Latest news with #courtroom
Yahoo
11 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Is Eminem About to Cost Meta Millions? His New Lawsuit Could Change the Game
Eminem is turning up the volume... in the courtroom. The rap icon and his production company, Eight Mile Style, have filed a lawsuit against Meta Platforms Inc., alleging the tech giant unlawfully distributed his music across Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp. The Wrap reported that the lawsuit, filed May 30 in Michigan, accuses Meta of 'knowing, rampant infringement' by allowing millions of users to remix and reuse Eminem's copyrighted songs — including 'Lose Yourself' — without securing valid licenses. Using Meta's Reels Remix and Original Audio tools, user-generated content featuring Eminem's music has reportedly been streamed billions of times. The damages sought could exceed $1 million, with statutory damages requested at up to $150,000 per song, per platform. The suit further alleges that Meta tried to obtain licensing through the digital royalty platform Audiam. However, Eight Mile Style claims that Audiam didn't have the authority to grant those rights in the first place. What's more, the suit claims Meta encouraged this unlicensed use despite knowing it lacked the proper permissions, which potentially strips the company of protection under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's (DMCA) safe harbor clause. Even after removing some content, such as 'Lose Yourself,' the complaint states that Meta continues to host unauthorized covers and instrumentals. Eminem's legal team is pushing for not only financial compensation, including actual damages and lost profits, but also a permanent injunction to prevent further unauthorized use. A jury trial has been requested. Meta has yet to publicly respond to the lawsuit. But the outcome could have major implications for music licensing in the age of social media, especially when user-generated content and algorithm-driven virality collide with copyright law. Eminem's lawsuit isn't just about one artist defending his catalog. It underscores a growing battle over how music is used, shared, and monetized in the age of user-generated content. Platforms like Instagram and Facebook rely heavily on background music to fuel engagement, especially through short-form video tools like Reels. But as artists and rights holders push back, this case could signal a turning point. If courts side with Eminem, it could force tech companies to overhaul how they obtain licenses and share revenue, especially for high-profile tracks. It also raises serious questions about the limits of the DMCA's safe harbor protections when platforms knowingly host and promote unlicensed content. In short, this lawsuit could reshape how artists protect their work and how platforms profit from Eminem About to Cost Meta Millions? His New Lawsuit Could Change the Game first appeared on Men's Journal on Jun 4, 2025
Fox News
a day ago
- Entertainment
- Fox News
Diddy Trial: Woman Thrown Out Of Court After Outburst
Diddy's trial was briefly thrown off course after a woman in the courtroom caused a scene before the jury entered. The husband of late actor Jonathan Joss believes his killing may have been a hate crime, though police say there's no evidence of that yet. And attorney Tony Buzbee has decided not to take on Moriah Mills' potential case against Zion Williamson. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit Jeffrey Petz
Reuters
a day ago
- General
- Reuters
Expert testimony in an era of skepticism of expertise
June 03, 2025 - The public discourse in America surrounding the value of expertise — specialized knowledge in a particular subject matter gained over years of study and experience — has markedly shifted over the past several years. Where individuals once looked to so-called "traditional institutions" — academia, old-guard print media, books, or network TV — for news and information, many now look to social media or alternative news outlets that align with a certain viewpoint or ideology. This shift in news/information consumption aligns with a growing skepticism toward expertise in everyday life, including skepticism of scientific, medical and legal experts. While American courtrooms have mechanisms that insulate them from the shift away from reliance on experts, the jury pool may still be affected by this change. Because expert testimony is a critical aspect of jury trials, we provide recommendations for tailoring expert testimony to accommodate jurors' changing preferences and to overcome the skepticism that they may bring to the courtroom. The change in preferred news and information sources has resulted in a pronounced difference in the way that average Americans receive and digest information. Today, approximately one in five Americans say they regularly get news from news influencers on social media, according to the Pew Research Center. Unlike traditional formats, information shared on social media sites is chopped into seconds-long snippets and presented by individuals of largely unknown or unverified qualifications, as reported by The New York Times, "For Gen Z, Tik Tok Is the New Search Engine." Sept. 16, 2022. As a result, an individual with only anecdotal knowledge of a complex issue such as ADHD ("TikTok Misinformation is Warping Young People's Understanding of ADHD," ScienceAlert, March 21, 2025) may be presented opining on the condition alongside — and apparently co-equal to — a Ph.D. psychologist with decades of experience. This contrasts with the traditional-news format in which only vetted "experts" were given a platform to speak to the masses. Commensurate with the evolution in the ways Americans consume news and media, there has been a recent systemic departure from reliance on expertise in everyday life. With access to unlimited information and online encouragement to "do your own research," Americans are placing less value in expertise, which manifests in multiple ways. Americans are losing trust in science. A 2023 survey by the Pew Research Center showed that 57% of Americans say science has a mostly positive effect on society, compared with 73% in January 2019. This loss of public trust in science matters because "[p]eople with greater trust in scientists are more likely to align their own beliefs and actions with expert guidance and understanding," the report concluded. Americans have also demonstrated a shift away from reliance on experts in the medical field, which was accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Association of American Medical Colleges attributes the shift to several factors, including that people are overwhelmed by information, the country is increasingly socially divided and politically polarized and trust in traditional institutions is eroding. Changes in the way average Americans consume information and the loss of trust in science means the jury pool is changing. Today's jurors, unlike those of 30 years ago, each have a powerful computer in their pockets that is connected via the internet to virtually all human knowledge (not to mention the budding field of AI). These jurors are much more likely to view themselves as capable of researching complex questions to gain expertise on a given subject matter than their predecessors. Jurors are normally instructed not to use outside sources for information, and there have been instances where such use has led to mistrial. Against this backdrop, what is a trial attorney to do? Experts are important in the courtroom. They are the only avenue by which a jury can be presented with opinions based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge. (See Federal Rules of Evidence 701 and 702.) It is also the experts' job to make complicated and often dry technical material both accessible and engaging to lay jurors. And experts matter to cases and case outcomes. For example, in the extremely high-profile murder trial of Derek Chauvin in 2021, in the death of George Floyd, the medical experts are widely considered to have been key to guiding the jury's understanding of the case, particularly Dr. Martin Tobin, a pulmonologist and critical care specialist, as reported in The New York Times. Dr. Tobin's testimony guided the jury through his analysis of hours of video footage of the arrest of Floyd, highlighting critical details in the videos. He also provided an anatomy lesson on the structure of the airway and operation of the lungs, with instructions for jurors to place their hands on their own necks to illustrate the areas he was describing. Other high-profile cases in which expert testimony has played a critical role include the OJ Simpson murder trial (forensic scientists), and various opioid litigations (public health and pharmaceutical industry experts). Patent litigators need effective expert testimony in every single one of their cases. How do trial lawyers meet this critical need for expert testimony given the current skepticism toward expertise? In some ways, the courtroom is uniquely insulated from the shift away from reliance on 701 of the Federal Rules of Evidence safeguards against parties offering unreliable opinions from lay witnesses. And Rule 702 requires courts to undertake rigorous analyses of the reliability and relevance of opinions offered by expert witnesses. See, "The New Daubert Standard: Implications of Amended FRE 702," JDSupra, May 17, 2024. But the courtroom is not immune to changes in the way that society prefers to receive and digest information. Jurors today bring their habits for consuming information into the courtroom with them. They may also have shorter attention spans and strong convictions that complicated issues are simple and they can figure them out on their own. Trial attorneys must adjust to accommodate these changing preferences; they should adapt to use the changing jury pool to their advantage. Do not rely on an expert's credentials alone. Academic degrees and experience are important in establishing an expert's credibility and the admissibility of their testimony, but attorneys cannot rely on an expert's qualifications alone to persuade jurors. Jurors are not going to believe an expert just because of their degrees or the number of papers they have published. Similar to the social media news providers, the best experts have the ability to connect with both the material they are presenting and the audience, which comes across as more authentic. One benefit of not relying on credentials alone is that it opens the door to junior, more enthusiastic experts who may have previously been dismissed as lacking the gravitas assumed to come with age. Create relatable expert narratives. No one likes listening to a seemingly endless march through boring, technical material, but certain areas of law (patent, products liability, etc.) can require the presentation of large amounts of technical data. Even worse than boredom, inauthenticity renders obvious "hired guns" especially risky in this environment of skepticism. In contrast, skilled experts can tell a story that not only makes the technical information understandable and relatable to the jury, but also gives them a reason to care about the outcome. What can the expert provide that a juror could not get from his/her own internet research? The best expert testimony incorporates opportunities for the expert to interject personal experiences with the technology or field of expertise to make it more relatable, such as research that they care about personally or that solved a problem they faced in their own career. Effective expert testimony will also incorporate engaging material such as testing that the jury can see with their own eyes or personalized tutorials on the technical issues at hand, like the one presented by the pulmonologist in the Chauvin trial. When jurors expect a feeling of proximity to the source of information, connection with jurors and authenticity are paramount. Incorporate expert testimony into a cohesive, resonant story. Great trial lawyers know that even the most technically challenging cases require a resonant story that incorporates ethos (is your case morally right?), pathos (does your case connect on an emotional level?) and logos (does your case make sense?). Often these thematic points are conveyed through narratives that highlight sympathetic parties, such as a scrappy inventor who toiled to bring about her invention or an innocent party harmed by another's actions. Strategic use of expert testimony can amplify these thematic points. For example, an expert with the right experience can not only explain the technical details of a case, but can also share first-hand knowledge, such as the challenges faced in the field, the historical context of the dispute, and the moral factors at play. By carefully connecting this information to overall themes of the case, the trial team can highlight the ethos, pathos, and logos of the story. Implementing these recommendations requires investment both in the selection of experts at the beginning of a case and the detailed planning for expert testimony at trial. The benefit of that investment is a compelling trial story that meets jurors where they are and presents critical expert testimony in a way that can overcome any skepticism they may bring to the courtroom.
ABC News
a day ago
- Politics
- ABC News
Accused mushroom murderer Erin Patterson gives evidence in court
Accused murderer Erin Patterson gave evidence to a packed Supreme Court for a second day in the Beef Wellington lunch triple murder case. Mike Lorigan was inside the court room.
The Independent
2 days ago
- General
- The Independent
New video shows Judge Hannah Dugan with federal agents in moment that led to her arrest
Newly obtained surveillance footage from inside a Wisconsin courthouse shows a county judge speaking with federal law enforcement officers before they arrested an undocumented immigrant moments after his hearing in the judge's courtroom. A week later, Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan was placed in handcuffs and accused of obstructing his arrest. Footage from April 18 shows at least six plain-clothes agents in ball caps and hooded sweatshirts arriving on Dugan's floor. At one point, one agent sits directly across from Dugan's courtroom. Minutes after Dugan's arrival, agents see Eduardo Flores-Ruiz and his attorney entering the courtroom. Flores-Ruiz faces domestic abuse charges stemming from an argument with his roommates, according to a criminal complaint. Dugan can be seen speaking to a pair of agents sitting on a bench in the courthouse hallway, and then appears to direct them down the hall. According to the criminal complaint, the agents told the judge they had an administrative warrant, which is typically issued by immigration authorities without a judge. The judge allegedly told the agents to see the chief judge about their plans to make an arrest inside the courthouse. The complaint accuses Dugan of exhibiting 'confrontational, angry demeanor' when speaking with federal agents. The surveillance footage does not include any audio. Dugan is standing still in the video while speaking with two agents, who appear relaxed and slouched on the benches. One agent begins to walk down the hall while Dugan continues speaking with the other agent. Dugan then gestures towards the other end of the hall. She walks the opposite direction when the agents walk away. None of the videos show the inside of her courtroom. A hearing for Flores-Ruiz lasted only a few minutes. Federal prosecutors allege Dugan directed Flores-Ruiz and his attorney out of her courtroom through a non-public door. But video footage shows the door was just a few feet from the main entrance. Flores-Ruiz and his attorney walk past federal agents as they head towards the elevator. One agent follows them to the elevator. According to a criminal complaint, the agent shared an elevator to the lobby with the both of them. Flores-Ruiz and his attorneys walk down a long hallway to exit the courthouse. An agent is seen walking behind them. Footage from outside the courthouse shows several agents running from the building. The criminal complaint alleges the agents chased Flores-Ruiz on foot before arresting him. Surveillance footage is likely to be used by both prosecutors and defense attorneys to make the case against Dugan. 'If you're predisposed to think that Judge Dugan did something criminal or wrongfully impeded ICE, you can find support for that preconception in the video. It's not conclusive, but you'll feel ratified,' Dean Strang, one of Dugan's attorneys, told ABC News. 'If you start from thinking she didn't do anything criminal, didn't do anything wrong, you'll find support for that in the video,' he added. 'For example, she does not appear to be angry. They don't show her a warrant. The man comes out within a few minutes, ten or 15 feet from where the agents expected him, and two of them see him coming in the hallway.' A two-count indictment charges Dugan with obstruction and concealing Flores-Ruiz to prevent his discovery and arrest. The charges carry a maximum penalty of six years in prison and a $350,000 fine. She has pleaded not guilty. A trial is tentatively scheduled to begin July 21. Her high-profile arrest — and Donald Trump 's administration's promotion of the accusations against her — has escalated the president's attacks against the judiciary as he launches an aggressive anti-immigration agenda. Last month, Dugan's attorneys filed a motion to dismiss the charges, claiming that the 'government cannot prosecute Judge Dugan because she is entitled to judicial immunity for her official acts.' Trump's efforts to prosecute judges is 'virtually unprecedented and entirely unconstitutional,' they added. The motion cites the Supreme Court's decision affirming presidential 'immunity' from criminal prosecution for actions in office — a ruling that effectively prevented Trump from facing any consequences in the cases against him. More than 150 former state and federal judges joined a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi blasting Dugan's case as an attempt to intimidate the judiciary. 'This cynical effort undermines the rule of law and destroys the trust the American people have in the nation's judges to administer justice in the courtrooms and in the halls of justice across the land,' they wrote. Last week, dozens of former judges filed a brief urging federal prosecutors to dismiss the case, warning that the indictment against her 'threatens to undermine centuries of precedent on judicial immunity, crucial for an effective judiciary.' The case 'represents an extraordinary and direct assault on the independence of the entire judicial system,' the former judges wrote. Prosecuting a sitting judge 'establishes a dangerous precedent that will chill judicial decision-making at every level,' they added.
