159 Speaker 1: Yeah. 43 00:02:17,199 --> 00:02:19,400 Speaker 2: And if you're going to put something like that in 44 00:02:19,439 --> 00:02:22,439 a way that could be shared, I think you're opening 45 00:02:22,439 --> 00:02:23,960 yourself up to some liability. 46 00:02:24,280 --> 00:02:24,840 Speaker 1: Whether it was. 47 00:02:24,800 --> 00:02:26,240 Speaker 2: Intended to be in the public or not. 48 00:02:26,719 --> 00:02:28,919 Speaker 1: You did it well. Now that this has made there, 49 00:02:29,039 --> 00:02:31,360 Now that this is happening, it seems inevitable that something 50 00:02:31,439 --> 00:02:34,520 like this would come up. But this is the first 51 00:02:34,560 --> 00:02:37,800 example I've seen of something like this coming up where 52 00:02:38,280 --> 00:02:44,919 an actual, an actual lawsuit has come about it. It's interesting. Again, 53 00:02:45,000 --> 00:02:47,560 I'm not making a judgment in this moment about whose 54 00:02:47,560 --> 00:02:49,719 side I'm on here or what I think. I just 55 00:02:49,800 --> 00:02:52,199 saw this. I didn't even see this before the show. 56 00:02:52,240 --> 00:02:54,400 I happened to see it just a few minutes ago 57 00:02:54,439 --> 00:02:56,800 it popped up in my newsfeed. But very very interesting. 58 00:02:56,840 --> 00:02:59,680 So we will have to we will have to follow 59 00:02:59,719 --> 00:03:02,159 that closely going forward.