Playboi Carti is in a bizarre space. He's simultaneously hated and loved by his fanbase. Some consider him a musical genius, others consider him someone who has fallen victim to his own hype. Carti draws ears to his music either way. Unfortunately, he did so for the wrong reasons on January 24. A singer by the name of Blakk Soul sued Playboi Carti over the 2017 song "Kelly K." Soul appeared on the song, and claims that the rapper did not properly compensate him as a result.
The singer is seeking to be paid for a song that has continued to rack up streams. "Kelly K" has amassed over 8 million views on YouTube and 55 million streams on Spotify. The mixtape that it appeared in felt by many to be Playboi Carti's commercial and artistic breakthrough. Blakk Soul claims that he made a deal with Carti and Cash Carti Music LLC shortly after collaborating on "Kelly K." The singer claims he would get 5% ownership stake in the song, but has yet to see a penny in eight years.
Playboi Carti Allegedly Failed To Credit Blakk Soul
![Wireless Festival 2023 - Day 1](https://www.hotnewhiphop.com/imgprst/282x282-contain-81-auto/2025/01/GettyImages-1524702491.jpg)
Blakk Soul, real name John Mercer, Jr., issued a statement through his legal team. The team argued that the singer should be compensated for the streams the song has racked up, given its success. "Despite the commercial success of the song and the album," the statement asserted. "Mr. Mercer had yet to be compensated for his contributions to the song. And has yet to receive a single dollar." Soul's legal team also claimed the singer has yet to be given an accounting of what he's owed. Soul not only named Carti in his lawsuit, but Interscope and Universal Music Group.
Playboi Carti has had to contend with legal issues as recently as August. The rapper and UMG won a lawsuit after they flagged a lesser-known artist for using a Carti instrumental. G-Baby claimed that the song "Oi," should was wrongfully taken down. Judge Analisa Torres ultimately ruled that UMG and Carti didn't violate the Digital Millennium Copyright Act protections, however. "A copyright holder is not liable for misrepresentation under the DMCA," the judge explained. "If they subjectively believe the identified material infringes their copyright."
[via]