Megan Thee Stallion Sues Label Over Definition Of Album

Megan Thee Stallion has filed a lawsuit against her record label, 1501 Certified Entertainment, in a dispute over what does, and does not, constitute an “album”. 

It relates to the release last year of Something For Thee Hotties which she and her legal team want to have classified as a mixtape rather than an album for contractual purposes. Her record label takes the opposing view.

Megan’s team are insistent that Something For Thee Hotties “clearly meets the definition of ‘Album’” and are arguing 1501 Certified Entertainment wants to impose the “mixtape” definition in order to “tie [Megan] down” for its own “financial benefit”.

This will all relate back to the recording contract she signed with the record company which will outline what the deliverables are (i.e. how many albums she signed up to deliver). By arguing that Something For Thee Hotties is not an album, the label will be demanding that its release does not constitute ticking off one of the required albums on her contract. 

Her legal team adds that she was only informed two months after its release that the label did not consider it an album. They propose that, as per her contract, an album constitutes any body of work with a run time of over 45 minutes. Something For Thee Hotties just about passes that threshold – by two seconds. 

“The rapper is seeking a non-monetary declaratory judgment that the record meets the definition of an album and any attorney’s fees as a result of the case,” writes Digital Music News. “That would satisfy her current contract under 1501 Entertainment.

There is a brief but bitter history between the rapper and her label as this is the second time she has started legal action against 1501. In early 2020, she moved to renegotiate her contract with the label, adding in a video post that she “didn’t really know what was in my contract” when she signed it. “When I got with Roc Nation, I got management – real management,” she claimed. “I got real lawyers. They were like, ‘Do you know that this is in your contract?’ and I was like, ‘ Oh damn, that’s crazy – no, I didn’t know.’”

The “album” versus “mixtape” debate is not new, but has traditionally been argued along creative lines rather than contractual ones. 

A feature in Vice in 2013 proposed that as the role of mixtapes have evolved significantly since the early days of hip-hop, a process that has been accelerated due to acts being able to easily distribute them online. “[W]hat distinguishes a modern rap mixtape from a rap album is its goals,” argued Vice. 

“Albums are supposed to move units and to generate singles,” it continued. “They fit into the well-oiled, decades-old recording industry machinery. While mixtapes can (and often do) produce singles and sell some copies, their targets are more flexible. Mixtapes are a way to attract new fans, something for old fans to talk about on social media, a reason to tour, and a way to show off collaborations with bigger artists. Mixtapes move a rapper’s career forward, and they can do that without selling a single copy.”

Beyond the specifics of her contract with her label lie wider industry debates about the role and appeal of albums in the digital age. Napster in 1999 unbundled the album and allowed users to focus on individual tracks, although it was completely unlicensed to do so. That unbundling process was legitimised by the record business in 2003 with the arrival of the iTunes Music Store, selling individual tracks for a flat rate of $0.99 each. Since then, downloading has been overtaken by streaming and the emphasis has shifted to how tracks work in a playlisting environment. 

Kanye West, with the release of The Life Of Pablo in 2016, questioned what an album was on a creative level, turning it into a moveable feast by repeatedly adding new tracks and removing others, something that was only feasible and economically viable in the digital age. What he did was the exception rather than the rule, but does tie into a wider debate about what an album is and what an album is for. 

On the contractual issues and arguments around albums, this is a story that dates back to 1960 when jazz pianist Erroll Garner successfully sued Columbia Records for breach of contract. It related to the label releasing tracks from his studio archives without his approval or consent while they were renegotiating his recording contract. After a three-year battle, Garner won the landmark case and received not only a cash settlement but also the return of his masters. 

Since then, other acts have been empowered to go up against their labels – with mixed results. 

Notable cases include: Neil Young being sued by Geffen Records in 1983 for allegedly making “unrepresentative” and “uncharacteristic” albums; George Michael’s failed legal action against Sony in 1992; Prince’s long-running battles with Warner in the 1990s; Courtney Love breaking her contract with Universal Music Group in 2002; and Michael Jackson’s public feud with Sony Music in the early 2000s, where he said they “really, really do conspire against the artists – they steal, they cheat, they do everything they can”, suggesting this was especially common “against the black artists”. 

More recently we have seen Taylor Swift go back and start to re-record her albums originally released on Big Machine Records after it was acquired by private equity firms in a deal led by Scooter Braun, an executive she had a fraught relationship with. Last year, Raye went public about her dispute with Polydor (part of Universal Music Group) where she argued the label was killing her career by not allowing her to release music the way she wanted. (Polydor quickly released her from her contract when the story exploded.)

How Megan Thee Stallion’s case plays out still remains to be seen. As it joins all the examples (and more) above in the long litany of artist-versus-label legal battles, the only thing that is certain about this dispute is that it will not be the last.