Last month, Grammy-winning and platinum-record producing rapper Megan Pete, professionally known as Megan Thee Stallion (“MTS”), filed a lawsuit against her recording label, 1501 Certified Entertainment (“Label”), seeking a declaration that her most recent release, titled “Something for Thee Hotties,” constituted an “Album” as defined in MTS and the Label’s Recording Agreement (the “Agreement”). This scenario is another example of how even some of the most “basic” contract provisions need to be negotiated and clarified prior to execution of the contract. Even the most mundane of terms can come back to haunt the parties. So, what happened?

On February 18, 2022, MTS filed her Original Petition on a single issue: whether her most recent release, “Something for Thee Hotties” (the “Release”), is an “album” as defined in the Agreement. MTS is seeking declaratory judgment from the Court to rule that the Release is an album. About a month later, the Label filed a counterclaim asking that the Court rule that the Release is not an album and included claims for breach of contract against MTS. The Label’s damages include monetary relief over $1,000,000 for “all damages proximately caused by MTS’s misconduct.”

MTS’ position is that because the total run time of the Release is over forty-five minutes (the total run time is 45:02), she complied the definition of “album” in the Agreement. MTS’ Original Petition describes the Release as consisting of new tracks recorded in 2021, previously unreleased tracks, and skits, which in every respect, constitutes an album. MTS is specifically that the Court declare:

1.    The Release constitutes an album as defined in the Agreement;
2.   The Release meets her “Minimum Recording Commitment” pursuant to an option period under the Agreement (not discussed in this article);
3.   The only determining factor as to what constitutes an album as defined in the Agreement is the total run time of the purported album released, which must be a minimum of 45 minutes;
4.   An album may consist of musical compositions, regardless of when the musical recordings were original released along with spoken interlude recordings (referred to as “skits”); and
5.   The Label waived its rights to “equal authority” to determine “the Musical Compositions to be recorded” by MTS.

The Label paints a different picture of the Release, which is made up of 21 recordings and includes “spoken interlude recordings on which MTS does not appear as well as several previously-released recordings.” The Label asserts many of this material was not original material and include “freestyles” available on YouTube and archival material dating back to 2019. The Label’s calculation of the total duration of new recordings featuring MTS is only 29 minutes and was described in music press as a “compilation record of archival materials and some new recordings.” The Label’s position is that each album must contain at least twelve new master recordings of her studio performances of previously-unreleased musical compositions, and that the Label gets to approve the musical compositions to be included on each album, which did not occur. In addition to the above, the Label’s breach of contract claim also asserts that MTS has breached other Agreement provisions including one that requires MTS to inform the Label about all the “ancillary activities” she takes part in for financial gain.

Although how an album is defined is not directly applicable to your business, the lesson is that even the most basic of terms of your contract deserve due consideration at the front-end of any negotiation. While we wait to see how the Houston district court determines what is or is not an “album,” our attorneys in Dallas and Austin are available to answer any questions you may have and help you negotiate and understand the terms of your contract. Contact us at info@gstexlaw.com if you have any questions.

Legal Disclaimers

This blog is made available by Gerstle Snelson, LLP for educational purposes and to provide general information about the law, only.  Neither this document nor the information contained in it is intended to constitute legal advice on any specific matter or of a general nature.  Use of the blog does not create an attorney-client relationship with Gerstle Snelson, LLP where one does not already exist with the firm.  This blog should not be used a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed attorney.

©Gerstle Snelson, LLP 2022.  All rights reserved.  Any unauthorized reprint or use of this material is prohibited.  No part of this blog may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage or retrieval system without the express written permission of Gerstle Snelson, LLP.