The copyright issue surrounding Beyoncé's iconic album "RENAISSANCE" has once again been brought to court.
The point of contention is the 2022 song "ALIEN SUPERSTAR." This track, boldly blending futuristic sounds with elements of house, dance music, and ballroom culture, has been highly praised by fans as one of the emblematic numbers of "RENAISSANCE."
On the other hand, there are claims that the spoken word sample used at the beginning of the song was not licensed from the rightful owner who should have given permission.
According to a report by TMZ on August 10, 2026, Hirose Enterprise and producer Shuji Hirose have filed a lawsuit against Beyoncé and related music companies, claiming copyright infringement.
However, there is an important point to understand this issue.
This lawsuit did not start from scratch.
In fact, a lawsuit over almost the same song and rights issues has been ongoing since 2025 and was dismissed once in June 2026.
Moreover, at that time, the court did not make a final decision on the core issue of whether the sampling was legal or illegal.
Therefore, it is more accurate to see this move not as a revival of a case that should have ended, but as unresolved rights issues returning to court in a different form.
The issue was the audio at the beginning of "ALIEN SUPERSTAR"
At the center of this dispute is the 1998 song "Moonraker" by John Holiday.
Holiday, also known as Foremost Poets, is an artist whose "Moonraker" features distinctive spoken words reminiscent of DJ booths and dance floors.
In "ALIEN SUPERSTAR," a part of this "Moonraker" audio is sampled.
Thus, this is different from a copyright lawsuit where a similar melody was accidentally created.
The existence of the sample itself is not the main point of contention.
The really difficult issue is,who had the right to grant permission to use that sample.
It's not a simple story of Beyoncé's side not seeking permission from anyone at all.
Past court documents confirm that a license agreement to use "Moonraker" in "ALIEN SUPERSTAR" was concluded between Parkwood and Holiday on September 6, 2022.
Since the release date of "RENAISSANCE" was July 29 of the same year, looking at the date of the contract alone, the formal contract was after the album's release.
And here the story becomes even more complicated.
Plaintiff's Claim: "Holiday No Longer Had the Right to Grant Permission"
The plaintiffs are concerned not only with "whether a license was obtained."
According to the plaintiffs, John Holiday had transferred the rights to "Moonraker" to Soundmen on Wax in the past, and the rights were subsequently passed on to Hirose's side.
If this claim is fully recognized, even if Beyoncé's team obtained permission from Holiday himself, it could lead to the issue of "they only got permission from someone who no longer held the rights."
For example, it's easy to understand if you think about real estate.
Even if you get permission to use a house from someone who previously owned it, if that person has already sold the house and no longer holds ownership, a problem arises as to whether that permission is valid against the current owner.
The sampling issue this time is structurally similar to that.
However, this is merely the plaintiffs' claim, and the transfer of rights to "Moonraker," including when, from whom to whom, and to what extent, has been a major point of contention in previous trials.
A Similar Lawsuit Was Filed in 2025
Reading just this news might give the impression that "Beyoncé was suddenly sued in August 2026."
However, the legal history of this issue goes back at least to 2025.
On July 29, 2025, Hirose Enterprises LLC filed a lawsuit against John Holiday, Parkwood Entertainment, Sony Music Entertainment, Sony Music Publishing, and W Chappell Music.
The plaintiffs claimed they owned the rights to "Moonraker" and that its use in "ALIEN SUPERSTAR" infringed those rights.
However, the trial became complicated over the plaintiffs' rights before reaching the main issue of "whether Beyoncé's side actually infringed copyright."
On March 25, 2026, the U.S. Federal District Court in California dismissed part of the lawsuit.
One of the issues the court focused on was the documentation supporting the transfer of copyright.
The plaintiffs explained that the rights to "Moonraker" had transferred from Holiday to Soundmen on Wax and then to Hirose's side, but the court judged that the transfer was not sufficiently supported by the documentation required under copyright law in the complaint at that time.
However, there was still room to submit a revised complaint at this stage.
In other words, even at this point, it could not be called a "complete victory for Beyoncé's side."
The Newly Emerged Issue of "The Company Did Not Exist"
Then in June 2026, the situation took an unexpected turn.
The court questioned the legal existence of Hirose Enterprises LLC, which was the plaintiff.
Despite the lawsuit being filed in July 2025, court documents indicated that Hirose Enterprises LLC in Florida was officially established on August 6, 2025.
In other words, the issue arose that "the company did not legally exist on the day the lawsuit was filed."
Ultimately, on June 26, 2026, the court dismissed the case, stating that the plaintiffs lacked the standing to proceed with the lawsuit.
Moreover, in the judgment, the judge humorously suggested that the legal system itself needed to be confirmed first, using expressions reminiscent of the famous spoken words of "Moonraker" used in "ALIEN SUPERSTAR."
This part quickly became a topic of discussion in music media and on social media.
However, it is important to note that this dismissaldid not make a final judgment on the existence of copyright infringement itself.
The court ended the case at the entry point of whether the plaintiffs had the standing to file the lawsuit.
Furthermore, the dismissal was "without prejudice," meaning it left the possibility of refiling under certain conditions.
And it seems that possibility has become a reality with this latest move.
August 2026, Moving to "Round 2"
In the new lawsuit reported on August 10, 2026, Hirose Enterprise LLC and Shuji Hirose are said to be acting as plaintiffs.
Accounts introducing court documents on social media also emphasize that this move is a "second filing."
The company name that was an issue last time was "Hirose Enterprises LLC" in plural form, and the "Hirose Enterprise LLC" reported this time is different in notation. This difference may seem minor, but considering the previous lawsuit was dismissed due to the legal existence and standing of the plaintiff, it is significant.
This time, the plaintiffs are reportedly reasserting copyright infringement against Beyoncé herself, John Holiday, and related companies.
The core of the claim remains unchanged.
The plaintiffs assert that they own the rights to "Moonraker" and that Holiday was not in a position to grant valid permission to Beyoncé's side.
Additionally, according to TMZ, the plaintiffs claim that despite notifying Beyoncé's side of the issue, the sale of the song continued, and they are seeking an injunction to stop monetization and unspecified damages.
Of course, at this stage, this is merely the plaintiffs' allegation, and the court has not recognized copyright infringement.
There Were Points Favorable to Beyoncé's Side in the Previous Trial
The previous court documents contain intriguing points for considering this dispute.
While Hirose's side claimed that the rights Holiday held had been transferred in the past, there was also inconsistency in the complaint versions regarding whether they acquired "50%" or "100%" of the publishing rights.
The court also touched on the point that if Holiday himself retained 50% of the rights as a co-owner of the copyright, co-owners have the right to use the work or grant non-exclusive licenses.
This is important for Beyoncé's side.
If Holiday is recognized as having retained a certain percentage of the rights, the license obtained from Holiday could be meaningful.
Conversely, if the plaintiffs can prove that "Holiday had completely relinquished all rights," the issue becomes complicated again.
Ultimately, the biggest point in this trial is not whether a few seconds of audio are similar.
It's about who can prove the "chain of title" of rights since 1998, that is, the history of ownership transfers, with documentation.
That seems to be the core issue.
"Another Lawsuit?" on Social Media—Confusion with Previous Dismissal
As this news spread, reactions like "Wasn't this lawsuit dismissed before?" were prominent on platforms like X.
It's understandable.
Just over a month ago, at the end of June 2026, news that "Beyoncé's Parkwood won the dismissal of the lawsuit over ALIEN SUPERSTAR" was widely reported.
Therefore, some posts introducing the new lawsuit emphasized that it is a "SECOND FILING" and explained the differences from the previous case to avoid it being seen as merely a re-dissemination of old news.
Meanwhile, looking at discussions on Reddit at the time of the previous dismissal, the fan reactions were quite entertainment-focused.
Comments celebrating the judge's wordplay in the judgment, which referenced the audio of "Moonraker," and posts celebrating the victory in a manner quoting Beyoncé's songs were lined up.
Some users even joked about the existence of Beyoncé's fervent fandom "BeyHive," suggesting that "even the judge might be part of the BeyHive."
However, there were also calm questions from other users.
Questions like "Would the trial have continued if the company had been established a little earlier?" and "If it was dismissed due to procedural issues, doesn't that mean Beyoncé's side didn't win on the copyright itself?" were raised.
This point is also legally significant.
It cannot be concluded that "there was no problem with the sampling at all" just because of the previous dismissal.
Conversely, it's also premature to think "Beyoncé's copyright infringement has been confirmed" just because a new lawsuit has been filed.
On social media, sensational headlines like "Beyoncé sued for copyright infringement again" can easily spread, but the actual case involves quite technical rights issues.
Note that the reactions on social media are organized from some publicly viewable posts and do not statistically represent the entire fan base or public opinion.
The Issue Is Not "Using a Sample" Itself
Some might get the impression from this news that "a famous artist used past songs without permission."
However, sampling is an extremely common production method in modern pop, hip-hop, and dance music.
"RENAISSANCE" itself is built by intricately combining references, samples, and interpolations from various eras of dance music and club culture.
The issue is not the sampling itself but whether the necessary rights processing is properly conducted.
Usually, when directly using existing sound sources, there may be separate rights concerning the recording itself and the songwriting and composition of the song.
Furthermore, with older club music or independent works, due to label dissolution, rights transfers, company disappearances, or lost contracts, it can be challenging to confirm "who the current rights holder is" decades later.
The current dispute over "Moonraker" is a typical example of this.
Even a Few Seconds of a Sample Can Lead to Huge Amounts
In today's music business, the revenue generated from a released song is not limited to CD or download sales.
There are numerous revenue sources, including streaming on platforms like Spotify and Apple Music, YouTube, licensing for movies and TV, live performances, and song usage on social media.
Moreover, "ALIEN SUPERSTAR" is a work by one of the world's biggest stars.
Therefore, even if the part used is only a few seconds long, the dispute over the rights share can have very significant economic implications in the long term.
This is why the plaintiffs are reportedly seeking an injunction.
However, whether the suspension of the song's distribution will actually be granted is another matter, and it has not been decided that "ALIEN SUPERSTAR will no longer be available." For an artist of this magnitude, the production of an album involves not only the artist but also
The "Rights Processing" Issue That Cannot Be Ignored by Beyoncé's Side