Dr Luke’s Lawyer Responds to Kesha ‘New York Times’ Profile
Christine Lepera calls the article “a continuing coordinated press campaign by Kesha to mislead the public… and gain unwarranted sympathy.”
Earlier Wednesday (Oct. 26), a profile on singer/songwriter Kesha that details her ongoing court struggles and oft-obstructed attempt at a pop comeback was published in the New York Times Magazine. As the piece dove deep into the legal battles between Kesha (full name: Kesha Rose Sebert) and writer/produer Dr. Luke (Lukasz Gottwald), largely from the former’s perspective, representatives from the latter’s camp recently offered a statement refuting some of the information contained within the article.
“The New York Times Magazine profile piece that ran today unfortunately has many inaccuracies,” begins the statement released Wednesday by Gottwald’s lawyer, Christine Lepera. “This article is part of a continuing coordinated press campaign by Kesha to mislead the public, mischaracterize what has transpired over the last two years, and gain unwarranted sympathy.”
The statement continues to decry Kesha for “continu[ing] to maliciously level false accusations in the press to attack our client” and states that the pop star optionally declined to provide her label (Dr. Luke imprint Kemosabe Records) with new music, ultimately concluding, “She exiled herself.”
The release also cites “22 recordings created without any label consultation,” which represent Kesha’s first contributions to Kemosabe in years, as being delivered “after the denial of her injunction motion.” Lepera insists that the label still sees it as in its own best interest to put out a successful album with Sebert and maintains that a list of producers has been mutually agreed upon for the project, with studio time booked and a budget approved.
Check This Out: Check Out The Full List of the 2016 AMA’s Nominations
“Kesha’s claim in the article that she has no ability to earn money outside of touring is completely rebutted by well documented public court records,” the statement asserts in closing, “which apparently escaped the article’s attention.”
Read the entire statement below:
“The New York Times Magazine profile piece that ran today unfortunately has many inaccuracies.
This article is part of a continuing coordinated press campaign by Kesha to mislead the public, mischaracterize what has transpired over the last two years, and gain unwarranted sympathy.
Kesha filed a shock and awe complaint of alleged abuse against Luke Gottwald in 2014 — for contract negotiation leverage. It backfired.
She never intended to prove her claims. She has voluntarily withdrawn her California complaint, after having her counterclaims in New York for alleged abuse dismissed.
Nevertheless, she continues to maliciously level false accusations in the press to attack our client.
The reality is that for well over two years, Kesha chose—and it was entirely her choice—not to provide her label with any music.
Kesha was always free to move forward with her music, and an album could have been released long ago had she done so.
She exiled herself.
It was not until months after the denial of her injunction motion – for the first time in June and July 2016–that Kesha started to provide the label with music.
She provided 22 recordings created without any label consultation which were not in compliance with her contract, were in various stages of development, and which Kesha’s own team acknowledged needed work. Then, and for the last several months, the label has been in discussions with Kesha and her team to choose the best music, create additional music, and work on the tracks created.
A&R representatives of both Kemosabe and RCA have provided Kesha with detailed feedback in writing and in person on the tracks she provided to help her further develop the material. Kesha has also agreed with Kemosabe and RCA on a list of producers who will work with her on these tracks, a studio has been reserved for these sessions, and a budget for certain work provided.
The creation of an album is a process, however what has clearly been communicated is that the aim is for a release date as early as possible. It is in the economic best interest of the label and Mr. Gottwald to put out a top selling album, and that takes time. In fact, the label suggested an early release of an advance Kesha track. It was Kesha’s team who rejected this proposal.
Kesha’s claim in the article that she has no ability to earn money outside of touring is completely rebutted by well documented public court records which apparently escaped the article’s attention.”