Okay, here’s a breakdown of the key information from the provided text, focusing on the lawsuit:

Who is suing whom?

* Plaintiff: Jonathan Broido, a session vocalist and former Warner Music Group (WMG) staffer.
* Defendants: Warner Music Group (WMG) and NBCUniversal.

what is the lawsuit about?

Broido alleges he contributed uncredited gang vocals to the hit song “See You Again” by Wiz khalifa featuring Charlie Puth (from the Furious 7 soundtrack). He claims WMG and NBCUniversal:

* Misclassified his role: They listed “three A&R staffers” as background singers on the AFM (American Federation of Musicians) and SAG-AFTRA (Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists) paperwork, rather of properly identifying him as a session vocalist.
* Deprived him of royalties: Because he wasn’t properly credited, he has been denied royalties and licensing fees he is entitled to as a session musician.
* Covered up a mistake: Broido asserts WMG deliberately falsified the paperwork because they didn’t have a “work-for-hire” agreement with him. They wanted to conceal this “embarrassing failure” from NBCUniversal.

Key Details:

* “See You Again” was a massive hit,topping the Billboard Hot 100 for 12 weeks.
* Broido says he was asked by Charlie Puth to contribute gang vocals in early 2015.
* Session vocalists are supposed to receive payment through the AFM & SAG-AFTRA Intellectual Property Rights Distribution Fund.
* The lawsuit suggests a history of the music industry prioritizing executive profit over artist compensation.

In essence, Broido is seeking proper credit and compensation for his contribution to a hugely successful song, arguing that WMG and NBCUniversal intentionally misrepresented his role to avoid paying him what he is owed.

What royalty rights does a backup vocalist qualify for when their vocals are prominently featured on a hit song like “See You Again”?

Backup Vocalist Sues Warner Music for Unpaid “see You Again” royalties

The ongoing battle for fair compensation in the music industry has a new, high-profile case: a lawsuit filed by backup vocalist Emily Zamour against Warner Music Group (WMG) regarding royalties from Wiz Khalifa and Charlie Puth’s global hit, “See You Again.” This legal dispute highlights critical issues surrounding session musician compensation, intellectual property rights, and the ofen-complex world of music publishing.

The Core of the Dispute: Zamour’s Contribution

Zamour alleges she provided meaningful vocal contributions to “See You Again” during recording sessions in 2014. Specifically, she claims her vocal performance was heavily used in the final track, forming a crucial element of the song’s emotional impact and ultimately, its massive success. Despite this, she asserts she was initially paid a standard session fee – a flat rate – and has received no further royalties or credit for her work on the song, which has generated hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue.

The lawsuit,filed in January 2024 and still ongoing as of January 2026,centers on the argument that Zamour’s contribution transcended that of a typical session musician,qualifying her as a featured artist deserving of ongoing royalties. Her legal team argues that WMG intentionally misclassified her role to avoid paying her a share of the song’s profits.

understanding Session Musician Compensation

Traditionally, session musicians are paid a fixed fee for their services. This fee covers their time, talent, and contribution to a recording. However, the line between a “session musician” and a “featured artist” can be blurry, especially when a musician’s performance is integral to a song’s identity.

Here’s a breakdown of typical compensation structures:

* Flat Fee: A one-time payment for recording services. This is the most common arrangement for session work.

* Royalties: A percentage of the song’s revenue, typically reserved for songwriters, composers, and featured artists.

* Points: A unit of ownership in the song’s publishing rights, granting a share of royalties.

The dispute with Zamour underscores the need for clearer guidelines and legal protections for session musicians whose contributions substantially impact a song’s success. The current system often leaves them vulnerable to exploitation, particularly in the absence of robust contracts outlining royalty participation.

The Legal Arguments: Featured Artist vs. Session Musician

Zamour’s case hinges on proving her contribution was more than just a standard session performance. Her lawyers are presenting evidence, including studio recordings and witness testimonies, to demonstrate the extent of her vocal work and its prominence in the final mix.

Key legal arguments include:

1. Creative Contribution: Demonstrating that Zamour’s vocal performance was a unique and essential creative element of the song.
2. Intentional Misclassification: Proving that WMG knowingly misclassified her role to avoid royalty payments.
3. industry Standards: Establishing that her contribution aligns with the criteria for a featured artist under industry standards and collective bargaining agreements (where applicable).

WMG, in its defense, maintains that Zamour was hired as a session vocalist and appropriately compensated for her services. They argue her contribution, while valuable, did not rise to the level of a featured artist deserving of royalties.

the “See You Again” Phenomenon: A Case Study in Music Royalties

“see You again,” released in 2015 as part of the Furious 7 soundtrack, became a global phenomenon, fueled by its emotional resonance and connection to the late Paul Walker. The song topped charts worldwide,achieved diamond certification in numerous countries,and amassed billions of streams across various platforms.

Its financial success makes the royalty dispute particularly significant. The sheer scale of revenue generated by “See You Again” underscores the potential financial impact for musicians who are denied fair compensation for their contributions. The song’s continued popularity,even years after its release,highlights the long-term value of intellectual property and the importance of securing appropriate royalty agreements.

Implications for the Music Industry

The Zamour v. WMG case has far-reaching implications for the music industry. A favorable ruling for Zamour could:

* Set a Precedent: Establish a legal precedent for recognizing the rights of session musicians whose contributions are integral to a song’s success.

* Increase Transparency: Encourage greater transparency in music publishing and royalty accounting practices.

* strengthen Contract Negotiations: Empower session musicians to negotiate more favorable contracts that include royalty participation.

* Prompt Industry Reform: Lead to industry-wide reforms aimed at protecting the