Beyoncé has been named as a defendant in a new copyright lawsuit concerning the spoken word sample used at the beginning of “Alien Superstar,” one of the standout tracks from her 2022 album Renaissance.
The lawsuit was filed on August 10, 2026, in the US District Court for the Central District of California by Hirose Enterprise LLC and Shuji Hirose, the founder of the now defunct New York house label Soundmen on Wax.
The case comes just weeks after a separate lawsuit concerning the same recording was dismissed by a federal judge. That earlier case was thrown out on procedural grounds and did not determine whether Beyoncé’s use of the sample was properly licensed.
This time, Beyoncé herself has been named alongside Parkwood Entertainment, Sony Music Entertainment, Sony Music Publishing, W Chappell Music Corp. and artist John Holiday, who performs under the name Foremost Poets.
At the center of the dispute is the 1998 house music recording “Moonraker,” performed by Holiday and released through Soundmen on Wax.
The Sample at the Center of the Dispute
The opening moments of “Alien Superstar” feature a spoken-word passage taken from “Moonraker.”
The sample begins:
“Please do not be alarmed, remain calm / Do not attempt to leave the dancefloor…”
The plaintiffs describe the introduction as a recognizable piece of house music history and claim that it has become one of the genre's best-known spoken passages.
“Moonraker” was released as a 12-inch single by Soundmen on Wax around June 10, 1998. The record was performed by Holiday, who later became known professionally as Foremost Poets.
Beyoncé’s “Alien Superstar” was released on July 29, 2022, as part of Renaissance, an album heavily influenced by house, disco and dance music.
The track became a commercial success, reaching No. 19 on the Billboard Hot 100.
The new lawsuit alleges that the sample was used without authorization when “Alien Superstar” was initially released.
Plaintiffs Say the Wrong Person Licensed the Recording
A central allegation in the lawsuit is that Parkwood Entertainment initially released “Alien Superstar” without obtaining a license to use “Moonraker.”
According to the complaint, a license was later obtained around September 6, 2022.
However, the plaintiffs argue that the license was obtained from Holiday, even though they claim he no longer owned the rights to the recording.
The complaint alleges that Holiday had transferred his entire interest in “Moonraker” under a 1998 agreement with Soundmen on Wax.
Under that alleged agreement, Holiday received a flat payment of $1,500 and an equal share of publishing revenue.
The original signed agreement is no longer available, however.
According to the complaint, the document was lost in 2005 when a storage facility containing Soundmen on Wax's records was burglarized.
That missing contract is likely to be an important issue in the new litigation because the plaintiffs' ownership claims rely partly on evidence surrounding the parties' dealings over the years.
A History of Agreements Is Being Used to Establish Ownership
Although the original 1998 agreement is missing, the plaintiffs argue that subsequent business arrangements demonstrate that Holiday had already transferred his rights.
They point to additional recording agreements signed in 1999 and 2000, which they say followed the same ownership structure.
The complaint also references later agreements from 2016 and 2017.
One of those documents concerned a Foremost Poets recording called “Funktion One” and allegedly contained letterhead identifying Hirose Enterprise as the entity operating the catalog.
Another agreement concerned two derivative works of “Moonraker” and, according to the plaintiffs, showed Holiday dealing with Hirose Enterprise as the party controlling the recording.
The lawsuit argues that these later transactions support the plaintiffs' position that ownership of “Moonraker” had already moved away from Holiday.
Holiday Allegedly Acknowledged Hirose's Ownership
The complaint also points to a conversation between Holiday and Shuji Hirose that allegedly took place on August 3, 2022, roughly one month before the license was issued.
According to the plaintiffs, Holiday acknowledged during that conversation that Hirose was the rightful owner of the rights in “Moonraker.”
The complaint claims Holiday also indicated that paperwork from Parkwood should be forwarded to Hirose.
Despite that alleged conversation, the plaintiffs say Holiday subsequently licensed the recording to Parkwood.
The plaintiffs argue that the license therefore did not provide the necessary authorization because, in their view, Holiday no longer owned the rights he purported to grant.
Holiday reportedly received $10,000 plus 0.5% of royalties from “Alien Superstar” under the disputed license.
Plaintiffs Say Defendants Were Put on Notice
The lawsuit alleges that the defendants were informed that the use of the recording was unauthorized.
According to the complaint, attorneys representing the plaintiffs contacted Holiday around January 30, 2023, and copied lawyers representing Parkwood and Columbia Records.
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants nevertheless continued exploiting “Alien Superstar.”
They characterize the conduct as knowing and willful and argue that Parkwood initially released the song without a license before subsequently relying on what they describe as a license from the wrong rights holder.
The new lawsuit seeks to establish whether that authorization was legally valid and whether the defendants infringed the plaintiffs' copyright interests.
A Previous Lawsuit Was Dismissed in June
The new case follows another lawsuit concerning the same recording.
A previous action was filed in July 2025 by Hirose Enterprises LLC, a Florida-registered entity with a slightly different name from the Delaware company now bringing the new case.
That lawsuit was dismissed by US District Judge Mark C. Scarsi on June 26, 2026.
The dismissal did not determine whether Beyoncé and the other defendants had infringed copyright.
Instead, Judge Scarsi found that the plaintiff in the earlier case had not legally existed when it filed the lawsuit.
As a result, the company did not have standing to pursue the claims.
Judge Scarsi wrote that the plaintiff had no legal existence when the case was filed and therefore could not have held an interest in the outcome of the litigation at that time.
The new plaintiffs have structured their case in an attempt to avoid that problem.
The New Lawsuit Tries to Fix the Ownership Chain
The latest complaint includes both Hirose Enterprise LLC and Shuji Hirose as plaintiffs.
They assert ownership claims in the alternative, meaning the lawsuit seeks to ensure that whichever party the court ultimately determines owns the copyright is already involved in the case.
Three weeks after the earlier lawsuit was dismissed, on July 18, 2026, the parties on the Hirose side signed several documents intended to clarify the ownership history.
Those documents include a confirmatory assignment from Soundmen on Wax to Hirose, a subsequent assignment from Hirose to Hirose Enterprise and a quitclaim from the Florida entity disclaiming any potential interest it may have held.
The documents have been attached to the new complaint.
The plaintiffs are effectively attempting to close gaps in the chain of title that complicated the previous lawsuit.
The Missing 1998 Contract Could Still Matter
The ownership question is not completely straightforward.
In March 2026, another version of the lawsuit had already been dismissed with leave to amend after a federal judge found that the plaintiff had not adequately demonstrated that certain copyright transfers had been made in writing.
US copyright law generally requires transfers of copyright ownership to be documented in writing.
The later confirmatory assignments address some of the subsequent transfers, but they cannot recreate the original 1998 agreement.
That agreement remains missing.
As a result, the plaintiffs may have to rely on the surrounding agreements, business records and course of dealing to establish what happened to Holiday's rights in “Moonraker.”
The new lawsuit makes clear that no court has yet ruled on the underlying copyright dispute.
Beyoncé Is Now Personally Named as a Defendant
One of the biggest differences between the previous lawsuit and the new action is that Beyoncé herself has now been named as a defendant.
The complaint alleges that Beyoncé owns or holds an interest in Parkwood Entertainment and that she is credited as an author of “Alien Superstar.”
The plaintiffs therefore argue that she should be included in the case alongside the companies involved in the release, publishing and distribution of the song.
The lawsuit alleges direct, contributory and vicarious copyright infringement against the defendants.
Holiday is separately facing a breach of contract claim.
The Dispute Extends Beyond Streaming
The plaintiffs allege that the disputed recording was not only exploited through digital music services.
The complaint identifies platforms including Apple Music, Tidal, Spotify, YouTube Music, Pandora and Amazon Music as services through which the defendants allegedly distributed or exploited “Alien Superstar.”
The lawsuit also claims that the song was performed during Beyoncé's live tours.
According to the complaint, “Alien Superstar” and the allegedly unauthorized sample were performed during all 56 shows of the Renaissance World Tour in 2023 and the 32-show Cowboy Carter Tour in 2025.
If the case progresses, the scope of those alleged uses could become significant when determining potential damages.
What the Plaintiffs Are Seeking
The plaintiffs are asking the court for several forms of relief.
They seek monetary damages, profits allegedly attributable to the infringement and an accounting of revenues connected to the disputed use.
They are also asking for a permanent injunction that could restrict continued exploitation of the recording if the court ultimately finds that the use was unauthorized.
The potential financial exposure will depend on the court's findings regarding ownership, infringement, willfulness and damages.
At this stage, however, there has been no judicial determination that Beyoncé or any of the other defendants infringed the copyright.
Another Copyright Dispute Surrounding Beyoncé's Music
The lawsuit adds to a growing list of copyright disputes involving major contemporary artists and samples.
Sampling has long been an important part of hip-hop, house, electronic music and popular music more broadly, but it can also create complicated questions about ownership and clearance.
A sample may require authorization from multiple rights holders, depending on whether the use involves the underlying composition, the original sound recording or both.
The dispute surrounding “Alien Superstar” highlights another layer of complexity: who actually has the authority to grant that permission?
Even when an artist or label believes a sample has been licensed, questions about the chain of ownership can later lead to litigation.
Recent High-Profile Music Copyright Cases
The Beyoncé case comes during a period of continued copyright litigation involving major artists.
A copyright lawsuit against Cardi B over “Enough (Miami)” was dismissed in March 2026 after a Texas judge determined that the plaintiffs had filed the case in the wrong jurisdiction and had not obtained copyright registration for their song when they initiated the lawsuit.
In June, a lawsuit involving Travis Scott, SZA and Future over “Telekinesis” was dropped by the plaintiff several months after surviving an attempt to have the case dismissed.
These cases demonstrate how copyright disputes can end on procedural grounds without courts necessarily reaching the underlying question of whether a musical work infringed another creator's rights.
What Happens Next?
The latest lawsuit now gives a federal court an opportunity to address the underlying dispute that previous proceedings never resolved.
The key questions will include who legally owned the “Moonraker” recording when “Alien Superstar” was released, whether Holiday had authority to license the recording to Parkwood, and whether Beyoncé and the other defendants can be held liable for allegedly unauthorized use.
The missing 1998 agreement could become an important piece of that puzzle, while the later contracts and confirmatory assignments may be used to establish the history of ownership.
For Beyoncé, the case represents another legal challenge connected to Renaissance, an album that drew heavily from the history and culture of dance and house music.
For the plaintiffs, the lawsuit is an opportunity to finally have the merits of their ownership and infringement claims considered by a court.
Until that happens, one thing remains unresolved: whether the iconic house music sample at the beginning of “Alien Superstar” was legally cleared by the party that actually owned the rights to it.
