Travis Scott Copyright Lawsuit Dropped, but Questions Over Alleged Sample Use Remain

Travis Scott has received a new development in a long-running copyright dispute involving two of his songs, after songwriters Dion Norman and Derrick Ordogne voluntarily dismissed their lawsuit against the rapper and Sony Music-related companies. The case, which focused on an alleged uncleared sample in “Stargazing” and “Til Further Notice,” was dismissed without prejudice, leaving open the possibility that the claims could be brought again.

The dismissal was reported on October 12, 2026, after the songwriters filed a notice ending the case on October 9. Although the development brings the current proceedings to a close, it does not amount to a court ruling that the alleged sampling was lawful or unlawful. The notice also did not publicly establish that the parties had reached a settlement.

The dispute began in January 2024, when Norman and Ordogne filed a copyright infringement lawsuit in federal court in Louisiana. They alleged that Scott and other defendants used material from “Bitches (Reply),” a track they wrote and recorded in 1991 and which appeared on a DJ Jimi release in 1992.

According to the complaint, a vocal passage featuring the repeated phrase “alright, alright, alright” was incorporated into two Travis Scott tracks: “Stargazing,” from his 2018 album Astroworld, and “Til Further Notice,” from his 2023 album Utopia. The songwriters alleged that the passage had been altered in pitch and used without the necessary permission.

These allegations were claims made by the plaintiffs, not findings established at trial. The lawsuit did not reach a final judgment deciding whether the disputed material infringed their copyright.

Why the Sample Became the Center of the Dispute

Sampling has long been part of hip-hop’s creative foundation. Producers and artists often build songs around pieces of existing recordings, transforming them through chopping, looping, pitch changes, new instrumentation and other production techniques. But the creative practice can also raise legal questions when an existing recording is used without permission.

In this case, the plaintiffs argued that the vocal passage was more than an ordinary spoken phrase. They maintained that the material came from a particular recorded performance and that its use in Scott’s songs required authorization.

Scott and the other defendants challenged the claims. Among their arguments was that the short phrase at the center of the dispute was commonplace language that did not qualify for copyright protection on its own. The legal issue, however, involved more than whether a few repeated words could be protected. The distinction between a short phrase and the use of material from an existing sound recording can be important in copyright cases.

The plaintiffs also pointed to other commercial tracks that they said had used material from their work or related recordings with licensing arrangements or songwriting credits. Their position was that the history of those uses supported their argument that the disputed material was recognizable and had been treated as something requiring clearance.

The defendants disputed the legal basis of the lawsuit and sought to have it dismissed. The case went through several stages of litigation, including arguments about the court’s authority to hear the dispute and whether the claims had been properly brought.

In December 2025, a federal judge rejected an attempt to dismiss the case on certain jurisdictional and venue grounds at that stage, while allowing the defendants to raise those arguments again after limited discovery. That procedural development did not determine whether the alleged sample use was unlawful.

What the Dismissal Means

The latest development is a voluntary dismissal without prejudice. In general, that means the plaintiffs have ended the current case without obtaining a final ruling on the merits and without giving up every possibility of bringing the claims again.

Music Business Worldwide reported that the notice did not explain why the songwriters chose to dismiss the lawsuit. It did not announce a settlement or provide details of any private agreement. Without a public statement from the parties, it would be premature to conclude that Scott paid a settlement, admitted wrongdoing or was cleared after a trial.

The distinction matters because copyright disputes can end for many reasons. Parties may decide that continued litigation is too expensive, reassess the strength of their positions, pursue private negotiations or choose to address the dispute through other means. A voluntary dismissal alone does not reveal which explanation applies.

For Scott, the immediate result is that this particular case is no longer proceeding in court. For Norman and Ordogne, the dismissal without prejudice leaves the legal door open, although any future filing would still face the applicable procedural requirements and potential defenses.

The outcome also means there is no final judicial decision in this case resolving the core dispute over the “alright” vocal passage.

A Wider Issue for Hip-Hop Production

The case highlights a recurring challenge for artists, producers and record companies: determining when a musical element can be used freely and when it needs to be licensed.

A phrase that is too short or ordinary to receive copyright protection by itself may raise different questions when it is taken from a specific sound recording. The composition and the actual recording can involve separate rights, and the details of how a sample was used can affect the legal analysis.

For major releases, sample clearance can involve identifying the owners of relevant rights, obtaining permissions, negotiating payments and ensuring that credits are accurate. If an issue emerges after a song has already been released, the parties may face disputes over past revenue, future distribution, attribution or possible restrictions on use.

Those concerns are particularly significant when a track becomes commercially successful. A song can generate revenue through streaming, downloads, performances, licensing and other uses over many years. A dispute over a brief musical element can therefore become complicated even when the portion at issue is only a small part of the finished record.

The case involving “Stargazing” and “Til Further Notice” also demonstrates why an allegation should not be confused with a court finding. The songwriters presented their account of how the material was used, while Scott and the other defendants challenged the claims. Because the lawsuit ended without a final decision on the central copyright question, the public record does not provide a trial verdict settling that disagreement.

For now, the dismissal closes the current proceedings but leaves the broader questions unresolved. Whether the songwriters will refile, whether any private resolution exists, and whether the disputed sampling will return to court remain unknown.

The development is another reminder that sample clearance remains an important part of the business behind hip-hop releases. Creative reinvention is central to the genre, but disputes over the ownership and use of recorded material can continue long after a song reaches listeners.