Snoop Dogg, the iconic rapper, is embroiled in a copyright lawsuit filed by veteran studio musician Trevor Lawrence Jr., who alleges that Snoop used two of his backing tracks without proper licensing or compensation.

Lawrence, a renowned producer and drummer with credits on songs by Bruno Mars, Alicia Keys, Ed Sheeran, and Mariah Carey, claims he created the backing tracks "on spec" and allowed Snoop, whose real name is Calvin Broadus, to experiment with them in the studio. However, Lawrence asserts he made it clear that an upfront fee and ongoing royalties would be required if the tracks were commercially released.

Despite this alleged understanding, Lawrence claims that Snoop used Lawrence’s material in his songs “Pop Pop” and “Get This Dick” from his 2022 album "BODR" without finalizing a licensing deal or compensating him. The lawsuit, which also names Death Row Records as a defendant, states: “To date, defendants have refused to properly license the Lawrence tracks or compensate Lawrence for their use in the Broadus tracks.”

This lawsuit, filed on Monday, sheds light on industry practices regarding the use of backing tracks, which are pre-recorded instrumental elements that artists incorporate into their final products. Lawrence claims he often creates such tracks on his own initiative and shops them around to prominent artists, with the expectation that proper licensing negotiations will occur before any commercial release.

The lawsuit references a notable 2020 legal battle in which Tracy Chapman accused Nicki Minaj of illegally sampling one of her songs. In that case, a federal judge ruled that while artists are free to experiment with materials in the studio, they violate copyrights if those songs are released commercially. Minaj eventually settled the case by paying Chapman $450,000.

In the current case, Lawrence alleges that in 2020, he provided Snoop with access to two backing tracks for studio use. Two years later, a representative for Snoop expressed interest in using the tracks, and Lawrence specified his licensing terms: a $10,000 flat fee producer advance and a 50% interest in the underlying musical composition. According to the lawsuit, the representative indicated that these terms were acceptable.

However, when “Pop Pop” and “Get This Dick” were released a month later, Lawrence claims he had not received a formal licensing offer and has not been paid or credited in the two years since. Additionally, he alleges the songs were also released as non-fungible tokens (NFTs), generating “tens of millions of dollars.”

“At no point in time did defendants… communicate to Lawrence any intention to exploit the Lawrence tracks in connection with a bundled offering such as the (NFT sale), nor did Lawrence authorize any such exploitation of his work, which was never within his prior contemplation,” Lawrence’s lawyers assert in the lawsuit.

In the case involving Snoop Dogg and Trevor Lawrence Jr., several key legal principles and statutes are likely relevant:

1. Copyright Law

The primary law at issue is the U.S. Copyright Act, codified in Title 17 of the United States Code. Key provisions include:

Section 106: This section grants the copyright holder exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, perform, display, or create derivative works based on their copyrighted material.

Section 501: This section outlines what constitutes copyright infringement and the remedies available to copyright holders whose rights have been violated.

Lawrence claims that his backing tracks are original works protected by copyright and that Snoop Dogg used them without authorization, thus infringing on his exclusive rights under Section 106.

2. Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)

While not directly mentioned in the context of the dispute, the Fair Labor Standards Act may come into play in cases involving compensation and contractual agreements for work performed. Lawrence's assertion that he created the tracks "on spec" (speculation) for eventual compensation ties into broader labor laws about fair pay for work done.

3. Contract Law

Contract law principles are also likely relevant. Lawrence alleges that there was an understanding (if not a formal contract) that he would be compensated if his tracks were used commercially:

Offer and Acceptance: Lawrence claims there was an offer to license the tracks under specific terms (a $10,000 fee and 50% interest), which was verbally accepted by Snoop Dogg's representative.

Consideration: The legal requirement for a contract, where both parties provide something of value, i.e., Lawrence providing the tracks and Snoop Dogg providing compensation.

4. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)

Given the mention of the tracks being sold as NFTs, the DMCA, which addresses digital rights management and online infringement, may also be relevant:

Section 1201: Addresses the circumvention of digital rights management (DRM) measures.

Section 512: Provides a framework for online service providers to deal with copyright infringement claims, including the notice-and-takedown system.

5. Relevant Case Law

The lawsuit references a high-profile legal battle between Tracy Chapman and Nicki Minaj, where the court ruled that experimentation with materials in the studio is permissible but releasing those materials commercially without proper licensing constitutes copyright infringement. This case may be a precedent that may influence the outcome of Lawrence’s lawsuit.

6. State Law Claims

Depending on the details of Lawrence’s claims, there could also be relevant state law claims under California state law, including:

Breach of Implied Contract: If a court finds that there was an implied contract based on the conduct and communications of the parties.

Unjust Enrichment: Lawrence may claim that Snoop Dogg was unjustly enriched by using the tracks without compensating him.

Conversion: The unauthorized taking or use of someone else’s property, in this case, intellectual property.

The legal framework governing this dispute primarily revolves around federal copyright law, with relevant contributions from contract law principles and potential state law claims. As the case proceeds, these laws will form the basis of arguments regarding the legality of Snoop Dogg’s use of Lawrence's tracks and the appropriate remedies if infringement is found.