How The American Legal System Has Failed Black Artists

David Drake, a famed American potter, spent much of his life in enslavement [1]. Only around 270 of the 40,000 pieces he made during his lifetime remain, but they each tell a story of the poetic resistance of a formerly enslaved man [2]. However, looking at the triumph of Drake’s life, one is struck by two irksome realities. From the pieces Drake created during his enslavement, he did not make a penny, while his slaveholders made thousands. Even worse, while his pieces sell for millions of dollars today, none fill the pockets of his own direct ancestors. The United States suffers from a longstanding history of exploitation of Black art, artistry, and intellectual property. From slavery and segregation to social media and copyright laws, the American legal framework has complicated, and often prevented, proper compensation and recognition for Black artists across industries.

Antebellum: The Enslaved Artist
Under antebellum, slave codes across the United States entirely disenfranchised Black enslaved Americans. Across the colonies, enslaved Americans were seen as property with no rights as citizens, and thus no intellectual property protection. In fact, in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), the Supreme Court found that enslaved people could not expect any protection from the federal government or the courts [3]. With no protection from the law, enslaved Black Americans had no right to intellectual property. Under antebellum, there was no way for artists like David Drake to claim ownership of their artistic creations. While enslaved, all of Drake’s pottery creations belonged to his enslavers, meaning he never saw the fortune created by his artistic work. Policies such as those in the Virginia Slave Codes of 1705 claimed that as property themselves, slaves could not own property or be party to a contract [4]. Thus, enslaved workers in the American colonies, and later the United States, had absolutely no right to their own work. As enslaved Americans were not included in the United States census until the end of slavery, the identities and occupations of many enslaved artists have been lost to history, with artists like David Drake being one of few artists who managed to reveal their identity through their art [5]. Part of the $14 trillion worth of labor stolen from enslaved people during Antebellum was art from paintings to craftsmanship to pottery [6]. The erasure of Black artists during antebellum became a defining pillar of the American legal system, which has continued to disadvantage Black artists since.

1920s and 1930s: Inescapable Exploitation
Following the Civil War and the passing of the 13th and 14th amendments, Black artists gained access to their complete rights as citizens of the United States [7,8]. Still, the rise of Jim Crow laws during the Reconstruction Era added new barriers for Black artists. With Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the Supreme Court decided that racial segregation laws did not violate the Constitution as long as separate facilities were equal in quality [9]. This “separate but equal” doctrine reinforced Jim Crow and segregation. All the while, African-American musicians were creating some of the first melodies of jazz in New Orleans, Louisiana. Twenty years later, the Jazz Age and Roaring 20’s popularized the art form, but its creators hardly reaped the benefits. Due to segregation laws, Black artists across the country, from Chicago to New York City, were barred from entering and playing in prestigious nightclubs [10].

Although some venues known as black and tan clubs fostered interracial connections and featured Black players and audiences, the largest financial and exposure opportunities were elsewhere. In venues like the Cotton Club in Harlem, Black musicians were featured performers for white audiences, allowing opportunities for exposure and fame and combating Jim Crow laws [11]. However, exploitation and pressure from employers ran rampant, preventing artists from proper financial compensation and self-expression.

According to performers like Lena Horne, club owners would overwork and underpay performers [12]. Owner Owney “The Killer” Madden refused to let artists like Duke Ellington leave the club unless he paid the orchestra with his own money [13]. Very little of the revenue from the Cotton Club actually returned to the pockets of Black artists, and their treatment was regularly in violation of labor laws. For example, wage deduction and overworked hours in Duke Ellington’s contract violated Articles 5 and 6 of the Consolidated Labor Laws of New York State, established on March 9, 1921 [14]. Article 5 Section 160, which covered hours of labor, found that for workers like artists, a legal day’s work was eight hours and that agreements for overwork must be matched by increased compensation [15]. Article 6 Section 193 prohibits employers from making deductions from employees’ wages except when in accordance with provisions of any laws [16]. One of the only instances in which Cotton Club management could have legally taken money from Ellington was if they were receiving repayment for advanced wages. Certainly, forcing Ellington to work extensive hours and deducting his pay were beyond legality.

Even in the film business, Black artists faced significant pay discrimination. In the popular film Gone With the Wind, Hattie McDaniel was paid $450 a week, significantly less than her co-stars for a proportionately same amount of work [17]. Still, this kind of discrimination was legal until Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination, including unequal pay based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin [18]. The few Black artists who graced big screens were regularly undercompensated for their contributions.

Still, Ellington, McDaniel and many artists lacked the autonomy to fight back. With a justice system that had a weak grip on gangsters like Owney Madden, who ran The Cotton Club, there was no way for Black artists to contest their treatment without fear of fatal retaliation [19]. In extreme cases in the Jim Crow South, contract-enforcement laws criminally, rather than civilly, illegalized the breach of employment contracts by Black employees [20]. Thus Black artists had two choices in the face of exploitation: endure, be imprisoned, or worse.

1950s and 1960s: Intellectual Property and Contract Manipulation
Interestingly, the height of the Civil Rights Movement, when activists were working to change the legal system to help Black people, was also the height of music theft. Black artists spearheaded Blues and Rock & Roll music, but were dismissed as sleazy and classless[]. However, white artists took inspiration from and at times directly replicated Black artists’ riffs and tunes, profiting off of Black creation. Intellectual property theft ran rampant in the 1950s and 1960s. Music icons from Janis Joplin to the Beatles, replicated and sampled Black musicians’ songs without crediting them [21]. Even Elvis Presley profited from Black art, with some of his most iconic songs including “Hound Dog,” “Ain’t That a Shame,” and “Shake, Rattle, and Roll,” being covers of songs by Black artists Big Mama Thorton, Fats Domino and Big Joe Turner respectively [22]. Elvis’ version of Hound Dog sold 10 million copies globally, while Big Mama Thorton was only compensated $500 for her contribution [23].

Still, not all Black artists were helpless against intellectual property theft. In 1963, musician Chuck Berry (known as “The Father of Rock and Roll”) threatened to sue the popular band The Beach Boy’s for copyright infringement, claiming they plagiarized his song “Sweet Little Sixteen” in their hit, “Surfin’ USA” [24]. The Beach Boys’ manager succumbed to Berry’s threat and relinquished the songwriting credit to Berry and copyright to Arc Music, Berry’s publishing company [25]. Berry's ability to achieve copyright justice through legal action was unique to him as an established artist. For most other Black artists of the time, the legal system was structured to prevent them from effectively using it.

While the Copyright Act of 1831 established music creations as copyrightable works, Black artists were unable to take advantage of these protections for years [26]. In the first 34 years after its passing, Black Americans were not even considered citizens. In the following century, barriers to opportunity and contract exploitation disincentivized Black artists from taking legal action. Black artists were frequently signed to record labels to write songs used by white artists were frequently undercompensated and unnamed on records. Though the Copyright Act of 1909 ought to have protected music created by Black writers, it provided no copyright protection to works without a copyright affixed to them or specifically written music notation [27]. For most Black artists, this proved a barrier as it meant that live performances or recordings were not protected by copyright laws, removing black artists' claim over their music. Even more, contract exploitation within record labels stripped Black artists of ownership over their own music.

In unclear contracts, record labels like Chess Records could assume ownership of its artists’ music, so their intellectual property technically belonged to the record label’s owner, leaving them full control of the sale and royalties on Black musicians’ songs. Meanwhile, owners overworked and underpaid Black artists in violation of restrictions set by the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, which established federal minimum wage and maximum workweek [28,29]. For larger artists, labels like Chess Records catapulted them to fame but not fortune. Smaller artists saw neither outcome. In the 1970s, several artists from Chess Records, including Muddy Waters, sued Chess Records for royalty payments. In 1987, singer Bo Diddley claimed that despite selling millions of records worldwide with Chess Records, he never saw “a … dime” [30]. Chess Records and other labels’ failure to pay their employees could be considered contract manipulation through fraudulent misrepresentation [31]. Owners falsely represented the compensation artists could expect for their hours and musical contributions, or wrongfully claimed artists were not eligible for compensation at all, before artists signed on to the label. Only a few artists became successful enough to fight their labels in court.

Still, where the legal system failed Black artists the most was in systemically ensuring that Black artists could do nothing. Until the Civil Rights Act of 1965 was passed, discriminatory practices for admission into higher education and the workforce were legal and rampant in some parts of the country. Black artists generally only had access to Black lawyers, who themselves were deeply hindered in their freedom to effectively practice law. In fact, Black lawyers were not deemed eligible to join the American Bar Association until 1943 [32]. By 1970, there were only about 3,406 Black lawyers in the country [33]. Not only were there limited resources and opportunities for legal action, most Black artists did not have sufficient funds to pay for legal support against their record labels or against artists who had stolen their music.

Take the legal battle faced by the family of Robert Johnson, the Blues legend who “sold his soul to the devil”. Dying at just 27, Johnson’s fame came posthumously and along with it, millions of dollars in royalties [34]. Johnson’s son, Claud underwent a ten year legal battle in the 1990s to prove he was the rightful heir to the royalties fortune with the help of Mississippi law firm Kitchen & Ellis. Claud, who had only received an eighth grade education, struck a deal paying Kitchen & Ellis 40% of his father’s royalties [35]. After twenty years, the firm has been paid $2 million and counting and it continues to profit from their contract with the Johnson family[36]. Though contingency fees are often necessary and are legal, Michael Johnson, Claud’s son, feels the contract deal lasting over 20 years took advantage of Claud’s lack of education [37]. Michael Johnson has attempted to appeal the royalties contract with the Mississippi Supreme Court.

The Johnson family exemplifies the way the legal system has disadvantaged Black artists, and their descendants through time. Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) and its maintenance through Jim Crow laws can be held responsible for the under-education of Claud Johnson, Robert Johnson’s son. Claud was educated before the Supreme Court ruling Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which prohibited discrimination in education. Thus, for Black Americans in the South, separate but “equal” facilities meant Black schools had fewer resources, inadequate supplies, outdated textbooks, and overpopulated classrooms [38]. Additionally, annual terms tended to be significantly shorter for Black students [39].Even more, wage inequality and employment limitations established through Black Codes in the South, forced young Black children to leave school earlier to support their families [40]. Combined, these were likely contributing factors to Johnson leaving school after eighth grade. Decades later, the same legal system that disadvantaged Johnson returned to take advantage of him as he tied himself into a contract that he likely did not understand. Johnson’s experience reflects one faced by many Black artists of the 1950s and 1960s, many of whom were undereducated and under informed about the contracts they found themselves in.

For Black artists, legal action became a question of opportunity cost. With few Black lawyers, high prices, and a justice system poised against them, the risk of falling out with record labels for some financial compensation was not worth it. Because there were success stories like Chuck Berry who had found some significant financial success, many Black artists, urged on by record label owners, continued to face labor exploitation and intellectual property theft with hopes that their “big-break” would arrive.

Even more, if Black artists were to take matters to court, discriminatory jury selection could stand in the way of justice. Until the Supreme Court’s decision in Swain v. Alabama (1965), Black people had been overtly and illegally excluded from jury service across the United States [41]. The courts found that the underrepresentation of Black citizens on juries was not indicative of racial discrimination in jury selection, making it even harder to prove intentional discrimination on jury selection [42]. This exclusion often meant that all-white juries would not vote in favor of Black plaintiffs when fighting against financial or labor exploitation in court, in order to protect their white counterparts.

Modern Music (1990s and Beyond)
Amendments to copyright laws in the 1970s and 1980s made intellectual property theft significantly more difficult across the artistic business. The Copyright Act of 1976 expanded the definition of copyrightable works to include literary works, musical works including accompanying words and sound recordings, dramatic works including accompanying music, choreographic works, graphic works, pictorial and sculptural works, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works [43]. Despite the broader range of copyrightable works, Black artists’ contributions, particularly in the music industry, continued to be uncredited. For example, it took 20 years for singer Ashanti to receive credits for her vocal and lyrical contributions to Jennifer Lopez’s songs “I’m Real” (2001) and “Ain’t It Funny” (2002) [44]. Simply, as a lyricist and performer, Ashanti was subject to credit by the Copyright Act of 1976. However, as a young, up-and-coming artist, Ashanti likely was not privy to the legal rights she had.

Today, copyright and intellectual property in the music industry is a constant headline, with artists frequently suing for credit or royalties on other artists’ songs. Famously, musician Taylor Swift was given royalties and songwriting credits for Olivia Rodrigo’s song “Deja Vu,” as Rodrigo attempted to avoid a lawsuit for allegedly interpolating melodies from Swift’s song [45, 46]. Swift also frequents the news for re-recording her albums so that she monopolizes control and ownership over her music’s use and distribution [47]. While Swift was able to accomplish this in the straightforward realm of the music recording industry, new artists making their name through social media platforms face new legal questions in obtaining ownership over their work. How can artists protect their intellectual property when their creations are open to millions of people in a matter of seconds? On social media, the lines of copyright law and intellectual property are blurred, with eased or unchecked restrictions on using creators’ work without crediting them.

Black Influence and Social Media

In the age of social media, copyright laws once again disadvantage rising Black creators. Black artists’ dances, music, and popular sounds are used by bigger artists and businesses (in advertisements) who often end up popularizing and profiting off of their work. Artists must ask themselves how they can protect their intellectual property and profit off of their own art when regulations on social media and its relationship with intellectual property is so new. Furthermore, artists must ask whether publicly available art can be used without a license.

Technically, the answer is no. According to the U.S. Copyright Office, as soon as a work is created, it receives automatic copyright protection [48]. Under this logic, anytime a sound is used on social media or a dance is replicated by another creator, credit must be afforded to the original creator. To be sure, this standard has been established between online creators on apps like TikTok. In 2020, dancer Jalaiah Harmon created the “Renegade” dance, which was replicated with slight alterations by another creator Charli D’amelio, who did not credit Jalaiah for the original dance [49]. While D’amelio’s career catapulted, Harmon remained unknown until D’Amelio received backlash for using the creator’s dance. Harmon eventually received recognition but never amassed the same levels of fame or wealth as D’Amelio. This incident created a culture on social media where users, especially popular creators, credited choreographers when using their TikTok dances. What has not been as well established, however, is copyright protection for popular sounds on TikTok.

Over the past few years, Black creators have seen their original sounds – audios of themselves talking or singing original songs – be used by large corporations which would not compensate or credit them for the use of their voice. When considering the Copyright Act of 1976, this is blatant copyright infringement [50]. Big corporations have successfully taken legal action against copyright infringement to protect their artists on social media. For example, Sony Music sued Gymshark for $44 million over its official page and ambassador influencers’ use of Sony’s music recordings across various social media platforms [51]. However, smaller artists lack the legal capital to take such action. Black artists, who tend to be at the forefront of TikTok and other social media trends, are more susceptible to this intellectual theft. In a statement on new Intellectual Property Policy released by TikTok on March 27, 2025, the platform found that, “certain exceptions to copyright infringement allow the use of copyrighted works under certain circumstances without authorization from the copyright holder” [52]. While artists on TikTok are encouraged to settle infringement disputes directly, reporting copyright infringement is not an easy feat. Reports must pass through statutory requirements set by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in the United States [53]. Despite all works receiving immediate copyright protection, in order to initiate a lawsuit, artists must register their work with the copyright office, adding barriers to pursuing justice. For many TikTok creators, the process of meeting those requirements is out of reach as they struggle to get legal copyright ownership in the first place. When creators consider their disadvantage in navigating legal jargon themselves, the fiscal cost of legal help, and the time and energy lost to a potential legal battle, fighting for their intellectual property loses its importance. For the majority of creators who do not identify as full-time influencers, the time away from work and everyday lives to fight large corporations or wealthier celebrities and influencers is not worth it.

Even more, the extent of TikTok’s intellectual property protection is not as far-reaching as they seem. Artists who make recorded and published songs available on TikTok, and who typically have the songs published on other platforms, are more likely to be protected by TikTok’s copyright policies because of the officiality of their published work. However, one-off sounds, clips of people talking or singing, according to TikTok count as public domain. TikTok’s copyright policy claims “exceptions to copyright such as quotation, criticism, and/or review of the copyrighted content” can be used by anyone, including big businesses, without crediting the creator [54]. In the case that a popular sound is clipped from a creator’s review of a movie or song, corporations can legally use that audio in their own advertisements without crediting or compensating the creator. Essentially, the copyright standard is not the same. As many Black creators contribute to some of the most viral audios, dances, and trends on social media through informal videos, it is far less likely for them to qualify for financial compensation for the use of their creations, let alone receive credits.

When compounding the intricate technicalities of copyright law on apps like TikTok and the general inaccessibility of legal help or understanding, intellectual property law renders unusable for most American users on platforms like TikTok. For Black creators, who often face additional financial and educational barriers, and who tend to share entertainment informally, the issue is only exacerbated. The difference in legal response to previously or extraneously published works and works published solely on social media raises additional questions of where copyright law standards apply if it changes from app to app. Simply, it further complicates the question of what counts as copyright infringement and reduces people’s ability to fight it. Even more, with contrasting standards, informal creators who do take their cases to court must operate under two completely different precedents, making it harder to successfully claim copyright infringement. In today’s social media environment, Black artists are more vulnerable to intellectual theft than ever. Despite copyright policies put forward by social media platforms and acts like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, the road to fully protecting intellectual property remains insurmountable for many Black creators.

From slavery to segregation to social media, American legal frameworks have historically worked against Black artists. Discriminatory wages through the 20th century, rampant intellectual theft, and a complicated legal system have barred artists from receiving their due recognition and financial compensation for their significant contributions to American culture and society. While the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965 and the Fair Labor Standards Act legally prohibit the race-based discrimination that hindered Black artists in the past, the American legal system has much further to go. Copyright law as it stands best serves the knowledgeable and the well-resourced. In a study conducted at Lewis & Clark University, Brian Libgober found that it remains harder to attain lawyers while Black in America, meaning artists often face legal proceedings without proper representation [55]. Beyond the technicalities of what constitutes copyrightable work, the legal system’s treatment of Black artists reflects a bigger problem of inequity. Throughout history, achieving justice through the law has been harder, and at times impossible, for minority and socio-economically disadvantaged individuals.

Looking forward, lawyers and scholars must ask themselves how to systematically and practically equalize the legal system. When it comes to intellectual property, it is time to reconsider how to give smaller artists a chance at real justice.

References

[1] “Dave the Potter: Resistance through Poetic Pottery - The American Ceramic Society.” [https://ceramics.org/ceramic-tech-today/dave-the-potter-resistance-through-poetic-pottery/]

[2] “Dave the Potter: Resistance through Poetic Pottery - The American Ceramic Society.” [https://ceramics.org/ceramic-tech-today/dave-the-potter-resistance-through-poetic-pottery/].

[3] Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)

[4] “Africans in America/Part 1/Virginia’s Slave Codes.” https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part1/1p268.html .

“‘An Act Concerning Servants and Slaves’ (1705).” Encyclopedia Virginia. https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/an-act-concerning-servants-and-slaves-1705/ .

[5] “Dave the Potter: Resistance through Poetic Pottery - The American Ceramic Society.” https://ceramics.org/ceramic-tech-today/dave-the-potter-resistance-through-poetic-pottery/ .

[6] Craemer, Thomas. 2015. “Estimating Slavery Reparations: Present Value Comparisons of Historical Multigenerational Reparations Policies.” Social Science Quarterly 96(2): 639–55. doi:10.1111/ssqu.12151.

[7] U.S. Constitution Amendment XIII
“U.S. Constitution - Thirteenth Amendment | Resources | Constitution Annotated | Congress.Gov | Library of Congress.” https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-13/ (April 28, 2025).

[8] U.S. Constitution Amendment XIV
“U.S. Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment | Resources | Constitution Annotated | Congress.Gov | Library of Congress.” https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/ (April 28, 2025).

[9] U.S. Supreme Court Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896)

[10] Conselatore, Bobby. 2022. “A Brief History of Jazz.” Levine Music. https://www.levinemusic.org/about/news/a-brief-history-of-jazz/ (April 28, 2025).

[11] jburkepmc. 2023. “The Cotton Club.” Golden Globes. https://goldenglobes.com/articles/cotton-club/ (April 28, 2025).

[12] Lai, Wesley. 2020. “The Cotton Club: How Black Performers Faced and Confronted Oppression.” 7. https://historyitm.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/the-cotton-club-how-black-performers-faced-and-confronted-oppression.pdf

[13] Lai, Wesley. 2020. “The Cotton Club: How Black Performers Faced and Confronted Oppression.” 7. https://historyitm.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/the-cotton-club-how-black-performers-faced-and-confronted-oppression.pdf

[14] N.Y. Labor Law § 160 (McKinney 2024)
“NYS Open Legislation | NYSenate.Gov.” https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/LAB/160 .

[15] N.Y. Labor Law § 160 (McKinney 2024)
“NYS Open Legislation | NYSenate.Gov.”
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/LAB/160 .

[16] N.Y. Labor Law § 193 (McKinney 2024)
“NYS Open Legislation | NYSenate.Gov.”
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/LAB/193 .

[17] Randolph, Elizabeth. 2024. “Hattie McDaniel Made Far Less Than Her ‘Gone With the Wind’ Co-Stars Despite Oscar Win.” Distractify. https://www.distractify.com/p/how-much-did-hattie-mcdaniel-get-paid-for-gone-with-the-wind.

[18] Title VI, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.
“Civil Rights Division | Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” 2023. https://www.justice.gov/crt/fcs/TitleVI.

[19] “The Gangster Museum of America - Owney Madden Gallery.” https://www.tgmoa.com/TheMaddenGallery.html.

[20] “Exploitation in the Jim Crow South: The Market or the Law?” American Enterprise Institute - AEI. https://www.aei.org/articles/exploitation-in-the-jim-crow-south-the-market-or-the-law/.

[21] Elvira, Elisa. 2025. “The Influence of African American Music on The Beatles.” Medium. https://medium.com/@elisaelvira/the-influence-of-african-american-music-on-the-beatles-35963887b3e6.

[22] Hagney, John. “Rock ‘n’ Roll Was Stolen from Black Musicians. Elvis Presley Was Well Aware of His Debt.” Inlander. https://www.inlander.com/culture/rock-n-roll-was-stolen-from-black-musicians-elvis-presley-was-well-aware-of-his-debt-25503326.

[23] Hagney, John. “Rock ‘n’ Roll Was Stolen from Black Musicians. Elvis Presley Was Well Aware of His Debt.” Inlander. https://www.inlander.com/culture/rock-n-roll-was-stolen-from-black-musicians-elvis-presley-was-well-aware-of-his-debt-25503326 (April 29, 2025).

[24] “Songs on Trial: 12 Landmark Music Copyright Cases.” https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-lists/songs-on-trial-12-landmark-music-copyright-cases-166396/the-beach-boys-vs-chuck-berry-1963-65098/ (April 29, 2025).

[25] “Songs on Trial: 12 Landmark Music Copyright Cases.” https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-lists/songs-on-trial-12-landmark-music-copyright-cases-166396/the-beach-boys-vs-chuck-berry-1963-65098/ (April 29, 2025).

[26] “Act of February 3, 1831, §1, 4 Stat. 436-39”
Evina, Frank. “First General Revision Gave Copyright to Musical Compositions and Extended Term.”
https://www.copyright.gov/history/lore/pdfs/200611%20CLore_November2006.pdf.

[27] "Act of March 4, 1909 (in effect July 1, 1909), §1”
https://www.copyright.gov/history/1909act.pdf

[28] The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 29 U.S.C., §201

[29] “Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938: Maximum Struggle for a Minimum Wage.” DOL. https://www.dol.gov/general/aboutdol/history/flsa1938 (April 29, 2025).

[30] “Music Pioneer Bo Diddley Still Seeking His Due.” https://www.gainesville.com/story/news/2003/02/16/music-pioneer-bo-diddley-still-seeking-his-due/31628359007/.

[31] “Fraudulent Misrepresentation.” LII / Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fraudulent_misrepresentation.

[32] “ABA Timeline.” https://www.americanbar.org/about_the_aba/timeline/.

[33] Baker, John T, and Jerome Davis. “Black Businesses and Their Lawyers.” https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2682&context=facpub#:~:text=6
[34] “Bluesman Robert Johnson’s Heirs Pay Legal Fees in Protracted Agreement.” https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/2020/02/14/bluesman-robert-johnsons-heirs-pay-legal-fees-years-later/4639340002/.

[35] “Bluesman Robert Johnson’s Heirs Pay Legal Fees in Protracted Agreement.” https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/2020/02/14/bluesman-robert-johnsons-heirs-pay-legal-fees-years-later/4639340002/ .

[36] Ibid.

[37] “Contingency Fee.” LII / Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contingency_fee (April 29, 2025).

[38] “The Struggle Against Segregated Education.” National Museum of African American History and Culture. https://nmaahc.si.edu/explore/stories/struggle-against-segregated-education (April 29, 2025).

[39] Walsemann, Katrina M., Jay Pearson, and Emily Abbruzzi. 2022. “Education in the Jim Crow South and Black-White Inequities in Allostatic Load among Older Adults.” SSM - Population Health 19: 101224. doi:10.1016/j.ssmph.2022.101224.

[40] “The Black Codes and Jim Crow Laws.” https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/black-codes-and-jim-crow-laws (April 29, 2025).

[41] Swain v. Alabama 380 U.S. 202 (1965)

[42] “Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202 (1965).” Justia Law. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/380/202/ (April 29, 2025).

[43] U.S. Congress. United States Code: Subject Matter and Scope of Copyright, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101-118 Suppl. 1. 1976. Periodical. https://www.loc.gov/item/uscode1976-017017001/

[44] Jeune, Diamond. 2022. “‘Only Took 20 Years’: Ashanti Opens Up About Receiving Credit for Jennifer Lopez’s Hit Singles, and Fans React.” Atlanta Black Star. https://atlantablackstar.com/2022/04/29/only-took-20-years-ashanti-opens-up-about-receiving-credit-for-jennifer-lopezs-hit-singles-and-fans-react/.

[45] “Olivia Rodrigo’s Music Copyright Controversy.” North Carolina Journal of Law & Technology. https://journals.law.unc.edu/ncjolt/blogs/olivia-rodrigos-music-copyright-controversy/ .

[46] “Olivia Rodrigo Adds Taylor Swift Co-Writes to ‘Deja Vu.’” https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/olivia-rodrigo-adds-taylor-swift-st-vincent-jack-antonoff-co-writes-to-deja-vu-1193659/.

[47] “Taylor Swift: Taylor Swift: 1989 (Taylor’s Version); Why Is Taylor Swift Re-Recording Old Albums? - The Economic Times.” https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/us/taylor-swift-1989-taylors-version-why-is-taylor-swift-re-recording-old-albums/articleshow/104761223.cms?from=mdr .

[48] “Copyright in General (FAQ) | U.S. Copyright Office.” https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html.

[49] Lorenz, Taylor. 2020. “The Original Renegade.” The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/13/style/the-original-renegade.html.

[50] U.S. Congress. United States Code: Subject Matter and Scope of Copyright, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101-118 Suppl. 1. 1976. Periodical. https://www.loc.gov/item/uscode1976-017017001/

[51] “Viral and Deadly: When Music Goes Bad on Social | Perspectives | Reed Smith LLP.” https://www.reedsmith.com/en/perspectives/2024/09/viral-and-deadly-when-music-goes-bad-on-social .

[52] “Copyright | TikTok Help Center.” https://support.tiktok.com/en/safety-hc/account-and-user-safety/copyright.

[53] Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Pub. L. No. 105-304, 112 Stat. 2860 (Oct. 28, 1998). https://www.copyright.gov/dmca/

[54] “Copyright | TikTok Help Center.” https://support.tiktok.com/en/safety-hc/account-and-user-safety/copyright#4.

[55] Libgober, Brian. 2019. “Getting a Lawyer While Black: A Field Experiment.” SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3389279.