Richard "Rick" Paul Astley vs. Matthew Hauri PKA Yung Gravy Nick Seeley PKA Popnick Dillon Francis David Wilson PKA Dwilly Republic Records
Richard "Rick" Paul Astley vs. Matthew Hauri PKA Yung Gravy Nick Seeley PKA Popnick Dillon Francis David Wilson PKA Dwilly Republic Records
Richard "Rick" Paul Astley vs. Matthew Hauri PKA Yung Gravy Nick Seeley PKA Popnick Dillon Francis David Wilson PKA Dwilly Republic Records
7
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8
9 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
10
Richard “Rick” Paul Astley Case Number:
11
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1
28
COMPLAINT
1 INTRODUCTION
2 1. “A voice is as distinctive and personal as a face. The human voice is one of the
3 most palpable ways identity is manifested. We are all aware that a friend is at once known by a
4 few words on the phone. At a philosophical level it has been observed that with the sound of a
5 voice, ‘the other stands before me.’ D. Ihde, Listening and Voice 77 (1976). A fortiori, these
6 observations hold true of singing, especially singing by a singer of renown. The singer manifests
7 themself in the song. To impersonate their voice is to pirate their identity. See W. Keeton, D.
8 Dobbs, R. Keeton, D. Owen, Prosser & Keeton on Torts 852 (5th ed. 1984).” Midler v. Ford
9 Motor Co., 849 F.2d 460, 463 (1988). The Bette Midler case, quoted above, has been the law in
10 California now for more than 30 years. It is well known in the music industry and forbids
11 someone from imitating a singer’s voice from an original recording in a new recording absent
12 specific permission to do so. This is true even where, like in the Bette Midler case, the
13 impersonators obtained a license to use the musical composition to the song the singer’s voice is
14 found in.1 As the Bette Midler court explained, “Copyright protects ‘original works of authorship
15 fixed in any tangible medium of expression.’ 17 U.S.C. § 102(a). A voice is not copyrightable.
16 The sounds are not ‘fixed.’ What is put forward as protectible here is more personal than any
18 2. As mentioned, this is no secret, everyone in the music industry knows this, and,
20 Plaintiff Rick Astley’s voice (“Plaintiff” or “Mr. Astley”) and falsely stated he endorsed them
21 with no request, forewarning, or remorse, causing significant and continuing damage to Plaintiff.
22 In so doing, Defendants have literally stolen Plaintiff’s voice causing immense damage.
23
1
Like in Midler, upon information and belief, Defendants did obtain a license to the underlying
24 musical composition of “Never Gonna Give You Up”. Mr. Astley is not a writer of “Never Gonna
25 Give You Up” and neither therefore gave permission to use the underlying musical composition
nor received any compensation for the license granted. Mr. Astley owns in part the sound recording
26 of “Never Gonna Give You Up” and neither he nor his co-owners gave permission to Defendants
for the use of it. Most importantly, Mr. Astley never gave permission to Defendants to copy,
27 imitate or recreate his voice.
2
28
COMPLAINT
1 3. As such, Mr. Astley brings this Complaint to seek relief from Defendant’s
4 4. Plaintiff Rick Astley is a musical artist primarily admired for his instantly
5 recognizable voice known the world over. He was born and continues to reside in England.
7 hip-hop artist who commonly uses samples (the digital lifting of the actual sounds from a prior
8 sound recording) in his work. He tours across the United States including in Los Angeles, most
9 recently on December 4, 2022 at the Hollywood Palladium and often records in Los Angeles.
10 Gravy’s newest single is called “Betty (Get Money)”. This court has general personal jurisdiction
11 over Gravy due to the continuous, repeated, and ongoing business he conducts in Los Angeles.
12 This Court has specific personal jurisdiction over Gravy as his suit related conduct arises out of
13 and relates to actions which took place in Los Angeles, since “Betty (Get Money),” and the
14 unauthorized use of Mr. Astley’s voice in “Betty (Get Money)”, was recorded in Los Angeles,
15 California.
17 producer who has worked with Gravy on multiple recordings, including the song “Betty (Get
18 Money)”. Nick resides in Los Angeles, California and primarily works from his recording studio
19 in Los Angeles. As Nick is a resident of Los Angeles, this court has general personal jurisdiction
20 over him. Furthermore, this Court has specific jurisdiction over Nick as his suit related conduct
21 arises out of and relates to actions, the recording of “Betty (Get Money),” and the unauthorized
22 use of Mr. Astley’s voice in “Betty (Get Money),” which took place in Los Angeles as mentioned
23 above.
25 music producer who worked with Gravy on the song “Betty (Get Money)”. Francis resides in
26 Los Angeles, California. As Francis is a resident of Los Angeles, this court has general personal
27 jurisdiction over him. Furthermore, this Court has specific jurisdiction over Dillon as his suit
3
28
COMPLAINT
1 related conduct, the recording of “Betty (Get Money),” and the unauthorized use of Mr. Astley’s
2 voice in “Betty (Get Money),” arises out of and relates to actions which took place in Los Angeles
3 as mentioned above.
5 producer who worked with Gravy on the song “Betty (Get Money)”. Wilson resides in Los
6 Angeles, California. As Wilson is a resident of Los Angeles, this court has general personal
7 jurisdiction over him. Furthermore, this Court has specific jurisdiction over Wilson, as his suit
8 related conduct, the recording of “Betty (Get Money),” and the unauthorized use of Mr. Astley’s
9 voice in “Betty (Get Money)” arises out of and relates to actions which took place in Los Angeles
10 as mentioned above.
12 Gravy’s record label who released the song “Betty (Get Money)”. Republic has an office located
13 at 2220 Colorado Avenue, Santa Monica, CA 90404 and conducts ongoing business in this
14 District. This court has general personal jurisdiction over Republic due to the continuous,
15 repeated and ongoing business it conducts in Los Angeles. This court has specific personal
16 jurisdiction over Republic as its suit related conduct, the recording of “Betty (Get Money),” and
17 the unauthorized use of Mr. Astley’s voice in “Betty (Get Money),” arises out of and relates to
18 actions which took place in Los Angeles as mentioned above, and because Republic entered into
19 agreements with the other Defendants knowing that the recording would be performed in Los
20 Angeles, California. Furthermore, “Betty (Get Money)” was then distributed by Republic, and
21 marketed and performed throughout California, and to California citizens, with all Defendants
22 receiving royalties and other compensation for such performance, distribution, and sales of
24
25
26
27
4
28
COMPLAINT
1 FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS
2 10. Mr. Astley’s storied musical career began in the mid 1980’s. In 1985 Mr. Astley
3 was the drummer for the soul band, FBI. When FBI’s singer left the band, Mr. Astley became the
4 groups new lead singer and, due to his signature voice, was quickly recruited by record producer
6 11. Over the course of his career, Mr. Astley has released multiple muti-platinum
8 12. Mr. Astley’s most well-known song, “Never Gonna Give You Up” was released
9 in August 1987 and became a worldwide number one hit. To this day the song remains embedded
11 13. Because of this, Mr. Astley had been looking to collaborate with another artist
12 and/or Producer to create something new with his voice from “Never Gonna Give You Up” that
13 he would be intimately involved in and, for which he would have creative control over in order
14 to protect his brand, name, image, and likeness as well as the artistic integrity of his premier hit
15 record. However, due to Defendants’ actions described herein, they have obliterated the
17 14. Mr. Astley is frequently approached by brands wanting to use his name, image,
18 and likeness in connection with their products and producers and artists wanting to feature him
20 15. Mr. Astley is extremely protective over his name, image, and likeness and highly
22 16. In an effort to capitalize off of the immense popularity and goodwill of Mr. Astley,
23 Defendants recorded and released the song “Betty (Get Money)” which interpolates “Never
24 Gonna Give You Up” and conspired to include a deliberate and nearly indistinguishable imitation
25 of Mr. Astley’s voice throughout the song. This was a deliberate theft of Mr. Astley’s voice
26 because, admittedly, Defendants were unable to obtain a license for a sample (a digital copy of
27 the actual sound of Mr. Astley’s voice) from the sound recording of “Never Gonna Give You
5
28
COMPLAINT
1 Up”. All of the Defendants conspired to do so in the recording of “Betty (Get Money),” as all
2 were involved in the recording and imitation of Mr. Astley’s voice, and were publicly open about
3 what they were doing. There is also no way that either the individual Defendants or Defendant
4 Republic Records would not know what was being done, and would certainly be aware of the fact
5 that it was illegal to do so in California given the notoriety of Midler in the music business for the
6 last 30 years, and the fact that no permission was received to imitate Astley’s voice.
7 17. Indeed, on or around May 18, 2022, Defendant Gravy wrote that he had “literally
8 been trying to clear the sample [of “Never Gonna Give You Up”] for years lol.” However, he
9 knew the sample was not cleared, and Mr. Astley would not have cleared it.
10 18. Despite knowing that they had no legal basis to deliberately imitate Mr. Astley’s
11 distinctive voice or digitally copy his voice from the sound recording of “Never Gonna Give You
12 Up”, Defendants, as Gravy put it to Billboard, “basically remade” “Never Gonna Give You Up”
14 19. Defendant Nick was tasked with imitating Mr. Astley’s signature voice for use in
15 “Betty (Get Money)”. In his Los Angeles recording studio, Nick recorded this imitation, “from
16 the ground up to sound identical to the original recording.” In a video posted on Instagram, Nick
17 stated that “I needed someone who sounded like Rick Astley. Truth be told, I auditioned people
18 for two weeks before I just decided to do it myself.” In the same video Nick switches between
19 the actual recording of “Never Gonna Give You Up” and his recreation and asks, “can you tell
20 the difference?”
21 20. The public could not tell the difference. The imitation of Mr. Astley’s voice was
22 so successful the public believed it was actually Mr. Astley singing and/or a direct sample (digital
23 lifting of the actual sounds of Mr. Astley’s voice from the sound recording) of “Never Gonna
25 21. The Wikipedia page for “Betty (Get Money)” states that the song uses a
27
6
28
COMPLAINT
1 22. An article published by Billboard states that “Betty (Get Money)” “samples”
3 23. Gravy’s biography on AllMusic.com states that “Yung Gravy offered up the Rick
4 Astley-sampling ‘Betty (Get Money),’ which became his first Hot 100 hit, landing at number
5 30.”
6 24. SongFacts.com states that “Betty (Get Money)” “samples” “Never Gonna Give
7 You Up”.
8 25. WhoSampled.com states a “sample” of “Never Gonna Give You Up” appears in
9 “Betty (Get Money)”.
10 26. Countless other music media outlets and individuals have stated and believe that
12 27. This is not surprising that the public would falsely believe this as Gravy fraudulently
13 and publicly stated that he has spoken with Mr. Astley and that Mr. Astley, “fucks with the song,”
14 “digs the song,” “approved it” and is a “fan,” all creating further consumer confusion. These
16 28. To be clear, again, as the “Bette Midler” court found, more than 30 years ago, in
17 one of the most famous cases in the music business, a license to use the original underlying
18 musical composition does not authorize the stealing of the artist’s voice in the original recording.
19 To use the artist’s voice, the creators of a new recording need a license to copy the actual sounds
20 of the voice from the sound recording, a so-called “sample” license of the actual sounds of the
21 voice from the sound recording. As stated, Defendants absolutely knew that to be the case, as
22 Gravy said he tried but failed for years to obtain a sound recording sample license. So, instead,
23 they resorted to theft of Mr. Astley’s voice without a license and without agreement.
24 29. “Betty (Get Money)” is the lead single for Gravy’s third studio album
25 “Marvelous”.
26 30. Since the release of “Betty (Get Money)” by Republic Records on June 10, 2022
27 the song has been certified Gold in the United States, Canada and Australia.
7
28
COMPLAINT
1 CAUSES OF ACTION
3 31. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
5 recognition as an artist, he has developed a proprietary interest in his public personality, and, in
6 particular, his unique, instantly recognizable voice, the most significant attribute of his public
7 identity.
8 33. Before the acts of Defendants complained herein, Mr. Astley enjoyed his common
9 law right of publicity to exploit his proprietary interest in his voice as he saw fit.
10 34. Defendants’ imitation of Mr. Astley’s voice in “Betty (Get Money)” is an intentional
11 and deliberate imitation of Mr. Astley’s internationally recognized and distinctive sound and
12 identity, used for Defendants to profit, and appropriates Mr. Astley’s property right in his
14 35. By reason of defendants’ theft of Mr. Astley’s right of publicity, Defendants, and
15 each of them, have realized substantial profits and other benefits which rightfully belong to Mr.
16 Astley.
17 36. Defendants, knowing that they did not have an agreement to use the actual sounds
18 of Mr. Astley’s voice from the sound recording of “Never Gonna Give You Up,” conspired
19 among themselves to intentionally steal Mr. Astley’s voice from “Never Gonna Give You Up”
20 by creating a near indistinguishable imitation. While such a feat obviously takes an immense
21 amount of talent and skill, it also blatantly spits in the face of Mr. Astley’s rights. Each of the
22 Defendants conspired to do so and each are jointly and severally liable for all damages.
23 37. As a result, Mr. Astley has been damaged in an amount to be determined but believed
24 to be in the millions of dollars. Defendants should also be required to disgorge all profits derived
25 from “Betty (Get Money)” as they all have been unjustly enriched.
26
27
8
28
COMPLAINT
1 38. Defendants, and each of them, have acted with oppression, fraud, and malice, in that
2 they have sought to unjustly enrich themselves by intentionally deceiving the public and
4 39. Accordingly, Mr. Astley is entitled to an award of exemplary and punitive damages.
7 40. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
8 41. This claim arises under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act entitled “False Designation of
9 Origin and False Descriptions Forbidden,” 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). Defendants’ actions constitute
12 43. The music video for “Betty (Get Money)” has been viewed millions of times. As of
13 January 2023, the music video for the song has over 32 million views on Gravy’s official
14 YouTube page.
15 44. When a performing artist of Mr. Astley’s stature, who enjoys world-wide public
16 recognition of his immediately identifiable and unique voice, appears, is heard, or is closely
17 imitated, his real or apparent presence is inevitably going to be interpreted by the general public
19 deliberate and eerily indistinguishable imitation of Mr. Astley’s voice on “Betty (Get Money)”
21 confusion over whether Mr. Astley indeed endorsed or is otherwise associated with Defendants
23 45. Defendants did not solicit nor were Defendants granted permission by Mr. Astley to
24 imitate his voice, but have falsely suggested to the public that Mr. Astley was endorsing
26 46. Defendants have made no attempt to dispel the deliberately false implication of Mr.
27 Astley’s endorsement or participation. To the contrary, with no basis in fact, Gravy publicly has
9
28
COMPLAINT
1 stated that he has spoken with Mr. Astley and that Mr. Astley, “fucks with the song,” “digs the
2 song,” “approved it” and is a “fan” all creating further consumer confusion. These statements
3 were false.
4 47. By reason of Defendants’ false representation that Mr. Astley participated, was
5 involved with and/or endorsed Defendants and “Betty (Get Money)”, Defendants, through their
6 conspiracy outlined above, have created consumer confusion in violation of § 43(a) of the
8 48. Defendants have acted with willfulness, fraud and malice, and Mr. Astley is entitled
9 to an award of treble damages, in an amount to be proven at trial, and his reasonable attorneys’
12 49. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
13 50. Defendants, on multiple occasions, have falsely asserted that Mr. Astley endorses
15 51. In doing so, Defendants have deliberately and without permission used Mr. Astley’s
16 identity for purposes of promoting Defendants and drawing listeners to “Betty (Get Money)”.
17 52. The illegal appropriation by Defendants of Mr. Astley’s property interest in his
19 53. As a result, Mr. Astley has been damaged in an amount to be determined but believed
20 to be in the millions of dollars. Defendants should also be required to disgorge all profits derived
22 54. Defendants have acted with oppression, fraud and malice in doing so and Mr. Astley
23 is entitled to an award of exemplary and punitive damages as well as his attorneys’ fees and costs
25
26
27
10
28
COMPLAINT
Unfair Competition – California Common Law & the California Unfair
1 Practices Act – California Business and Professions Code § 1700
2 55. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
3 56. Defendants have misappropriated valuable property and property rights belonging
4 exclusively to Mr. Astley, causing permanent and significant damage. Defendants’ imitation of
5 Mr. Astley’s unique and instantly recognizable voice is intended to have the public believe that
6 it is Mr. Astley’s actual performance on “Betty (Get Money)”, invariably creating public
7 confusion. Defendants’ conduct constitutes unfair competition as defined in California Business
8 and Professions Code § 17200 because such conduct directly competes with Mr. Astley’s right
9 to perform or otherwise participate in and profit from the use of and association with his voice,
10 resulting in significant damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
11 57. Defendants have also realized substantial profits and other benefits from such unfair
12 competition, which rightfully belong to Mr. Astley.
13 58. Defendants have acted with oppression, fraud and malice, as set forth above, in that
14 they have sought to enrich themselves unjustly and at the expense of Mr. Astley. Mr. Astley is
15 therefore entitled to an award of exemplary and punitive damages as well as his attorneys’ fees
16 in bringing this action.
17
27
11
28
COMPLAINT
1 3. That Mr. Astley receive his costs of suit herein, including reasonable attorneys’ fees;
2 and
3 4. That the court grant such other and further relief as it may deem just and proper.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
12
28
COMPLAINT