This summary of the video was created by an AI. It might contain some inaccuracies.
00:00:00 – 00:13:48
The video revolves around the challenges faced by independent Canadian music artist Jonathan Emil in his attempt to collaborate with renowned rapper Kendrick Lamar. In 2011, Emil sought to re-release his song "Heaven Help Dem" featuring Kendrick, moved by the 2008 police killing of Freddy Villanua. After negotiating with Kendrick's team and making payments, Emil received a sample verse but never received the final acapella vocals, leaving the project incomplete.
Top Dog Entertainment (TDE) and Interscope contributed to further complications, ultimately removing Emil's song from platforms due to copyright infringement allegations. Despite Emil's persistent communication efforts, his requests for resolution went unanswered. He legally challenged TDE and Interscope, winning a court case in Quebec that awarded him damages and reinstated the song. However, by then, the song had lost its previous momentum and audience reach.
Emil continued his struggle, addressing Kendrick directly in a public letter in 2017, highlighting issues faced by independent artists and urging Kendrick to recognize the harmful actions of his label, UMG (Universal Music Group). Although Kendrick's team eventually ceased their legal dispute to avoid tarnishing his public image, the prolonged conflict had already deeply impacted Emil's career, underlining the challenges independent artists endure within the music industry.
00:00:00
In this part of the video, independent Canadian music artist Jonathan Emil recounts his attempt to collaborate with Kendrick Lamar in 2011. Emil, moved by the 2008 police killing of Freddy Villanua, wanted to re-release his song “Heaven Help Dem” with Kendrick’s contribution. Through cold calls and emails to Kendrick’s management, a deal was made involving two installment payments. After the first payment, Emil received a sample verse from Mixed by Ali, TDE’s engineer. However, after completing the transactions, further communications ceased, and Emil never received the acapella vocals or proper legal confirmation. Despite Kendrick’s rise to fame post-signing with Interscope, Emil’s attempts to finalize and release the collaboration were met with silence from Kendrick’s team, leaving Emil’s project in limbo even as he prepared for a new album release in January 2015.
00:03:00
In this part of the video, the discussion revolves around the release of a song that encountered significant communication issues. Initially, the song’s release was pushed back, and despite numerous attempts to communicate via email and phone, there was little to no response. Eventually, a phone call from Top Dog Entertainment indicated that Interscope would take the song down, citing legal issues and aggressive threats. Top Dog’s president asserted final control and refused to refund the artist. After several days, the song was removed from all platforms due to copyright infringement claims. The artist expressed his desire to have the song released to share its message and split royalties, emphasizing the song’s potential impact on his career if it had stayed up.
00:06:00
In this part of the video, the discussion centers around Kendrick Lamar’s commentary on police violence and the impact of his lyrics in a hip-hop song addressing black men dying young. A specific focus is given to a song by Jonathan Emil featuring Kendrick Lamar, which was taken down due to alleged copyright infringement. Emil filed a lawsuit in Quebec against Top Dog Entertainment and others, seeking damages for the removal of his song from social media platforms, which negatively affected his income and reputation. The court ruled in Emil’s favor, awarding him $6,400 USD plus interest, and the song was reinstated online. However, the re-upload lost its previous momentum, views, and comments, which significantly impacted its reach and Emil’s ability to promote it effectively.
00:09:00
In this segment, an independent artist describes their ongoing legal struggle involving Kendrick Lamar and his label, UMG. The artist had sent a public letter to Kendrick in 2017, stressing it was not an attack but a plea for understanding after UMG attempted to reverse a court decision to remove a song. The artist highlights the challenges faced by independent artists and expresses hope that Kendrick, known for supporting independent thought, would recognize the negative implications of UMG’s actions. Despite a court ruling in favor of the artist, UMG continued legal maneuvers to avoid compliance. The artist notes that UMG’s actions violate the Canadian Charter and potentially threaten the rights of countless independent artists. They appeal to Kendrick to leverage his influence to uphold their original agreement and address the misconduct of his representatives. The segment concludes by acknowledging Kendrick’s apparent distance from the legal conflict and his role limited to recording a feature.
00:12:00
In this part of the video, Kendrick Lamar’s team decided to step back from a legal dispute over a song that had been taken down. The decision appears influenced by the negative perception that prolonged legal action would create against Kendrick as the “people’s champ.” Initially, the takedown significantly reduced the song’s traction, but extending the legal battle could have drawn ongoing negative attention. The artist involved was promoting similar causes to Kendrick, making the situation more complex. Although the song’s removal hurt its success and the outcome was unfortunate for the independent artist, such disputes are common in the music industry, even if the stories behind them are seldom revealed.