Cardi B Sued Over Alleged Copyright Infringement on “Enough (Miami)”

Cardi B is currently embroiled in a legal battle following allegations that her recent single “Enough (Miami)” stole the beat from a song featured on the popular TV series Reservation Dogs. The production duo Kemika1956, consisting of Joshua Fraustro and Miguel Aguilar, filed a copyright infringement lawsuit, claiming that Cardi B’s track lifted elements from their 2021 song “Greasy Frybread.” The lawsuit, filed in a Texas federal court, includes Cardi B, producers OG Parker and DJ SwanQo, along with Atlantic Records and Warner Music Group as co-defendants.

The controversy revolves around the track “Greasy Frybread,” which Kemika1956 released in collaboration with rapper Punkin’ Lusty (played by Sten Joddi) for the FX series Reservation Dogs. Since its release, the song has accumulated over 758,000 views on the FX Networks YouTube channel, and according to Kemika1956, Cardi B’s song “Enough (Miami)” bears a striking resemblance to the beat from their 2021 track.

“Enough (Miami),” which was Cardi B’s first solo single since 2021, quickly garnered attention, reaching Number Nine on the Billboard Hot 100 and earning a spot on Rolling Stone’s Best Songs of 2024 list. However, the lawsuit claims that Cardi B’s song copied the beat from “Greasy Frybread” without permission, leading to allegations of copyright infringement, vicarious infringement, and unfair competition.

The lawsuit also asks for a temporary restraining order to halt the distribution of “Enough (Miami)” and for all infringing copies of the song to be destroyed, including the upcoming 7″ vinyl release scheduled for the end of July. The case highlights the ongoing tension in the music industry over copyright infringement and the legal consequences artists face when their works are accused of using others’ intellectual property.

Kemika1956’s legal team asserts that the similarities between the two tracks are too significant to be coincidental, pointing to their belief that Cardi B and her collaborators were aware of their work but proceeded to use the beat anyway.

This lawsuit adds to the long list of high-profile copyright cases in the music industry, underscoring the growing concerns over the protection of creative content. As the case progresses, it will likely bring more attention to how beat makers and producers are credited and compensated for their work in an era where sampling and borrowing from existing music is common.

In conclusion, this case serves as a reminder of the fine line artists walk when creating new music, and it will be interesting to see how it unfolds in the coming months. The outcome could have significant implications for the broader music industry, particularly in terms of how copyright law is applied to modern music production.