Amapiano duo sues Distell for R1.5m
Song used without permission by firm
A legal showdown is brewing between amapiano artists Smangori noblack Messiah and the producers of popular wine 4th Street after the company allegedly used their song to market the wine on Bontle Modiselle’s social media pages without their permission.
The duo is demanding R1.5-million in compensation from Distell and Stay Law for using its hit, Kushubile, to promote the wine through the popular “kushibule challenge” competition, which went viral on social media.
Several videos of the challenge with the name “4th Street” displayed on top of the screen, saw various dancers showcasing their jitterbugging prowess on Modiselle’s pages while the ditty, which has more than 70 million followers on Tiktok, is playing in the background. This angered the artists, who are now demanding compensation.
News of their legal battle came to the fore when the artists’ lawyers, Mifaka Sihlali Attorneys, sent a letter of demand to Distell and Stay last week. In the letter, which we have seen, the artists said the company unlawfully used the tune to market and promote the wine on March 15 on the pages of Modiselle, who they believed to be the 4th Street ambassador.
They threatened to go to court if the company did not comply with their demands.
Responding to the threats through its lawyers, Kisch IP Attorneys, the company questioned the artist’s ownership of the ditty. “As advised, your clients have not identified the
relevant right, your clients’ proprietorship thereof or the cause of action. As for the allegation regarding damages in the amount of R1.5-million, there is no particulars of the computation of this amount. What our client can gather from your aforementioned letter is that there was alleged use of a song without permission,” reads the letter.
Distell also suggested that the artists deserved to be paid between R5 000 and R7 500 for use of the song, and cautioned them against any litigation because its costs would exceed the compensation they demanded.
“The reason we are noting this is because if your clients are being advised that it may be entitled to damages, even if it were to prove a case of infringement (the costs of such a trial will likely exceed R400000 and for which your clients are unlikely to recover more than 40% to 50% of such costs if successful), your clients would still need to prove damage in a further damages inquiry trial (which again, the costs of such a trial will likely exceed R400 000). If your clients are successful damages... we respectfully submit, will not exceed R5000 to R7500,” the letter reads in part.