For nonpayment, Chris O’Ryan, Justin Bieber’s vocal tech, filed a breach of contract lawsuit against Biber’s manager and JRC Entertainment, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company. O’Ryan seeks damages, a jury trial, promissory estoppel, and international interference with the contract. The claim alleges that O’Ryan’s 2018 agreement “simply entitled him to a point on any recording he engineered that was not featured for a performance.” 

The lawsuit claims that O’Ryan it was was only after he engineered thirteen tracks for Justin’s next album that he was notified that “his entitlement to a point on any recordings was considered to be purely within their discretion, and that he could not necessarily expect to receive a royalty on any of the Justice Tracks.”

In 2020, an email thread began where O’Ryan asked Bieber’s team to clarify the details “it was very clear that $2K + a point was our new deal moving forward on all Justin tuning and not on a case-by-case situation.”

According to the court documents, Braun replied, “Tek, I appreciate you, but I need to have a conversation with Josh as we didn’t know you are on some songs and some songs I have given too many pts to the producers.” 

Justin’s manager later said, “Our issue and I need to discuss with Josh is we didn’t even know you were involved in this song and there are too many pts with 4 major producers involved.” Allison Kaye, President of SB Projects, responded, “we can increase your fee on the feature per your request. But we can’t give a point on the Khaled record. It’s not our song.”

Tek seemed to contest this point and reportedly emailed Kaye back writing, “I thought when you said I would be contracting with a lot of diff labels for the point, I assumed that meant features too as I thought his records would be one source. Is it just for this record that I don’t or all the features?”

Kaye reportedly responded that “[w] can address on a case by case basis” and stated that the song “No Brainer” “presented exceptional circumstances.” The lawsuit further alleges that a long-form contract dated July 1, 2019, covered eighteen recordings. The court documents state that “None of the covered recordings were featured performances, as despite prior reassurances, points on such tracks would be considered on a ‘case by case’ basis.”

– Excerpt from an article for The Blast by . Read the full article here.

___________________________________________________________________

Disclaimer: Please note that the information contained within this news post and site is offered simply as a consideration to visitors who are in the entertainment industry and are seeking to learn more about various areas of entertainment, be it in film, movies, television, music, digital, new media, film financing, merchandising and/or branding. As such, the information so provided should never be construed as legal advice. If you need further assistance or legal advice for your specific matter, please do not hesitate in contacting an entertainment attorney (film, music, digital, licensing, financing) here in Los Angeles, California at The Hollywood Lawyer by(1) emailing us at info@hollywoodlawyer.com; (2) calling us at (323) 300-4184; or (3) filling out our online form. thehollywoodlawyer.com

Related Posts

Leave a Reply