A Los Angeles jury has ruled against Ye in a copyright infringement case that carries serious implications for how artists handle samples at public events, even when those samples never make it to the final commercial release.
The case centered on Ye’s July 2021 listening party for his album Donda at Atlanta’s Mercedes-Benz Stadium, where 40,000 fans heard an early version of the song Hurricane featuring a sample of MSD PT2, an instrumental created in 2018 by four musicians: Khalil Abdul-Rahman, Sam Barsh, Josh Mease, and Dan Seeff. The sample was never cleared, and Ye ultimately removed it from the publicly released version of Hurricane, instead interpolating elements of the track and crediting the four men as songwriters.
The plaintiffs’ argument was straightforward: the listening party generated revenue through ticket sales and merchandising, yet no license or clearance agreement existed for the sample use. Their lawyer, Irene Lee, emphasized in court that “there was no deal, no agreement, no licence, and no clearance.”
The jury sided with the plaintiffs, awarding them a six-figure sum. Ye’s legal team told Billboard the amount would be smaller than the plaintiffs sought, arguing Ye was not liable for four separate compensation awards as claimed.
A Critical Distinction Between Sample and Interpolation
The case highlights a distinction that often confuses rights holders and creators. While Ye’s final version of Hurricane used an interpolation—a re-creation of musical elements rather than the original sample—the listening party version used the actual sample without permission. The fact that the sample never reached commercial release did not shield Ye from liability for its use at a monetized public event.
Ye appeared in person during the hearing and told the court: “I pride myself on giving people what they deserve,” while also stating: “I feel like a lot of people try to take advantage of me. As I sit in this courtroom today, I just think people are trying to make more than they otherwise would because it’s me.”
The plaintiffs had sought additional damages for lost revenue from the finished recording, but a judge dismissed that claim earlier in the year.
Ye’s representative characterized the verdict as a “failed shakedown,” though the jury’s decision stands.
This marks the second lawsuit Ye has lost in 2026. Earlier this year, he was ordered to pay $140,000 to a handyman over unpaid renovation work at a Malibu property.
What Comes Next
The ruling establishes precedent for sample clearance obligations at live events, regardless of whether material reaches commercial release. Publishers and producers should monitor whether Ye’s legal team pursues appeal.
For editorial consideration and industry coverage inquiries, contact [email protected]
