Ariana Grande pursued forever for using her resemblance. What does that mean exactly?

Ariana Grande did not ask for permission before interpolating "My favorite things" to The sound of music in "7 rings". And she may have paid the price: 90% of royalties to Rodgers and Hammerstein. The Grande team reportedly brought the already finished song to Concord, the company that owns the legendary Duo Broadway duo's catalog, just weeks before its release in January. As Great sings in the hit consumption-empowerment, "I want it, I have it."

Now, Forever 21 is in a similar situation – Great with potential profit. Earlier this week, the pop star filed a $ 10 million lawsuit against the fast fashion retailer in a federal court in Los Angeles. Represented by attorney Daniel Petrocelli (OJ Simpson's civilian celebrity), Grande says that first and foremost, Forever 21 has released at least 30 unauthorized images and videos on its website and on its social media platforms, using its name, likeness and music. approval agreement.

Grande's objections include Instagram images of a look-alike model allegedly based on the video "7 Rings". In the screenshots included in the complaint, we can see the model of Forever 21 covered with pink and fluffy pom-poms in his hair, as well as purple camouflage pants and white socks of another look, all similar to the different outfits of Grande in the clip. Some Forever 21 articles used captions that quoted the lyrics of "7 Rings," while some video clips featured the song, the complaint states. (The messages have since been deleted.)

Intellectual property lawyers tell me that Mr. Grande has a strong case and that he will probably win a settlement. And they say that as the music industry is looking for more and more money outside the sales or streaming of music, these types of legal disputes could affect more and more people. artists. "This is the future of the music industry," says Ken Abdo, an entertainment law attorney involved in the dispute over Prince's estate.

Forever 21 has not yet responded to the complaint, but his public response has a conciliatory tone. "Forever 21 does not comment on pending litigation according to the company's policy," the company said in a statement. "That being said, even though we are challenging the allegations, we are huge supporters of Ariana Grande and are working with her licensing company in the last two years. We hope that we will find a mutually acceptable resolution and that we will be able to continue working together in the future. "

According to Grande's lawsuit, Forever 21 contacted his representatives before his February album. thanks, next. "The approval agreement that Forever 21 asked Ms. Grande included a focus on social media marketing, including Twitter posts, Instagram posts, and Instagram stories," the complaint states. Grande claims that the amounts offered by Forever 21 were "insufficient for an artist of her stature" and that "rather than pay for this right as provided by law, [Forever 21] just stolen. "

Although the case revolves around social media, Grande's most solid legal precedent is that of several decades ago, involving a different mass media. California has a publicity right, which means you can not use the "resemblance" of a person without their consent. A landmark decision on this law was made in 1993, when the Supreme Court allowed TV host Vanna White to sue an ad showing a stylish robot like her, turning the letters as she does in "Wheel of Fortune". ".

"It was a classic example of using a person's celebrity image without permission for commercial purposes," says Jeff Kobulnick, an intellectual property lawyer who represents Kendall Jenner's activities. "It's very similar to what's going on, as is claimed in this case."

Much could depend on the counter-argument of Forever 21. Attorneys at Law Mattias Eng, whose recent work includes a legal credit on the publication of Travis Scott. Astroworld, tells me that this case reminds him of a $ 2.5 million verdict won by Tom Waits in 1990 – for an ad in Doritos in which an imitator sang in the style of "Step Right Up" of Waits. "It may be more difficult to prove that a consumer who sees the images in question is confused, that it actually acts of Ariana or not." other words, even if it looks like Grande, would someone take it for the singer?

Great is the other legal claims that could potentially go forward, including the violation of the copyright of "7 rings". But his case is more remarkable for the problems related to his identity, an area that could become fertile ground for the prosecution of the pop-star. "The music industry is no longer just about music, it's more than ever about aesthetics, lifestyle, and the influence of celebrities," says Abdo. Social media makes it more than ever possible for musicians to use their image to sell products, perhaps rather than to sell records. California's law on the right to advertising extends over 70 years after the death of an artist and covers holograms, notes Abdo. "The artistic community will tolerate very little people who play illegally with their name and image."

Copy claims can simply stay as before in the fast fashion industry. Always in the music world, Forever 21 has already resisted accusations of imitation goods from Frank Ocean, Kanye West, Tupac Shakur and even fervent advocates of DIY, Minor Threat. Once the fight with Grande is over, who knows if the company can continue this momentum and just say "thank you, then".