Rapper Lil Wayne could be liable for failing to do interviews about his 2009 documentary “The Carter,” a California appeals court has ruled. The 2nd District Court of Appeal said a jury should decide whether the rap artist breached the express terms of his contractual agreement to help promote the film.
However, the news was not all bad for Lil Wayne, who real name is Dwayne Michael Carter Jr. In its ruling, the court also found that Carter had the right to try to stop the filmmakers from finding a distributor for the movie.
The ruling means that both sides will now return to the Los Angeles County Superior Court to argue their opposing breach-of-contract claims before a jury. Carter and his production company, Young Money Entertainment LLC, entered into an agreement with Digerati Holdings LLC to make the documentary.
But after Digerati screened the movie at the 2009 Sundance Film Festival, Carter sued the company for failing to give him approval of the final cut, as allegedly stipulated in the contract.
According to his lawsuit, he had insisted on this stipulation to ensure that the film would not depict him in some way that could affect or influence his pending criminal court proceedings. Digerati countersued for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, claiming Carter had “engaged in a series of unreasonable, bad-faith and illegal tactics to prevent the sale and distribution” of the film.
The producer alleged, among other things, that Carter failed to provide video material for the documentary and failed to make himself available for interviews, as agreed upon in the contract. The countersuit also alleges that Carter told distributors that they could be liable for intentional interference with contractual relations if they proceeded to acquire the film.
Judge Michael S. Mink ruled that Carter’s communications concerning the dispute and his attempts to enjoin the film were in furtherance of his constitutional right of petition or free speech under California law. But the judge stopped short of granting Carter’s bid for an injunction, ruling that Digerati had shown a probability of winning on its claim that Carter had breached his contract.
The appellate court backed both rulings. In so doing, it noted that some of Carter’s conduct, including his refusal to fully cooperate with the production, is actionable.
The conduct that frustrated Digerati’s efforts to subsequently market the film, however, is protected activity since the statements came in anticipation of a lawsuit against Digerati and potential distributors, the appellate court said.