Sony Music and Dr. Luke are very much in a working relationship. Dr. Luke?s lawyer refuted the claims that Sony will be dropping him.
According to Rolling Stone, Luke?s lawyer said, ?”This is not true. Luke has an excellent relationship with Sony. His representatives are in regular contact with executives at the highest levels at Sony and this has never come up.”
?Knowledgeable individuals? asserted that Sony was going to discontinue working with their executive producer Lukasz ?Dr. Luke? Gottwald after his contract expires next year, according to Wrap?s reports on March 9,
However, a Sony representative refused to make any comments regarding the ?matter.? This all began after Kesha claimed that Dr. Luke allegedly abused her sexually, physically and emotionally for years. The 28-year old also lost the legal battle against Dr. Luke that was going on since 2014 and was trying to get out of her contract with the producer?s ?Kemosabe Records? that is owned by Sony Music. TMZ reports said that the Warrior singer had run out of funds fighting the ?legal battle? that had turned out to be very ?expensive.?
Although Kesha lost the case against Dr. Luke in the court, she received huge support from some of the renowned names in the music industry like Taylor Swift, Lady Gaga, Ariana Grande, Kelly Clarkson and Lorde. Swift had donated $250,000 to Kesha so she can continue her legal fight against Dr. Luke.
New York Times reported Adele?s words of support for Kesha that she said while ?closing her acceptance speech for best British female solo artist.?
It is not known if Kesha will ever be free from her contract with Sony. But the website further reported what Sony?s attorney Scott A. Edelman had to say about the case. ?Sony has made it possible for Kesha to record without any connection, involvement or interaction with Luke whatsoever, but Sony is not in a position to terminate the contractual relationship between Luke and Kesha, ? he said.
Mr. Edelman further added that Sony was supporting the artist in every possible way ?in these circumstances,? however it could not ?legally terminate the contract to which it is not a party.?