Singer-songwriter Dua Lipa is facing a potential multimillion-dollar lawsuit over allegations that she used a musician’s mobile talk box technology without permission on remixes of her 2020 hit track “Levitating”. Music producer Bosco Kante has filed a lawsuit claiming that Lipa used his ElectroSpit talk box on not only the original recording but also on subsequent releases, including popular remixes featuring Madonna and Missy Elliott, and DaBaby. The talk box is a device that allows musicians to modify the sound of a musical instrument, shaping its frequency content.
According to documents obtained by PA News, Kante claims that he was initially approached by Lipa’s team to “create and perform a talk box performance” to be licensed in connection with “Levitating”. However, he alleges that permission was only granted for the original recording, not for further releases. Kante claims that his technology was used on the hit remixes, including the DaBaby remix, which has amassed over 1.6 billion plays on Spotify.
In his lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles, Kante is seeking damages of more than 20 million dollars, or approximately £15.7 million. His legal team states that he made numerous attempts to resolve the matter outside of court, but ultimately decided to file the lawsuit after Lipa’s team refused to cooperate or accept responsibility for the alleged copyright infringement. Despite the significant potential damages, Dua Lipa has yet to comment publicly on the lawsuit.
Dua Lipa (Via Dua Lipa/Twitter)
The lawsuit highlights the importance of clearing intellectual property rights, particularly in the music industry where original creative work is often built upon by others. As the music world continues to evolve, the use of innovative technologies like the mobile talk box will likely become more widespread, and cases like this will serve as a reminder of the need to protect one’s intellectual property and give credit where credit is due. The outcome of the lawsuit remains to be seen, but it is clear that Kante is seeking significant monetary damages for what he considers to be a serious violation of his rights.
