Doja Cat sued over Paint the Town Red remix sample
Doja Cat’s 2022 single “Paint the Town Red” became a defining release from her Planet Her era, with the Big Sean remix adding extra momentum. The track drew on material associated with 24kGoldn’s earlier “Red Ruby da Sleeze,” a connection now at the centre of a US copyright complaint.
The lawsuit alleges that the use was not properly authorised. It has not yet determined whether Doja Cat, Big Sean or their rights holders breached copyright, so the distinction between an allegation and a finding remains important.
For Australian listeners, the dispute reaches well beyond US music law. Local playlists, club scenes and digital releases have made international sampling disputes part of everyday listening, while the Copyright Act 1968 provides a separate legal framework for how borrowed music is handled here.
What the lawsuit alleges
The copyright action concerns material from “Red Ruby da Sleeze,” released by 24kGoldn in 2021, and its use within “Paint the Town Red.” The complaint focuses on whether permission covered the original Doja Cat recording and the later version featuring Big Sean.
That distinction matters because a remix can involve several rights holders, including songwriters, performers, producers, publishers and the owner of the underlying sound recording. A permission agreement limited to one artist, song or release may not automatically authorise every later version.
The filing is an allegation rather than a judgment. It is also separate from the public songwriting credits, which identify 24kGoldn’s contribution but do not, by themselves, prove the scope of his consent.
How the recordings are connected
“Red Ruby da Sleeze” and “Paint the Town Red” arrived less than a year apart but became closely connected when recognisable elements from the former appeared in the latter. The production credits for “Paint the Town Red” also name Earl on the Beat, with additional contributions from Darkchild and J. Joseph.
Doja Cat transformed the sound into a sharper, more percussion-led club record. Big Sean’s verse and the remix packaging then gave the song another identity without changing its core musical framework.
In copyright terms, using an actual passage of audio raises sound-recording and potentially musical-composition issues. Recreating recognisable lyrics or melodies can also raise composition rights even when the original recording itself is not copied.
| Point | “Red Ruby da Sleeze” | “Paint the Town Red” remix |
|---|---|---|
| Release | 2021 single | 2022 single featuring Big Sean |
| Main artist | 24kGoldn | Doja Cat with Big Sean |
| Legal focus | Earlier work said to contain protected material | Alleged unauthorised use in the later recording |
| Credit issue | 24kGoldn is publicly identified as a songwriter | A credit alone does not establish permission covering every version |
Why permission is the battleground
The central question is not simply whether listeners can identify “Red Ruby da Sleeze.” Copyright law asks whether protectable expression was copied and whether the use was authorised or could qualify for a defence such as fair use in the US.
A remix label does not settle the analysis. Adding vocals, changing the arrangement or making the track more suitable for a particular audience can support an argument that the use is transformative, but those factors do not automatically answer the claim.
The evidence could include the licence terms, publishing and producer agreements, sample-clearance records, session files and the versions commercially distributed. Financial arrangements may also matter if the complaint concerns more than whether a sample was used.
What Australian listeners should watch
Australian law supplies a separate lens. The Copyright Act 1968 does not import the broad US fair-use doctrine, and commercial sampling generally requires permission. Exceptions available for purposes such as review, criticism, reporting or parody are narrow, while the Federal Court has jurisdiction over copyright proceedings.
For many local listeners, the everyday route to the song is through Spotify or Apple Music, a YouTube upload or a DJ mix rather than a physical purchase. Platform credits and publisher databases make attribution easier, but a visible credit is not proof that every version was cleared.
Legal points to keep in view:
- Permission should identify the composition and sound recording being used.
- The agreement should cover remixes, promotional clips and commercial distribution.
- Royalty percentages and payment recipients need to be clearly documented.
- Sample logs and signed permissions should remain available to every distributor.
Market and culture signals:
- ARIA charts and Australian streaming figures show the song’s local commercial reach.
- Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane club audiences often encounter tracks through DJ sets.
- Community radio, including stations such as Triple R, can put disputed samples into wider discussion.
- Australian artists including Hilltop Hoods, Bliss n Eso and A.B. Original have their own traditions of creative borrowing.
How local markets feel the ripple
Sampling disputes can affect more than the artists involved in court. DJs may shorten or replace a passage out of caution, while labels and promoters can face questions about promotional material, playlists and licensed clips.
Independent releases are not insulated from those concerns. Smaller outlets can widen their international audience: Chicos de la Calle’s independent singles catalogue provides a direct route to listeners, but digital discovery does not transfer or create copyright permission.
Australian clothing labels, dance crews and bedroom producers also operate in a market where an apparently minor loop can travel globally. Clear paperwork becomes more valuable when a local collaboration is picked up by international playlists.
What a resolution could change
A resolution could arrive through a licence amendment, settlement or dismissal. Alternatively, a ruling could clarify whether the copied material was protectable, whether permission existed and whether the use was excused under the applicable defence.
A settlement would not necessarily establish that either side was right or wrong, while a ruling could influence how labels document samples and negotiate remix rights. That influence would remain persuasive rather than automatically binding on Australian courts.
The wider industry may also place greater emphasis on split sheets, sample-clearance policies and clauses covering featured artists. Those measures address a recurring problem in hip-hop: a hit may depend on several creative decisions made long before its commercial scale becomes clear.
Follow the dispute as it develops
The case places a spotlight on the machinery behind a global anthem, including production credits, publisher agreements, sample permissions and the practical decisions involved in turning one record into another.
Subscribe to the HipHopDX newsletter for breaking rap news, artist and industry updates, album reviews, ratings and verified coverage of the dispute as it develops.