Beyoncé’s Motion to Stop Messy Mya’s Estate’s ‘Formation’ Lawsuit Has Been Dismissed

I’m just gonna be honest I think his mom and sister are just looking for a come up. But they got the right one when it comes to Beyonce and her lawyers. Had Messy Mya still been alive he’d be ecstatic to have his voice on a Beyonce album and If I’m not mistaking which I know I’m not they gave there full consent a year before the record was released.

Earlier this year, the estate of the late Anthony Barre — aka Messy Mya — filed a lawsuit against Beyoncé for copyright infringement (among other claims).

The estate acknowledges that Messy Mya’s voice is heard saying “What happened at the New Orleans,” “Bitch, I’m back by popular demand” and “Oh yeah baby, I like that” on Beyoncé’s “Formation” and it’s alleged that Bey used his voice without permission.

His sister, Angel Barre, claims the samples infringe the rights in two works of her brother’s performance art, “A 27 Piece Huh?” and “Booking the Hoes from New Wildings.”

A Louisiana federal judge denied Beyoncé’s motion to dismiss the copyright claim on fair use grounds.

via THR:

At this stage facts alleged by the plaintiff are taken as true, and U.S. District Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown found that Barre has made a case that Beyonce’s use of the clips was not transformative and that, although the samples were short, it was a “qualitatively significant” use. She also notes that a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, like this one, is “viewed with disfavor and is rarely granted.”

“Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged in their complaint that Defendants did not change or alter the ‘expressive content or message’ of Anthony Barre’s YouTube videos, but rather used unmodified clips without adding anything new,” writes Brown in a 66-page decision, which is posted in full below. “[T]he Court concludes at this stage of litigation that ‘the copyright law’s goal of promoting the Progress of Science and useful Arts’ would not be better served by allowing Defendants’ use of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted material without authorization or compensation than by preventing it.”

Brown also denied the motion to dismiss Barre’s false endorsement and Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act claims — but did dismiss the claim for unjust enrichment.

If the court denied the motion to dismiss, the defendants asked it to strike Barre’s request for statutory damages and attorneys’ fees under the Copyright Act and treble damages under the LUTPA. Brown denied the motion in its entirety, finding that Beyonce’s lawyers failed to show that Barre’s requests are “‘redundant, immaterial, impertinent or scandalous matter’ such that striking it from the record is proper.”

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s