Ultra Records v. Michelle Phan: The Copyright Suit and Settlement

Ultra Records v. Michelle Phan was a 2014 copyright infringement lawsuit filed by Ultra Records and Ultra International Music Publishing against YouTube beauty creator Michelle Phan, accusing her of using nearly 50 of the label’s songs in her makeup tutorials without a license. Filed in the Central District of California, the case settled on undisclosed terms in August 2015 after Phan countersued, claiming an Ultra executive had given her a standing license to the catalog years earlier.¹

What Ultra Records Accused Phan of Doing

Ultra filed its complaint on July 16, 2014, before Judge Margaret M. Morrow.² The label alleged Phan had used its copyrighted compositions and sound recordings across nearly 50 YouTube videos that had drawn more than 150 million views combined.³ Songs by Kaskade, Deadmau5, and Calvin Harris were among the works cited.¹

Ultra called the infringement “willful and ongoing” and asked for either actual damages plus disgorgement of Phan’s profits, or the maximum statutory damages of $150,000 per infringed work, along with an injunction against further use of its catalog.⁴ Under 17 U.S.C. § 504, that $150,000 ceiling applies when infringement is proven willful.⁵ With roughly 50 works in play, the potential exposure ran into the millions.

Phan’s Defense: An “Absolute License” From an Ultra Executive

In September 2014, Phan filed counterclaims arguing she had an “absolute license” to the music. Her defense rested on Jason Kilgore, Ultra’s senior new media manager, and a paper trail dating to 2009.⁶

According to Phan’s filings, she contacted Kilgore in July 2009 to ask about using Kaskade’s music. Kilgore wrote back that Ultra was “really happy to see you supporting Kaskade” and “more than happy to let [Phan] use this content,” and he promised in writing to release any YouTube Content ID claims on her videos featuring Ultra songs. By January 2010, Phan said, Kilgore had extended the arrangement to Ultra’s whole catalog, telling her: “If you use Ultra content please let me know when the video goes live so that I can make sure it doesn’t get claimed.”⁷

Phan said she kept her side of the arrangement by crediting Ultra artists and adding iTunes purchase links to her descriptions. Kilgore sent her promotional CDs and called her link placements “the perfect way to incorporate any of our videos.”⁸ For four years, she said, she relied on that understanding and contacted Ultra staff to clear Content ID hits as they came up.

The relationship collapsed in early 2014. Ultra’s general counsel told Phan in March that her uses were “unauthorized,” and in June and July the label filed DMCA takedown notices against a dozen of her videos. Phan’s counterclaims accused Ultra of abusing the DMCA and interfering with her YouTube business, alleged the label had acted “with fraud, oppression and malice,” and asked the court to declare the license non-revocable.⁶

Ultra rejected the account. Its lawyers told the court that “no such license ever existed,” and that any narrower permission had been “without consideration and was expressly revoked long before the filing of this lawsuit.”¹

Why Content ID Versus DMCA Was the Fight

YouTube’s Content ID system automatically scans uploads against a database of registered works. When it finds a match, the rights holder can track the video, monetize it, or block it. A Content ID claim is an administrative flag; on its own, it isn’t a copyright strike and doesn’t threaten a channel.⁹ A formal DMCA takedown is different. It is a legal action, it can trigger a strike, and three strikes in 90 days can end a channel.

That distinction was the pivot of Phan’s counterclaim. She said Kilgore had agreed to release Content ID claims, and that the system worked smoothly for years. When Ultra escalated from clearing automated flags to filing DMCA notices, she argued, it broke the arrangement and misused the takedown process.

Kaskade’s Public Support

Kaskade, whose music had opened the door between Phan and Ultra, had sold his recording rights to the label and had no legal standing to stop the case.¹⁰ He said so publicly, tweeting that Ultra “isn’t my lap dog. I can’t do much about the lawsuit except voice my support for her.” He called copyright law “a dinosaur, ill-suited for the landscape of today’s media.”⁴ In a June 2014 blog post he had already complained that current rules let labels “make life kind of a pain-in-the-ass” for artists and fans, including blocking him from posting his own songs to SoundCloud.

How the Case Ended

The parties filed a stipulation and order ending the litigation on August 12, 2015. Terms were not disclosed, and attorneys on both sides declined to comment.¹ Ultra was represented by Christine Lepera and Bradley Mullins of Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp; Phan was represented by Allen Grodsky and Marc Ehrlich of Grodsky & Olecki.¹¹ Because the case ended in a private settlement, no court ruling was issued on whether Kilgore’s emails created an enforceable license.

What Came Out of It

The suit was one of the earliest high-profile examples of a rights holder pursuing an individual creator for millions over background music. Phan later told the Los Angeles Times: “You need to get a good lawyer. Your lawyer is your lifeline.”¹²

The experience also pushed her toward a business built around the problem. In 2018, Phan co-founded Thematic with Marc Schrobilgen (CEO) and Audrey Marshall (COO), a licensing platform giving online creators pre-cleared music without subscription or licensing fees, with artists compensated through promotion to creators’ audiences.¹³¹⁴ Thematic reports issuing more than 4.8 million free music licenses to over one million creators across 220 countries as of mid-2026.

1
The Hollywood Reporter. YouTube Star Michelle Phan Settles Dispute With Dance Label Ultra
2
CourtListener. Ultra International Music Publishing LLC v. Michelle Phan
3
Scribd. Ultra Records v. Michelle Phan Copyright Complaint
4
BBC News. Ultra Records Sues YouTube Star Michelle Phan
5
U.S. Copyright Office. Copyright Law of the United States, Chapter 5
6
Variety. YouTube Star Michelle Phan Countersues Dance Label Ultra Records
7
Digital Music News. Michelle Phan vs. Ultra Records Counterclaim
8
The Hollywood Reporter. Michelle Phan Claims Dance Label Overstepped on YouTube
9
Google. Copyright Strike Basics
10
Digital Music News. Ultra vs. Phan
11
Billboard. YouTube Star Michelle Phan Settles Dispute With Dance Label Ultra Records
12
Los Angeles Times. YouTube Stars
13
Thematic. About Thematic
14
Musically. Social Star Michelle Phan Launches Music Licensing Startup