Dua Lipa and Bosko Kante Close Levitating Remix Dispute

The disagreement concerned permission for remixes

Kante filed the lawsuit in July 2023. He alleged that a talk-box performance recorded for the original song was reused without authorization in three remixes. His position was that permission for the original release did not extend to those later versions.

That is a different allegation from claiming that the entire song was copied from an unrelated composition. The dispute centered on an actual contribution to the recording and the scope of permission to use it. Describing it simply as a claim that Lipa stole a song would blur that distinction.

Music Business Worldwide identifies Stephen Kozmeniuk and Warner Records among the other parties to the joint filing. The agreement ends this action; it does not establish that every participant admitted the allegations or that the court adopted Kante's account of the original arrangement.

What dismissal with prejudice means here

A dismissal with prejudice closes the claims in a way intended to prevent their being brought again. It should be distinguished from a temporary pause in litigation or a dismissal that leaves the same claims available for refiling. The specific filing is therefore central to understanding the result.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 permits parties, subject to specified exceptions, to dismiss an action through a stipulation signed by all parties who have appeared. Such a procedure can operate without a separate judicial merits ruling. A report should identify the stipulation rather than invent a later courtroom decision.

The public material does not reveal a settlement payment, royalty adjustment or change to song credits. It also does not establish that no private consideration changed hands. Undisclosed terms are unknown terms; the absence of a published dollar figure supports neither a zero-payment claim nor a guessed payout.

Rolling Stone reported that the dispute had been settled. Its account and the joint filing support the fact of resolution, while leaving the underlying business arrangement outside the public record available for this article.

Why recording rights and songwriting rights differ

The U.S. Copyright Office explains that a musical composition and a sound recording are separate protected works. A composition concerns the underlying music and lyrics. A sound recording concerns the particular recorded sounds. They can have different owners and different licensing arrangements.

That distinction helps explain why permission to use a contribution can become disputed even when nobody denies that the contributor took part in making the original track. The question may concern which uses were authorized, which versions were covered and what conditions applied.

The Copyright Office advises that using another person's protected material generally requires permission, a valid license or an applicable legal exception. There is no universal minimum excerpt that automatically avoids the need for permission. Those are general principles, not a retrospective ruling on the facts of Kante's case.

A remix can create a separate commercial release while retaining pieces of an earlier recording. Whether an existing agreement covers that use depends on the actual rights and terms involved. The resolution here means the parties avoided having those contested questions decided at trial in this action.

A conclusion without a published infringement verdict

The settlement should also be kept separate from other lawsuits involving Levitating. Different claimants can raise different theories about the same commercially successful song. An outcome in a dispute about musical similarity does not automatically decide a disagreement over permission for a specific recorded performance.

For artists and producers, the practical lesson is the value of recording the scope of an agreement clearly. Permission for an original release, later mixes, promotional versions and other uses can become important when a song reaches new audiences. That is an implication of the dispute, not a finding that any particular contract term existed here.

For listeners, the immediate development is narrower than the attention surrounding the song might suggest. The parties have ended this lawsuit, and its public filing specifies dismissal with prejudice. It does not provide a judicial explanation of who was right about every disputed conversation or licensing term.

As of November 11, the verified public record supports a negotiated resolution and the joint dismissal filing. The financial arrangements remain undisclosed. Any account assigning a payment amount, admission of wrongdoing or new ownership share would go beyond the information available.