Licks for 'Lick'

Dr Justin Koo

Shenseea and Megan Thee Stallion’s song ‘Lick’ has been subject to major attention and scrutiny due to allegations of copyright infringement. ‘Lick’ reproduced the phrase ‘put your back in it’ made famous by the song ‘Put Your Back In It’ that went viral as a result of a TikTok challenge featuring the song. However, the origin of ‘put your back in it’ is derived from an earlier song performed by Belfon in 2001 entitled ‘Work’. 

The controversy with ‘Lick’ surrounds the use of the lyrics ‘put your back in it’ and two samples from ‘Work’ that Anastas Hackett alleges were used without permission. For the purpose of clarity, it is important to note that copyright in a single song can involve different layers – the lyrics (words), the composition (melody/background music), the performance (actual singing or playing of the music) and the production (mixing and mastering of the sound recording). Each of these elements attract copyright or neighbouring rights protection and the relevant permission must be sought from the correct entity to avoid infringement. For all intents and purposes, the ‘Lick’ debacle seems to revolve around insufficient licensing due to Shenseea and Interscope Records failing to secure the correct licences from the correct persons.

History of Issue

In January 2022, Shenseea and Megan Thee Stallion’s song ‘Lick’ was thrown into the copyright law spotlight with allegations of copyright infringement being levelled by the public. Shenseea quickly retorted on Instagram Live:

“Right, why would we end up use a sample from somebody else’s song that was done in 2006 or five and not clear the song? Like how does that even make sense bro? Like, before you guys like look at the bigger picture and be like ‘Yo, Shenseea is repping for Caribbean…’ y’all trying to say I stole somebaddy song. Stop f-kin with me! Cause that’s so stupid!”

“And Megan is on the song. Why would we risk being sued? And it’s not something that is bothering me; it’s because I know that people will run with this narrative. And I’m not going to do it. So I am about to start clearing sh_t up from early…”[1]

Subsequent to this, a claim for copyright infringement was formally filed in the state of New York on 4 March 2022 by Anastas Hackett against Shenseea and Interscope Records.

As it stands, Denise Belfon has supported Shenseea and Megan Thee Stallion, publicly thanking them for using her song and acknowledged that she had permitted the ‘sampling’ to occur.[2] However, Hackett stated in the lawsuit filed that he withheld his consent for use of ‘Work’ because of the inadequacy of the terms offered.[3] With that difference in opinion about ‘ownership’, the rights clearance issue persists.

The Rights

A quick look at the rights concerning the songs ‘Work’ and ‘Put Your Back In It’ makes it clear where any confusion may have occurred. ‘Put Your Back In It’ lists Belfon as the sole writer/composer. 

If the earlier song ‘Work’ is ignored, one might assume that the only licences needed stem from the rights holders in ‘Put Your Back In It’, namely the writer/composer Belfon for use of the lyrics. However, under copyright law there exist derivative works. That is copyright works that are based on pre-existing copyright works. While the derivative work attracts its own copyright, it is nevertheless in the absence of permission to copy an infringing copyright work. 

What remains unclear is if Belfon had permission from Hackett and Taitt Harkness to use the lyrics and melody from ‘Work’ in ‘Put Your Back In It’.

The Law

Under the law of copyright, assuming copyright subsists in the lyrics and melody of ‘Work’, and more particularly, the phrase ‘put your back in it’, it is fairly clear that Shenseea and Interscope Records would have to seek licences from the right holders in ‘Work’ (Hackett and Taitt). It would be insufficient to rely on a licence from Belfon who was merely a performer in ‘Work’ notwithstanding her writer credit for ‘Put Your Back In It’. There is no doubt that the phrase ‘put your back in it’ is derived from ‘Work’ given Belfon’s involvement in the original song and as such, this would constitute a classic case of copyright infringement in the absence of a licence from Hackett and Taitt.

The Bottom Line

The ‘Lick’ scenario demonstrates the complexities of the music industry and the importance of doing proper due diligence. In the aftermath of the Blurred Lines case,[4] the stakes are high for copyright infringement in mainstream music. Persons are encouraged to ensure that proper care is taken in securing the correct licences for the correct subject matter from the correct persons. Remember, use of a part of a single song could involve independent licences from the songwriter, composer, performer, producer or assignees/licensees (or some combination thereof).

The ‘Lick’ case[5] rolls on, however, it will not be surprising to hear that the matter is settled out of court and out of earshot. 

---

[1] C Gardner, ‘Fans Call Out Shenseea For “Dumb, Stupid” Comments’ (Dancehallmag, 23 January 2022) <https://www.dancehallmag.com/2022/01/23/news/fans-call-out-shenseea-for-dumb-stupid-comments.html> accessed 28 June 2022. 

[2] D Seitaram, ‘Shenseea & Interscope Records Hit With $10 Million Lawsuit Over “Lick”’ (Urbanislandz, 18 March 2022) <https://urbanislandz.com/2022/03/18/shenseea-interscope-records-hit-with-10-million-lawsuit-over-lick/>  accessed 28 June 2022.

[3] Complaint Anastas Hackett et al v Interscope Records Inc et al (SDNY 2022) para 18. See Complaint at: <https://www.dancehallmag.com/assets/2022/03/Shenseea-lawsuit.pdf> accessed 28 June 2022.

[4] Pharrell Williams et al v Frankie Christian Gaye et al (2018) 895 F 3d 1106.

[5] Hackett v Interscope Records Inc (2022) 1:22-cv-01868-MKV.