Atlantic Records, a powerhouse under Warner Music, has moved to dismantle a lawsuit accusing Cardi B of stealing beats for her hit “Enough (Miami),” arguing that the plaintiffs’ case is fatally flawed due to a critical oversight: they never registered their song with the US Copyright Office. The legal battle, unfolding in a Texas court, pits the label and Cardi B against Joshua Fraustro and Miguel Aguilar, a production duo known as Kemika1956. Initially filed in July, the suit claimed that “Enough (Miami)” lifted elements from their track “Greasy Frybread,” invoking federal copyright law. But when the duo realized their composition wasn’t registered—a prerequisite for such claims—they pivoted to a state law argument, a maneuver Atlantic deems a desperate and invalid trick.
The saga took a turn in August when Fraustro and Aguilar amended their lawsuit, swapping their federal copyright infringement claim for a Texas common law claim. Atlantic’s latest filing asserts this switch was a last-ditch effort after the duo’s lawyers were reminded of a bedrock legal principle: federal copyright lawsuits require registration. In the US, copyright protection kicks in the moment a work is created, granting creators automatic rights over its use. However, to sue for infringement under federal law, registration with the Copyright Office is non-negotiable. Without it, plaintiffs can’t seek hefty statutory damages—up to $150,000 per violation—unless the work was registered before the infringement or within three months of its release. “Greasy Frybread” lacked this crucial step, leaving the duo’s original claim dead in the water.
Faced with this roadblock, Fraustro and Aguilar leaned on state-level common law, arguing that their copyright was established when they recorded “Greasy Frybread,” a tangible expression of their original work. Under Texas law, they contended, no registration is needed to protect such rights, and Cardi B and Atlantic infringed them regardless. It’s a clever sidestep—state copyright laws do exist alongside federal ones, offering unregistered works some protection. They cited precedent to bolster their case, insisting that their song’s creation alone secured their legal standing. But Atlantic isn’t buying it. The label argues that this pivot is a sham, pointing to the US Copyright Act’s preemption clause: any state claim equivalent to a federal copyright violation falls under federal jurisdiction. Since “Greasy Frybread” qualifies for federal protection—registration or not—the duo can’t dodge the registration requirement with a state law workaround.
The stakes are high for Atlantic and Cardi B. If the court agrees with the label, the entire lawsuit collapses. Without a valid copyright infringement claim, secondary accusations against Atlantic—like contributory or vicarious infringement—lose their footing. The filing minces no words, calling the duo’s state law argument “concocted” and urging its dismissal for failing to hold legal water. For Fraustro and Aguilar, the misstep is compounded by uncertainty over who even owns “Greasy Frybread,” further muddying their case. Atlantic’s position is clear: the law doesn’t bend for sloppy paperwork, and this lawsuit should end before it gains traction.
This clash highlights the cutthroat precision of copyright battles in the music industry, where a single oversight can unravel a plaintiff’s ambitions. For Cardi B, it’s another chapter in a career no stranger to controversy, yet this time, the flaw lies not with her but with her accusers’ unpreparedness. As the Texas court weighs Atlantic’s motion, the outcome could set a sharp reminder: in the high-stakes game of beat theft claims, registration isn’t optional—it’s the ticket to play. Whether Fraustro and Aguilar’s gambit pays off or crumbles remains to be seen, but for now, Cardi B and Atlantic hold the upper hand.
