Affiliate Disclosure
If you buy through our links, we may get a commission. Read our ethics policy.

Apple Music sued over track that allegedly samples an original song

Apple Music has been sued for alleged copyright infringement, "false and misleading advertising," and associating a company with transphobia.

Apple has been accused of including a track in Apple Music that infringes on the copyright of an original song. At the same time, the copyright holder alleges that Apple profited from the track by using it in an online advert.

Charming Beats says that it owns the copyright on a song called "Anything You Synthesize." According to the company, a further track called "Caramelo" by French rapper Ninho "consists of a musical component which is an unlicensed reproduction" of their work.

The full filing, available below, details the precise nature of the alleged reproduction.

It also says that lyrics from "Caramelo" were displayed on an Apple website, along with a short excerpt and a link to listen to the full song on Apple Music. "Defendant APPLE's promise that the full version of the Infringing Derivative can be streamed on its service is quite enticing," says the filing.

"[But it] is a false and misleading advertisement," continues the suit. Reportedly, "Caramelo" was not available on Apple Music at the time.

More, the Charming Beats company claims that Apple's ad included a video from performer DeeBaby encouraging people to listen to the full song by joining Apple Music.

"DeeBaby is the notorious performer that has been widely criticized for his transphobic statements," says the company in a court filing. "Defendants have forced an association of the Copyrighted Track with transphobia which has damaged the Copyrighted Track."

The case dates back to 2017, when according to Charming Beats, it served take-down notices on Apple and associated company MediaLab. The company wants a trial by jury, and damages of "up to $150,000 but not less than $30,000," plus costs.

Apple has not commented.



13 Comments

pulseimages 8 Years · 656 comments

Shouldn’t the suit be against the artist who used the sample illegally and not Apple? 

lkrupp 19 Years · 10521 comments

Shouldn’t the suit be against the artist who used the sample illegally and not Apple? 

Deep pockets my friend, deep pockets. 🧳

JAK1421 6 Years · 2 comments

Shouldn’t the suit be against the artist who used the sample illegally and not Apple? 

#1 priority in lawsuits:  Follow The Money!

Rogue01 3 Years · 196 comments

Shouldn’t the suit be against the artist who used the sample illegally and not Apple? 

Apple used the song in their advertisements for Apple Music.  Read the article, it is all in there.

slow n easy 9 Years · 400 comments

lkrupp said:
Shouldn’t the suit be against the artist who used the sample illegally and not Apple? 
Deep pockets my friend, deep pockets. 🧳

Yea, but there should be laws against that. A fair system would hold to account the entity most at fault and the most willful instead of the one with the most money.