Apple Music sued over track that allegedly samples an original song

Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
Apple Music has been sued for alleged copyright infringement, "false and misleading advertising," and associating a company with transphobia.

Apple Music
Apple Music


Apple has been accused of including a track in Apple Music that infringes on the copyright of an original song. At the same time, the copyright holder alleges that Apple profited from the track by using it in an online advert.

Charming Beats says that it owns the copyright on a song called "Anything You Synthesize." According to the company, a further track called "Caramelo" by French rapper Ninho "consists of a musical component which is an unlicensed reproduction" of their work.

The full filing, available below, details the precise nature of the alleged reproduction.

It also says that lyrics from "Caramelo" were displayed on an Apple website, along with a short excerpt and a link to listen to the full song on Apple Music. "Defendant APPLE's promise that the full version of the Infringing Derivative can be streamed on its service is quite enticing," says the filing.

"[But it] is a false and misleading advertisement," continues the suit. Reportedly, "Caramelo" was not available on Apple Music at the time.

More, the Charming Beats company claims that Apple's ad included a video from performer DeeBaby encouraging people to listen to the full song by joining Apple Music.

"DeeBaby is the notorious performer that has been widely criticized for his transphobic statements," says the company in a court filing. "Defendants have forced an association of the Copyrighted Track with transphobia which has damaged the Copyrighted Track."

The case dates back to 2017, when according to Charming Beats, it served take-down notices on Apple and associated company MediaLab. The company wants a trial by jury, and damages of "up to $150,000 but not less than $30,000," plus costs.

Apple has not commented.



Read on AppleInsider

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 13
    Shouldn’t the suit be against the artist who used the sample illegally and not Apple? 
    williamlondonkillroy
  • Reply 2 of 13
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 9,637member
    Shouldn’t the suit be against the artist who used the sample illegally and not Apple? 
    Deep pockets my friend, deep pockets. 🧳
    pulseimageswilliamlondondewmekillroy
  • Reply 3 of 13
    Shouldn’t the suit be against the artist who used the sample illegally and not Apple? 
    #1 priority in lawsuits:  Follow The Money!
    pulseimages
  • Reply 4 of 13
    Shouldn’t the suit be against the artist who used the sample illegally and not Apple? 
    Apple used the song in their advertisements for Apple Music.  Read the article, it is all in there.
    beowulfschmidtmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 5 of 13
    lkrupp said:
    Shouldn’t the suit be against the artist who used the sample illegally and not Apple? 
    Deep pockets my friend, deep pockets. 🧳
    Yea, but there should be laws against that. A fair system would hold to account the entity most at fault and the most willful instead of the one with the most money.
    maximarakillroy
  • Reply 6 of 13
    lkrupp said:
    Shouldn’t the suit be against the artist who used the sample illegally and not Apple? 
    Deep pockets my friend, deep pockets. 🧳
    Yea, but there should be laws against that. A fair system would hold to account the entity most at fault and the most willful instead of the one with the most money.

    If Apple hadn't included it in an advertisement, it wouldn't have been an issue.
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 7 of 13
    Rogue01 said:
    Shouldn’t the suit be against the artist who used the sample illegally and not Apple? 
    Apple used the song in their advertisements for Apple Music.  Read the article, it is all in there.
    How was Apple to know that the artist used it illegally if the impropriety hadn’t come up before? 
    killroybaconstang
  • Reply 8 of 13
    BeatsBeats Posts: 2,642member
    It was Apple’s fault too (#AppleToo?) that crazy fans crushed other fans at a rap concert remember!!!

    /s
    baconstang
  • Reply 9 of 13
    davidwdavidw Posts: 1,374member
    Rogue01 said:
    Shouldn’t the suit be against the artist who used the sample illegally and not Apple? 
    Apple used the song in their advertisements for Apple Music.  Read the article, it is all in there.
    Did you read the headline? 

    Apple Music sued over track that allegedly samples an original song


    AFAIK, Charming Beats has not proven in a court of law that the song by Ninho, "Caramelo", infringes upon the copyright of their work, "Anything You Synthesized" (by The American Dollar's"). A quick search doesn't turn up one result, that Charming Beats had sued Ninho for the sampling. And the song "Caramelo" by Ninho, came out in 2017.  Let alone won a case against him in court. One would think that before you can sue someone for using someone else's work that infringes on your copyright, that you must first prove that that work does indeed infringe upon your copyrighted work, in a court of law.  


    Amazon is still selling the 2017 CD that the supposedly infringing track is on. And the track is still available for streaming on Amazon, Spotify, Vimeo and other sites. Why would that be the case, if Charming Beats have proven that "Ninho infringed upon their copyrighted work? 

    https://www.amazon.com/Comme-Prevu-Ninho/dp/B0776K46KP/ref=sr_1_2?qid=1637457308&qsid=131-9038114-5429626&refinements=p_32:Ninho&s=music&sr=1-2&sres=B07NRFGFL2,B0776K46KP,B01M1E92CT,B01LY1JG9W,B000ERU2O8,B004G5ZPV4


    bloggerblogdanhmaximarapulseimageskillroy
  • Reply 10 of 13
    BeatsBeats Posts: 2,642member
    This is like suing a DJ for playing a song from an artist who infringed copyright.
    lkruppkillroymaximara
  • Reply 11 of 13
    DAalsethDAalseth Posts: 1,817member
    lkrupp said:
    Shouldn’t the suit be against the artist who used the sample illegally and not Apple? 
    Deep pockets my friend, deep pockets. 🧳
    Yea, but there should be laws against that. A fair system would hold to account the entity most at fault and the most willful instead of the one with the most money.
    LOL A Fair System...
    This isn't the first time Apple has been sued for this sort of thing. Sometimes it's been sampling. Sometimes they licensed a song to put in iTunes, but someone other than who they licensed it from claims to actually own the song. Sometimes it's been where Apple has the license for the song, but the particular PERFORMANCE is claimed by someone else. Regardless, the plaintiff's always go after Apple.

    Music ownership is a mess. Witness the number of times that someone has been sued not for ripping off a song, but for using a chord progression, or melody element that someone else also used. It's a minefield. 
    maximarakillroybaconstang
  • Reply 12 of 13
    davidw said:
    Rogue01 said:
    Shouldn’t the suit be against the artist who used the sample illegally and not Apple? 
    Apple used the song in their advertisements for Apple Music.  Read the article, it is all in there.
    Did you read the headline? 

    Apple Music sued over track that allegedly samples an original song


    AFAIK, Charming Beats has not proven in a court of law that the song by Ninho, "Caramelo", infringes upon the copyright of their work, "Anything You Synthesized" (by The American Dollar's"). A quick search doesn't turn up one result, that Charming Beats had sued Ninho for the sampling. And the song "Caramelo" by Ninho, came out in 2017.  Let alone won a case against him in court. One would think that before you can sue someone for using someone else's work that infringes on your copyright, that you must first prove that that work does indeed infringe upon your copyrighted work, in a court of law.  

    Amazon is still selling the 2017 CD that the supposedly infringing track is on. And the track is still available for streaming on Amazon, Spotify, Vimeo and other sites. Why would that be the case, if Charming Beats have proven that "Ninho infringed upon their copyrighted work? 

    https://www.amazon.com/Comme-Prevu-Ninho/dp/B0776K46KP/ref=sr_1_2?qid=1637457308&qsid=131-9038114-5429626&refinements=p_32:Ninho&s=music&sr=1-2&sres=B07NRFGFL2,B0776K46KP,B01M1E92CT,B01LY1JG9W,B000ERU2O8,B004G5ZPV4
    It kind of smells like that nonsense with Universal and King Kong or Warner Chappell Music and Happy Birthday ie claiming a copyright that they really don't have.
    killroy
  • Reply 13 of 13
    Rogue01 said:
    Shouldn’t the suit be against the artist who used the sample illegally and not Apple? 
    Apple used the song in their advertisements for Apple Music.  Read the article, it is all in there.
    How was Apple to know that the artist used it illegally if the impropriety hadn’t come up before? 
    If the case truly dates back to 2017, Apple has had plenty of time to determine the validity of the claim, and act on it.  If the declined to act on it, or declined to investigate, then a trial is appropriate to determine their actual liability, if any.
Sign In or Register to comment.