Tracy Chapman, an American singer-songwriter, filed a lawsuit against Nicki Minaj, an American-Trinidadian rapper, in 2018, claiming Minaj’s song “Sorry” took “both lyrics and vocal melody” from Chapman’s 1988 hit “Baby Can I Hold You.” Earlier this month, Chapman accepted Minaj’s offer to settle the suit by paying Chapman $450,000 to avoid trial.

Minaj claimed her team sent a formal request in July of 2018 to use Chapman’s song. Minaj and her publishing representatives claim they were certain Chapman would turn down the request, which she did only days later. Minaj’s song “Sorry” was then left off her album “Queen” released in late 2018. However, the song was leaked to a popular radio host in New York, Hot 97 with DJ Funkmaster Flex, leading Chapman to file the lawsuit. Chapman claimed that one of the reasons for turning down the request was she had a suspicion that Minaj had already recorded the song before asking for the rights.

Then, in August 2018, Minaj and her legal representatives responded to the lawsuit filed by Chapman requesting a partial summary judgment in Minaj’s favor. She claimed that the suit had “no genuine dispute of material fact” and further pleaded that either way the court decides on this case “will have a significant impact on the music industry.” Chapman would later also file a request for summary judgment on the lawsuit.

Minaj argued that “free-flowing creativity is important to all recording artists but particularly in hip hop.” She explained that when artists are in the recording studio or are experimenting with different sounds and lyrics, they do not customarily go to the rights holder first. Instead, they wait until the track has been created to receive permission before releasing it. Minaj stated that the “creation of the demo recording was a non-infringing ‘fair use’ of the song and therefore was not violating copyright law. She further explained that in order to get full permission to use a song, the rights holder often wants to hear how the song will be used first, which she uses in support of her “fair use” argument.

Title 17 U.S. Code Section 107 details “fair use” of copyrighted work. The law determines what should be considered ‘fair use’ by using four different factors, one of the most important of those being “the purpose and character of the use.” If a piece of work is reproduced or copied but is not subject to commercial use for profit, then it can generally be regarded as a ‘fair use’ of the work and not subject to penalties under copyright law. Minaj used this to argue that reproducing the song, or interloping the melody and lyrics, is not an inherent violation of copyright law.

On September 16, 2020, District Judge Virginia A. Phillips denied Chapman’s motion for summary judgment and granted Minaj hers. The District Judge found that “any liability for [Minaj’s] creation of the song is barred by the fair use doctrine.” While Minaj won the battle over her right to use the material in the first place, the court found that Chapman was not entitled to a summary judgment over her allegation that Minaj wrongfully distributed the song without her consent. The District Judge stated that “genuine dispute of material fact exists,” therefore moving the complaint closer to trial.

Minaj’s cost to settle this case was a hefty sum, but it avoids the risk and extra expense of going to trial. As Minaj said in her request for summary judgment that whichever way the court decides “will have a significant impact on the music industry,” it seems that a settlement has the same impact. This case is a reminder to artists of the cost of recording and publishing without obtaining the rights and permissions.

One of the predominant elements of hip-hop is deejaying or “turntabeling” - the merging of older songs with newer rhythms, lyrics, or melodies. The core of the genre is to recreate old art, which will always play a dangerous game with the copyright and intellectual property law. The subjectiveness of art, unlike the explicit act of stealing from a store, means cases of plagiarism and fair use will always be a threat to an artist, regardless of how long they’ve been in the industry.

The cost of copyright litigation can easily put an end to an artist’s career. This case, like many before it, shows the fine line musicians and artists must walk between paying homage and stealing for profit.