AceShowbiz - A federal jury ruled that Kanye West, known previously as Ye, is liable for copyright infringement related to an uncleared sample used in an early demo of his Grammy-winning song "Hurricane" from the album Donda.

The decision came on Tuesday, May 12, after a weeklong trial in Los Angeles, where the jury found that Ye and his affiliated companies violated the rights of the owners of the instrumental track "MSD PT2" by including it without permission in a pre-release version of "Hurricane."

This demo was publicly played at a large-scale listening event in Atlanta in 2021, which was also streamed live on Apple Music, drawing significant attention. The jury determined that Ye must compensate the sample’s owners by sharing a portion of the revenue generated from that event, including ticket sales, merchandise, and the live stream deal.

While the exact total damages awarded were not immediately confirmed, reports from Rolling Stone indicate that the jury held Ye personally responsible for $176,153. Additional damages of $176,153, $41,625, and $44,627 were levied against three of his companies, which combined would total $438,558.

However, representatives for Ye argue that the corporate damages will be combined with his personal liability, asserting the total award is $176,153. A spokesperson for Ye described the outcome as a "failed shakedown," noting that plaintiffs initially sought $30 million but only secured a fraction of that amount.

The spokesperson also criticized the legal costs borne by the plaintiffs, stating, "The moral of the story? There is a cost attached to thinking you can take advantage of Ye." No immediate comment was available from the plaintiffs’ side regarding the verdict.

The lawsuit was initiated in early 2024 by the producers of "MSD PT2"—DJ Khalil (Khalil Abdul-Rahman), Sam Barsh, Dan Seeff, and Josh Mease—through a business entity named Artist Revenue Advocates LLC. Their original claim sought royalties from the final versions of both "Hurricane" and another Donda track, "Moon," arguing these songs used elements of "MSD PT2" without clearance.

However, a judge dismissed most of the lawsuit in February because Artist Revenue Advocates LLC only holds rights to the master recordings of "MSD PT2," not the composition rights. This distinction meant they could pursue claims related to the sampled demo but lacked standing to sue over interpolations present in the commercially successful final tracks.

As a result, the court allowed only a limited trial focused on the early "Hurricane" demo that contained the direct sample. The more profitable final versions of "Hurricane" and "Moon," which used only interpolations, were excluded from this trial. Artist Revenue Advocates plans to appeal this ruling in an effort to reinstate their full claim.

During the trial, which started on May 4, Ye’s legal team contended that the case had no merit. They maintained that attempts were made to clear the "MSD PT2" sample properly but that the plaintiffs deliberately delayed approval and refused to agree to standard industry revenue splits. Additionally, the defense highlighted that the plaintiffs had already received some royalty payments from other sources.

Ye himself took the stand, stating he followed the usual clearance process for the sample. He emphasized his generosity in crediting and compensating collaborators when deserved but expressed frustration that many individuals try to exploit him, saying, "I feel like a lot of people try to take advantage of me."

The jury ultimately sided with Artist Revenue Advocates and ruled against Ye. They did not provide a detailed explanation for their verdict, which aligns with common practice in such cases.

This trial marks a significant departure for Ye, who has faced numerous copyright lawsuits over his career related to unlicensed samples and interpolations. However, this is reportedly the first time he has taken one of these disputes to a full trial, having previously settled most claims out of court.

The outcome highlights the complexities of copyright law in music production, particularly concerning sample clearance and the rights of master recording holders versus composition rights. It also underscores ongoing challenges artists face in navigating legal hurdles related to sampling in the digital age.

As the plaintiffs consider an appeal to restore their broader claims, the financial implications for Ye and his affiliated companies remain significant, especially given the high-profile nature of the case and the attention it has drawn within the music industry.

With the verdict now public, attention will turn to how Ye’s team responds legally and commercially to the ruling, especially in terms of future sample clearance practices and potential settlements or appeals.