As we discussed, the all-white country group Lady Antebellum decided to formally change their name to Lady A last month. There was an immediate problem though: a black artist named Anita White already performs and records under the name Lady A, and she’s been in the music industry for years/decades. Apparently, the country band reached out to OG Lady A after they already decided to rename themselves, and shenanigans ensued. Now the country band is suing Anita White for the trademark rights to the name. It’s a huge mess! But Anita White is calling out Lady Karen. She spoke to Vulture at length about how this is all one big problematic mess. Some highlights:
The name negotiations were never in good faith: “I think they always knew what they were gonna do,” she said over the phone, moments after news went wide and far that the band is taking her to court.
Anita White has always been an independent artist: Having been independent for the entirety of her career, White never had the machine behind her that the band did when they trademarked her name in 2010; without guidance from a label, the self-distributed artist was unlikely to have foreseen the need to protect her Pacific Northwest brand from a Nashville-based country group. “You don’t get to just come and take because you have that privilege,” White says of the band and of the music industry as a whole. “We don’t have that luxury or that privilege, so we need somebody to help us and lift us up.”
The band contacted her days after their June statement on their name change: In her very first conversation with the band, on June 15, when its members — Hillary Scott, Dave Haywood, and Charles Kelley — repeatedly asked to take a picture they could post on social media to show the world how they were “moving forward with positive solutions and common ground,” White could see that they weren’t really concerned about her position as an independent artist. The band wanted to record a song with White, she told me just after the lawsuit was announced, and they wanted to record the process, documentary style, to chronicle the proof that they were nothing like the rest of the country standing on opposite sides of life and liberty, unable or unwilling to meet in the middle. But as they spoke during the negotiations over the last two weeks, White began to realize that any meeting in the middle would result only from her own painstaking strides. The band had already made their splashy statement, declaring newfound wokeness by ceremoniously discarding the latter half of their name. Their declarations of faith were meaningless, White now says, because they never engaged with her in good faith.
They sent her a vague contract: “The first contract they sent [on June 30] had no substance,” she explains. “It said that we would coexist and that they would use their best efforts to assist me on social-media platforms, Amazon, iTunes, all that. But what does that mean? I had suggested on the Zoom call that they go by the Band Lady A, or Lady A the Band, and I could be Lady A the Artist, but they didn’t want to do that.”
Why she asked for the $10 million to give up the name: White says that the goal since learning of the band’s name switch-up was always to continue to perform and release music under the name Lady A. But as the band proved unwilling to compromise, she began to consider other options for protecting her business interests. Regarding the $10 million she asked for when her attorney sent the latest draft of the coexistence agreement on July 3 — what Nashville songwriter Shane McAnally recklessly likened to extortion on Twitter — White says that it was simply a request for the necessary resources to support herself and, perhaps more importantly, the entire Black community. Her plan, she told me, was to use $5 million to rebrand, to start over as an artist with more than 20 years in the game — but without the high-powered label and management machine of a Lady Antebellum. The other $5 million was to be donated to the charities of her choice, including organizations that provide support to other independent Black artists. If the band formerly known as Lady Antebellum was going to vow to support to Black lives, Lady A says, she was going to hold them to it.
She believes that the band is trying to portray her as an ‘angry black woman’: “I was quiet for two weeks because I was trying to believe that it was going to be okay and that they would realize that it would be easier to just change their name, or pay me for my name. Five million dollars is nothing, and I’m actually worth more than that, regardless of what they think. But here we go again with another white person trying to take something from a Black person, even though they say they’re trying to help. If you want to be an advocate or an ally, you help those who you’re oppressing. And that might require you to give up something because I am not going to be erased.”
Yeah, it’s simple to me and I honestly don’t know why the band doesn’t see that paying the real Lady A for her name is simply the best option. It’s not even the best option for her, but at least she would have the money to start over with a new name. I’ll never know why the band would rather spend a sh-t ton of money in a legal battle with a black artist (who has the moral high ground). Especially since the WHOLE purpose of the band’s name change was so that they could “look woke” (or “not look AS racist”).
All of these f–kers have I Would Like To Speak To Your Manager Face.
Photos courtesy of Instagram, WENN.
Lady A makes more sense as an artist’s name than a group name. This fight is ridiculous and shows that Band Lady A wasn’t serious about BLM to begin with.
Word. Might as well have kept Lady Antebellum.
It doesn’t matter to me if they ever change their name. I will always call them Lady Antebellum because of this horse crap. I was also a fan who had one of their albums and a few other songs. Never again. They will never get any of my money or support ever again.
@Laura, same. I have one album. Won’t have anymore. And will never re-watch Hillary Scott’s Say yes to the Dress segment in case she gets $$ every time it’s clicked on.
To The Real Lady A: I’ve been checking for a go fund me page for you, as I would donate in a flash for you to do battle. We rise together, and ally-ship sometimes means being uncomfortable. I will do without…something…in order to support the greater good.
Also Lady A is a stupid name for a band with guys in it.
Also I really liked someone’s idea on Twitter: change one letter and your name becomes Antibellam. it’s smart, clever, way cheaper, and doesn’t infringe on a solo artist’s career. Also, I’m going to buy Lady A’s music when it drops on July 18 and it’s the first time I’ve ever bought music online but I’m going to do it
I think the group should just go by “Lady A$$holes”.
They have no case. End of story. If they have lawyers, they should fire them and sue them for incompetence.
Lady A (the original) owns the name. Legally. Not to mention, morally.
This is a non-story. If they were smart, they’d pivot and do everything they could to disguise how stupid they’ve been since this began. They have no right to Lady A’s name. (If she wants to negotiate to sell, that’s her business — but that’s the only way the band can obtain it.)
End of story.
10 million seems like a fair deal, and what she wants to do with it is up to her (and it sounds like a good plan).
It’s going to be a PR mess for Lady A the Band!
Ah white privilege….
I’m wrong so I’ll double down. Why are you arguing with me? I don’t understand. How dare you!
“You owe me this! I’m woke! We’re not Lady Antebellum anymore!”
Ugh. I don’t even listen to Lady Racist nor had I ever heard of the real Lady A, but this makes me rage.
I met them once at one of their shoes. I asked them to sign my (cowboy) boots, which are signed by a number of country artists. The tall guy starting signing my boobs. Okkkkkay then..
You mean Katie Heigel’s brother in law? That tall guy? I guess jerks really do stick together.
Can a trademark lawyer chime in here?: I was under the impression Lady Antebellum already owned the trademark to “Lady A” since 2010. So, while the optics are obviously not good, I’m confused why they have to sue to use the name at all ? Don’t they legally own it?
I know EU copyright and trademark laws. basically these names are territorial and have expiration dates. Like even CocaCola need to renew their name and trademark every 10 years or so. i would love to know more from USA lawyer on the matter too. But I can’t believe this story since I have heard of her and feel this situation only launched them and they are using it. might be just cause I don’t listen to that music genre since i’m in eu. Are they big?
Yes they are very big, multi platinum selling, country music stars. Have been for a long time – and have been using Lady A liberally for as long as I’ve known about them (late 2000s or so).
I’m just super unclear as to why they are suing Lady A. Are they doing it as a preemptive strike to clear up the matter now instead of later if she sued them?
First, there are such things as common law rights (you just have to prove them while a trademark registration carries presumptive rights that you don’t have to prove). So, Lady A will argue that regardless of the trademark registration, she has priority over the band’s rights in “Lady A.”
Also, a trademark owner owns rights in connection with the goods and services that they are actually using the trademark with. You don’t just own the trademark in connection with everything. That’s why someone can own a name in connection with computers and someone can own the same name in connection with educational services, for example. It can obviously be more complicated than that, but those are the basics. Here, I imagine that Lady A would argue that she owns “Lady A” in connection with entertainment services/performing services/recordings since she actually used the name in connection with those items. From what I can tell, it seems like the band only used “Lady A” in connection with merch? So Lady A would argue that the band only owns limited rights in connection with merchandise. But this seems like more of a side argument? (I really haven’t looked into these details.)
Ultimately, it seems like Lady A has a strong priority argument, as I mention initially above. (I’m a trademark attorney.)
@CHLO thank you so much. i studied law but being in eu we never dived deep into anglosaxon, apart from certain aspects of it. and you now, people mostly know the fields they specialise in and i don’t practice it. you gave me so much info that made me passionate about those things again. if nothing on personal level. thanks
That’s what I thought/understood from some of the other articles. The band trademarked Lady A for merchandise and now they’re trying to trademark it for entertainment purposes: as the name they would perform under and be billed as at venues and sell music under. Illy understanding was that entertainment performance trademarks were different and applied for separately than merchandising trademarks.
Thanks Chlo.
I hope this ends with the real Lady A victorious, the band paying all her legal fees, and her getting more publicity and sales from this ridiculous mess.
Trademark lawyers-she also owns the LLC Lady A. How does that impact the trademark debate?
I was coming to say the same thing. I read last night that they already have the trademark on the name Lady A, so if they wanted to “peacefully coexist” then why do they need to sue at all? It’s not as if Anita White can pass herself off at the band (music styles are different) nor does it appear that she would want to, so then why the hell do they feel the need to sue?
Oh the absolutely mind blowing hypocrisy of “feeling burdened” to change their band name because of what it implies while literally trying to take down a black artist in the process.
I should have kept scrolling before commenting, I see some answers now to why they would possibly feel the need to try to get more control of the name even if they do already have it trademarked (although I still think they are a bunch of morons).
Just changing it to “Lady A” (even if they weren’t stepping on an artist who had been using the name for years) is a weak choice in the first place. Everyone still knows what the A stands for. They say they chose it because they found plantation mansions beautiful. That says it all right there.
Their best option is to change their name again, and leave Lady A to the original woman who has recorded under that name for 20 years.
If they co-exist with the name, she’ll be buried under their online presence. And why should they get what they want?
This truly is the best option. Just leave it behind and to the rightful person. The hypocrisy and absolute whytness of their actions is astounding, not surprising since this is how it is, systemically, overtly, covertly, but damn.
You can take out the racist in the name, but you can’t take the racist out of the band’s behavior.
They need to change their name to something else. It’s obvious that they’ll be just fine if they change their name, but Lady A does not have the money and resources to be able to carve out a whole new image for herself. That is the issue here. It’s totally reasonable that she asked for money to reestablish herself if they want to take her name.
I understand from a legal perspective that they have the rights to this name. But if they’re doing this in good faith with the intention to right a wrong, they shouldn’t be trying to strip this Black artist’s work from her. There are a million other names they can use. If they move forward with this lawsuit the PR will be so much worse than simply choosing a new name.
Yeah it reminds me of what my father drilled into my head about the right of way while teaching me how to drive: they were right. dead right.
Why are they fighting so hard for a terrible name!?!
Lady Antebellum was terrible.
Lady A is AWFUL for a band.
My God – come up with something better!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think their name has always been a turnoff – MAJORLY.
Almost ANYTHING – ANYTHING! – would be better!
Why would she need to carve out a whole new image when she doesn’t have an an image to begin with? She was a complete and utter nobody before this Lady A hoopla.
She’s performed in the industry for twenty years, she’s hardly a ‘nobody.’
Your entire comment sounds… very bad. As though you’re angry with Lady A for simply existing and you need to insult her. What could possibly be the reason for this reaction?
kt sounds like a racist POS to me, I think that’s the reason
The thing is, they don’t have any legal right to this mame, recept for using It on merchandise.
For the band, concerts, albums-they jave no right at all.
Good for Anita. Her intended use for the money shows that this is also symbolic of how Black creators are ripped off all the time with little recourse. Not today, Karen.
After the name change by the country band, Lady A was immediately buried on the platforms where she sells her music. Spotify replaced her search with the country band so yeah this was an immediate blow to selling her music.
Not a lawyer, but I have owned businesses and had to consult a copyright lawyer re: someone posing as me. Claiming a name for your business can be filed with the state in which you live.
In the US, if Lady A was using the name prior to the country band, and if it was her primary name, that shows ownership. Filing the copyright itself doesn’t mean you will win in court against someone who didn’t file but was using it before you and using it consistently (this is where I think country band has a problem with their claim JMO.
If country band didn’t used the name Lady A in selling their band, on contracts, in merchandise consistently (meaning every day, every month, every year), and if they weren’t legally recognized as Lady A over the decades etc… that doesn’t prove a consistent and primary use.
JMO but country band wants to ride roughshod over this lady as they think she has no power.
Faux Lady A look like petty assholes no matter the outcome. And in fact… they are the witty Assholes who want to steal a band name.
I’m sickened that they are being so tone-deaf and optics blind.
Just the optics are terrible.
Their racists fans are probably already mad they gave up “antebellum” at all.
And non-racists are horrified by their ugly treatment of a black artist.
Pretty words, ugly actions. and hello- we see you!
They are idiots.
Maybe their band name can be: Too Dumb.
Perhaps it is better as an album name.
The conservatives I know who liked the band and the name lady antebellum all side with white. They lost respect for the band for their performative wokeness and think the independent artist should own her own name. They also think the comment about white privilege was annoying and that sueing someone to collect charity for someone else kinda misses the point of charity. But there’s a lot more agreement on this issue than you might think.
Lady Antebellum was always a stupid name for a band. Neither that or Lady A make sense because they sound like they should signify a single artist and not a band. Also, we know what ‘A’ means in the band’s case! Sugarcoat it all you want. Here’s their chance to do a couple of the right things here: completely separate from the name “Antebellum” and avoid erasing the original Lady A.
How are they not embarrassed about what they are doing? I’m embarrassed and I’m not even a fan of them, really – I just like one song that they made years ago.
This whole thing is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. They change the band name to appeal to anti-racists and then immediately try and bully a black woman out of using the new name they picked, when she’s been using it for years? Any of the people they were trying to appeal to with the name change are immediately going to be turned off by this – like your’s truly.
Just change the band name to Lady Anti Black Women, it’s more fitting for them at this point, smh.
Wow the band formerly known as Lady Antebellum is showing their true colors now. They obviously only care about not appearing racist, but when they have a chance to make actual change they sue? Disgraceful.
Honestly they should’ve just kept their name. They’ve had it for so long anyway, and are they even that famous anymore? I hate this type of fake performative wokeness almost as much as I hate racism itself.
I’m from the Pacific Northwest, like the real Lady A, and we have way too many fake-woke people here as it is. Pay the real Artist here or GTFO.
This is the real Lady A!!!
Also my son shares her bday! July 18 wooooo
Oh Kaiser your question why would they rather spend a sh*t ton of money rather than the 10 Million for charities and for the name? Two lil words.. White Privilege. That and to make the core of their fan base happy because they “stuck it to a black angry woman”. Can we blast the band on social media as Karens? They are the worst kind of Karen. They politely spoon feed you horse sh*t while trying to tell you they are in your corner and the smell you smell is your imagination. That’s how so many Karens have succeeded in the world.
So they changed their name in service of BLM optics and then started a legal fight with a black woman way down the fame ladder when they realized too late somebody else had it? I’m mentally screaming at the insanity of this utter lack of self-awareness.
The real Lady A has shown herself to be reasonable so far: explaining her reasoning behind the amount she’s asking for and offering alternatives that make sense. Having Lady Antebellum become “The Band Lady A” or “Lady A the Band” would not cause a hardship and could easily differiante themeselves from Lady A the singer. Also, if Lady A can show she owns Lady A LLC and has released albums under that name, is recognized under that name, etc., she could make a reasonable case for having to expend money to re-brand herself (which she never wanted to do) and should therefore be compensated. Regardless of the actual legal outcome, I would say Lady Antebellum’s goal to be seen as more work has not been successfully achieved.
I hope this is allowed to post, as it is a similar topic: folks, please boycott the Chicago chain “Aloha Poke” for similar reasons. They appropriated NATIVE HAWAIIAN words for their own commercial use, then sent CEASE AND DESIST letters to Native people to prevent THEM from using their own native words, even though “Aloha Poke” has been in use in Hawaii for many years. It is at least as reprehensible as what Lady AB is doing, and possibly even worse. Again, I hope this post (I am not trying to highjack the thread, just raise awareness of what shady Chicago business is doing). Thank you.
Thank you for posting this, I’ll try to help spread the word.
They only changed their name because they saw an opportunity for some PR by jumping on the whole woke bandwagon. They only changed it to Lady A because they already had the copyright for the merchandise and probably still have Lady A merch in stock. It was the easiest, laziest way to change their name and try to make themselves relevant again without really spending any money on a true name change and re-brand. It’s a terrible choice for them as band name, and does nothing to remove the racist connotations of their former name. And since the name has already been in use for years by a Black artist, and they’re choosing to fight her in court at great legal expense, they have completely negated their supposed intention. They can change their name but the racism is still there. With a name like Lady Antebellum the racism is baked in. They’re full of shit and they’re not going to win this.
How about Lady Anti-bellum? 🙂
Lady A-holes?
Lady Ante-bellends?
I have a suggestion: How about they change their name to Lady A-holes and boom, everything’s as it should be.