Issue No. 066
October 19, 2026
New York
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The IP Briefing · by ESCA Legal
|
|
|
|
| Songwriter Aviel Calev Hirschfield sued Drake, OVO Sound and two Universal Music entities in Los Angeles federal court on October 16, alleging that Janice STFU copied the chorus of a demo he sent to producers working with Drake. Hirschfield claims the released track reproduces his lyrics, melody and cadence without credit or compensation. Drake's representatives deny the allegations and say he wrote the song. The complaint seeks damages and profits attributable to the alleged infringement. |
| § | Hirschfield alleges that he completed his recording around January 25, 2026, over an instrumental supplied by production duo FnZ, then sent it to FnZ and other producers in Drake's circle. He says he heard the matching chorus when Janice STFU was released in May. | | § | The complaint identifies original lyrics and melody inspired by Lykke Li's I Follow Rivers. Hirschfield claims those additional contributions as his own, rather than claiming ownership of the earlier song. | | § | Recording stems and their metadata are central to the allegations. Hirschfield says they establish his earlier creation date; his complaint also alleges that Drake's representatives questioned whether those files had been altered. | | § | Drake's team categorically denies copying and describes the lawsuit as baseless. Hirschfield, who previously shared a songwriting credit with Drake on Beyonce's Heated, has requested a jury trial. No infringement finding has been made. |
|
| Continue reading → |
| § ESCA Takeaway |
| The two disputes concern different forms of creative control: who wrote a song's chorus, and who authorized a celebrity's appearance on a retail box. Recording files and submission history sit at the center of the Drake allegations; consumer perception and image-licensing rights frame Dua Lipa's response to Samsung. Neither filing is a ruling on liability. |
|
|
| More IP Stories |
|
| § Right of Publicity · Filed |
|
|
| Dua Lipa asked a Los Angeles federal judge to reject Samsung's motion to dismiss claims over her photograph on television packaging. In an October 15 opposition, she argues that the image could suggest an endorsement and that California law protects against its alleged commercial use without consent. Samsung maintains that the packaging depicted available entertainment content rather than a paid partnership. The dismissal motion remains pending. |
| § | Lipa argues that her established brand partnerships and the photograph's prominence support a plausible false-endorsement claim. She cites alleged consumer comments linking their interest in buying a television to her appearance on the box. | | § | Samsung seeks application of English law to the publicity claims based on Lipa's alleged domicile. She disputes that premise and argues that California's interest in products marketed and sold within the state supports applying California law. | | § | The opposition also defends claims against Samsung's Korean parent, alleging involvement in manufacturing, distribution and decisions to continue sales. The filing is Lipa's response to the dismissal request, not a decision that Samsung violated her rights. |
|
|
Why it matters
A photograph used to illustrate a product's content can also raise a separate question about implied celebrity approval. This filing distinguishes that false-endorsement issue from publicity and copyright claims arising from the same packaging.
|
| Continue reading → |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not subscribed? Sign up for future editions of Marked by ESCA Legal.
|
|
|
|
This newsletter is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Published by ESCA Legal. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Attorney advertising; prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
|