Cardi B Triumphs: Jury Clears Rapper in $2.4 Million Likeness Lawsuit Over Mixtape Art

In a resounding victory for artistic expression and celebrity rights, Grammy-winning superstar Cardi B has been completely cleared of all claims in a high-stakes $2.4 million lawsuit. A federal jury in California sided with the "WAP" rapper, whose real name is Belcalis Almánzar, bringing an end to a contentious legal battle over the controversial cover art for her 2016 debut mixtape, "Gangsta Bitch Music Vol.

1."

The lawsuit was filed by Kevin Brophy Jr., who claimed his distinctive back tattoo was used without his permission on the mixtape's cover. Brophy alleged that his unique tiger tattoo was digitally altered and superimposed onto the back of a male model depicted in a sexually suggestive pose with Cardi B on the album art.

He argued that this unauthorized use of his likeness was both infringing and damaging, seeking a hefty sum of $2.4 million in compensation.

During the intense legal proceedings, Cardi B's defense team passionately argued that the mixtape cover was a prime example of fair use and transformative art.

They contended that the image was a creative, satirical take that did not directly appropriate Brophy's identity but rather incorporated elements into a larger artistic statement. The legal team emphasized that the image was not a direct photo of Brophy and that the use was sufficiently transformative to be protected.

The jury, after careful deliberation, ultimately agreed with Cardi B and her defense.

They concluded that while the image did feature a tattoo similar to Brophy's, it did not constitute an actionable appropriation of his likeness. This verdict underscores the complexities of intellectual property rights in the digital age, especially concerning creative works and celebrity endorsements.

For Cardi B, this ruling is more than just a legal triumph; it's a validation of her artistic freedom and a significant relief from a potentially costly judgment.

The "Bodak Yellow" hitmaker has consistently championed her right to creative expression, and this decision solidifies her stance against what she perceived as an attempt to stifle her art. The outcome of this trial sets a notable precedent, reaffirming the boundaries of fair use and artistic interpretation within the music industry.