Jay-Z and Beyonce are facing a federal copyright infringement lawsuit from Dr. L’Antoinette Stines, a Jamaican artist who claims they took her work without giving her any credit or money, leaving her feeling ‘artistically r*ped.’
Stines told the court that the super-couple, according to TMZ, reached out to her in March of 2018 seeking local dancers to perform in a promotional video for a tour.
Stines said in court docs that after she accomplished that task, she recorded a clip in which she talked about the concept of love at the behest of the artists.
Stines told the court their camp, on the day they were filming, told her the clip would be used only ‘for promotional purposes’.
So she signed a contract giving them permission to use it for that reason – but it wound up on a key portion of the track.
Instead, Stines’ voice was heard prominently in the track’s first minute as the Jamaican artist gave an impassioned explanation on how she views love.
After she was asked, ‘Can you tell us about love?’ she gave an extended answer on the topic, which was underscored by music on the track.
She said, ‘Hmm, well there’s love of children, love of self, love of God, love of a partner – and all of them have a different shape.
‘But all of them is the same in the end: It’s about sensitivity, it’s about passion, it’s about unconditional giving of self to another person.’
Stines also referred to the ‘love of humanity, adding, ‘that’s the love that is right now needed most … but in everything, in all of that love, there is a soul.’
She ended her answer with an analogy about love: ‘It’s like when you take some eggs and break them and you, and you take the shells and mix them up, trying to find the ones that match.
‘When you find the perfect match, that compatibility results in passion, results in unconditional giving of self … I hope I can say it again.’
In the song, which was on The Carters’ 2018 album Everything Is Love, Jay-Z begins rapping shortly after Stines is done replying to the question.
Stines is also requesting damages in the case and told the court their use of her voice violated her right to publicity.