Songwriters Dion Norman and Derrick Ordogne filed a notice of voluntary dismissal on October 9, 2026, ending their federal copyright suit against Travis Scott and Sony Music over the “alright, alright, alright” vocal heard on Stargazing and Til Further Notice. The dismissal is without prejudice, and the notice does not say whether the parties settled.
That leaves a case that ran for nearly three years in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana without an answer to the question it raised: can a short, repeated vocal phrase from a 1990s rap record be protected, and did using it require permission? No judge or jury decided it.
What was the “alright” lawsuit about?
Norman, a New Orleans songwriter, and Ordogne, a producer known as Mellow Fellow, say they wrote and recorded Bitches (Reply) in 1991. It came out on DJ Jimi's 1992 album It's Jimi, and its opening refrain has turned up on records by Beyoncé, Lil Wayne, Kid Cudi and others, per the complaint as reported by Music Business Worldwide.
Their complaint, filed January 25, 2024, alleged that the same vocal was used without clearance on Stargazing, from Scott's 2018 album Astroworld, and on Til Further Notice, from 2023's Utopia. They sought actual losses or a share of profits, or statutory damages under the US Copyright Act, plus punitive damages, legal fees and an injunction. Producers Metro Boomin and James Blake, credited writers on Til Further Notice, were also named.
Scott's lawyers denied the claims and attacked them on several fronts. In a 2024 motion reported by Rolling Stone, they called the repetition of “alright” too “common,” “everyday,” “trite” and “cliched” to be protected, noted that the copyright registration came on January 31, 2020, after Stargazing was released, and argued the case belonged in a different court. In December 2025, MBW reports, Judge Brandon S. Long denied a renewed motion to dismiss on jurisdiction and venue, while letting the defendants raise those points again after limited discovery.
| Date | What happened |
|---|---|
| 1992 | Bitches (Reply) released on DJ Jimi's It's Jimi |
| 2018 | Stargazing released on Astroworld |
| 2023 | Til Further Notice released on Utopia |
| Jan 2024 | Complaint filed in the Eastern District of Louisiana |
| Dec 2025 | Renewed motion to dismiss denied, with leave to raise it again |
| Oct 9, 2026 | Plaintiffs file notice of voluntary dismissal, without prejudice |
What does a dismissal without prejudice actually settle?
Very little, on paper. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, a plaintiff can end a case by notice, and unless the notice says otherwise, the dismissal is without prejudice. That means Norman and Ordogne can bring the same claims again. It is not a ruling that Scott infringed anything, and it is not a ruling that he did not. The rule does carry one limit: a second voluntary dismissal of the same claim counts as a decision on the merits.
Compare the other recent Scott sample case. In June 2026, MBW reports, Victory Boyd dismissed her suit against Scott, SZA and Future over Telekinesis with prejudice, which closes that door for good.
A dropped case is a silence, not a verdict. Nobody won the argument about “alright.”
Why does a sample need two licenses?
Because every record holds two copyrights. The US Copyright Office puts it plainly in Circular 56A: sound recordings and musical compositions “are considered two separate works for copyright purposes.” The composition is the song itself, melody and words, usually controlled by the writers and their publisher. The sound recording, the master, is the specific captured performance, usually owned by whoever paid for it or the label that holds it.
Lift the actual audio and you need both. Re-sing or replay the part, an interpolation, and you skip the master but still need the composition. That is why a clearance can look done when only half of it is.
For an independent artist, the lessons are cheap next to a lawsuit. Identify both owners before release, not after a hit. Get clearances in writing, with the split and credit spelled out. Do not lean on “it's only one word”: that is a defense a court may or may not accept, argued at your expense. And remember that distributors act on rights claims fast, as the UMG and DistroKid takedowns of sped-up tracks showed this month. The independents who go Gold on their own tend to own every piece of what they release.
Whether Norman and Ordogne refile, or whether a deal sits behind the notice, is unknown as of October 2026. For the wider wave of rights fights ending in quiet paperwork, see our look at the 2026 AI music settlements.