%20YELLOW_WH.png)
I was asked by the Jamaica Gleaner to comment generally on the alleged law suit by renowned Jamaican dancer/choreographer L'Antoinette Stines against top international music acts Jay-Z and Beyonce. See the link to the relevant article below.
Ms. Stines reportedly has alleged that she permitted her voice (her performance), reflecting on love, to be utilized by the superstars for promotional purposes only and that, contrary to her agreement, it was used for commercial purposes on a track on their album. She apparently also alleges that she was rushed into signing an agreement regarding the usage, without the benefit of legal advice.
I have not at the time of writing this post or giving my commentary to the Gleaner, seen the actual law suit or contract or spoken directly with Ms. Stines and I am not representing her in the matter. I therefore gave more general commentary on the unauthorized usage of our music by third parties, internationally.
I certainly believe that law suits of this nature, once reasonably justifiable, are good for our music industry and creative product. It shows the World that we are serious about protecting our intellectual property and we will no longer be exploited without compensation and control. I do, however, want to add some additional comments regarding the alleged suit itself, from a legal perspective.
If Stines executed a contract that limited the usage of her performance and literary work to defined promotional purposes and the usage was expanded without her permission (and contrary to the contract) to commercial purposes (such as use of her work on a song for sale to the public) then I believe she has a strong chance of success in a lawsuit for breach of contract and infringement of copyright.
If, however, the contract DID authorize the usage of her works for commercial purposes as well as promotional, but her claim is that she was "rushed" or "coerced" into signing it, that argument may be more difficult to support.
There is a concept in law called "Undue Influence", where a contract has been entered as a result of pressure and the party subject to the pressure may be able to set aside the contract on those grounds. Undue influence may exist where one party to a relationship has been exploited by the other party to gain an unfair advantage. To be successful in such a claim the claimant usually has to establish that there existed a relationship of trust between the parties or that there was clear unequal bargaining power which led to a legally unjust outcome.
Examples of a "relationship of trust" would be the relationship between a parent and child, husband and wife, employer and employee or lawyer and client.
"Unequal bargaining power" could occur, for example, in negotiations between a huge international record label and a new unknown artist looking for a breakthrough. Courts are, however, hesitant to place limits on the economic freedom to contract between parties.
Ms. Stines would therefore have to show that:
(a) She was in fact in some way pressured into signing this contract by "Jay & Bey", and
(b) That the relationship between them was such that (i) there was trust between them leading to undue influence or (ii) they were such big stars that they did not need to negotiate and she had no choice but to sign if she wanted exposure.
Ms. Stines is a stalwart in the Jamaican entertainment fraternity and, reportedly, a very knowledgeable, independent-minded and expressive individual. It may therefore be difficult for her to make a strong case that the contract should be voided on the basis that she was forced into signing without the benefit of being able to review the contract or seek legal advice and she did not know what she was signing.
Interestingly, most music contracts include a clause stating that the artist or producer providing services should seeking legal advice from an industry professional or, having been advised to do so, chose not to on the basis that they had the necessary knowledge.
Ultimately, much will depend on the factual circumstances of this case and how the court applies the law. It is much more likely, however, that the matter will be amicably settled for an undisclosed sum and without the need for Court, in order to maintain good public relations. That, in fact, may be the best outcome for both parties.
Comments