Beyoncé’s Label Condemns Second ‘Objectively Baseless’ Lawsuit Over ‘Alien Superstar’ Sample

Beyoncé’s Parkwood Entertainment says a music rights holder should face financial penalties for continuing to assert “tangled and conflicting” copyright claims over the Renaissance track “Alien Superstar.”

Parkwood, Beyoncé’s label and management company, asked a judge on Thursday (Oct. 15) to permanently dismiss legal claims over the intro to “Alien Superstar,” which peaked at No. 19 on the Billboard Hot 100 in 2022. The intro is a sample of John Holiday’s 1998 track “Moonraker”: “Please do not be alarmed, remain calm/ Do not attempt to leave the dancefloor/ The DJ booth is conducting a troubleshoot of the entire system.”

Related

It’s undisputed that Parkwood cleared the sample from Holiday himself, giving the artist $10,000 and a 0.5% share of the “Alien Superstar” royalties. But for more than a year, music catalog owner Shuji Hirose has been alleging in lawsuits that he’s actually the owner of “Moonraker” and therefore should have been a part of the licensing process.

The lawsuit was dismissed on a technicality in June, but Hirose refiled two months later. Parkwood now argues that Hirose has changed his story, and that the switch-up is grounds to both end the case for good and impose monetary sanctions on Hirose and his attorney, DaShawn Hayes.

According to Parkwood, Hirose’s original lawsuit stated that Holiday had sold him only half of the “Moonraker” publishing back in 1998. Parkwood says this was fatal to Hirose’s claims, since the law would have allowed a partial copyright owner like Holiday to license out the composition even without his co-owner’s participation. However, the new iteration of the lawsuit now says Hirose bought 100% of the copyright from Holiday.

“These new allegations cannot be squared with Mr. Hirose’s prior sworn statements,” wrote Parkwood’s attorneys in Thursday’s court papers. “It is axiomatic that knowingly or recklessly filing false allegations or meritless claims is bad faith, and warrants terminating and monetary sanctions.”

“Even generously assuming that Mr. Hirose and Mr. Hayes somehow did not know that the Hirose II complaint was frivolous, sanctions are still appropriate,” added Parkwood’s lawyers, a team from the elite firm Latham & Watkins. “In light of Mr. Hirose and Mr. Hayes’ admissions that Mr. Holiday retains co-ownership and licensing rights in ‘Moonraker,’ Plaintiffs’ claims — premised on directly contrary allegations — are objectively baseless.”

Hayes did not return a request for comment regarding Parkwood’s arguments on Monday (Oct. 19). He’ll likely respond to the motions in writing before a hearing scheduled for February.

The lawsuit levels copyright infringement claims against Parkwood, as well as against Sony Music, Warner Chappell Music and Beyoncé herself. Hirose is also suing Holiday for breach of contract.