Kanye West and Ty Dolla $ign face a new lawsuit over “Vultures,” with two producers alleging that material from their 2018 recording was used without permission. The complaint describes a phone call during which Ty Dolla $ign supposedly heard the music in the background and asked for a copy. Filed in California on November 6, the case remains an unresolved copyright claim.
A piece of music allegedly overheard during a telephone conversation is now at the centre of a claim against Kanye West and Ty Dolla $ign. Producers Jaraed Deal, known as Jae Deal, and Marlon Barrow, known as Marlonwiththeglasses, say material from their work was incorporated into “Vultures” without an agreed licence. Their account combines a specific route by which the file allegedly reached the performers with a longstanding personal and professional relationship.
The producers filed suit on November 6, 2026, in the US District Court for the Central District of California. The case is numbered 2:26-cv-13035 and also names companies connected with the song’s release and commercial exploitation. The complaint sets out the plaintiffs’ allegations. It does not establish that any defendant infringed copyright, and the questions raised will need to be assessed through the litigation process.
According to Deal and Barrow, they created the underlying material in 2018 under the title “Joint 2.” They say it was prepared to be offered to other artists while they retained rights in both the composition and recording. The claim concerns the original work and individual audio elements that could be used in a later production. It is therefore presented as a dispute about alleged access and use, rather than merely an observation that two songs sound alike.
Barrow describes a connection with Ty Dolla $ign stretching back decades. He alleges that “Joint 2” was playing in the background during one of their phone calls, prompting the singer to ask for a copy. That alleged conversation is the starting point of the account now attached to the Kanye West release. It remains the producers’ version of events, rather than a sequence independently established by the court.
The complaint says Barrow sent an MP3 on the understanding that a written licensing agreement would be arranged before any commercial use. Higher-quality files and separate audio parts would, in his account, be supplied only after that agreement. The producers allege that no such licence was signed, despite material from the recording ultimately appearing in “Vultures.” The distinction they draw is between sharing something for consideration and granting permission to release it.
“Vultures” first came out in November 2023 and later appeared on “Vultures 1,” released in February 2024. The song reached number 38 on the Billboard Hot 100. The present claim against Kanye West concerns whether the particular material identified by the producers was used with the necessary consent. The fact that a track was released and commercially successful does not itself answer the separate questions about who controlled the material and what permissions had been agreed.
Barrow is listed among the song’s producers. The plaintiffs argue that this credit did not amount to the written permission they say was required, and they claim they did not receive the compensation they believe was due. Deal also alleges that his contribution was not recognised. These are related but distinct issues: a production credit, payment arrangements, publishing interests and permission to use a recording do not necessarily describe the same agreement.
The producers say they objected after the release and that discussions followed about a possible financial resolution. Their complaint describes a proposed one-off settlement in 2024 that they rejected as insufficient. Those negotiations are presented through their account and have not been evaluated by a court. The claim now seeks damages and financial relief from Kanye West, Ty Dolla $ign and the corporate defendants named in the filing.
The alleged phone call matters because it offers a specific explanation of access. The plaintiffs describe a request, delivery of a file and an expectation of further agreement, rather than relying only on a general resemblance between recordings. If disputed, those events will need support from evidence. The court will also have to consider the rights asserted in “Joint 2,” any relevant agreements and the nature of the use alleged in the later production.
The plaintiffs frame the dispute around both recognition and the commercial value of the work they say they made together. Their position is that an existing relationship did not remove the need to settle those terms before release. For Kanye West and the other defendants, the next stage is a response to that specific account. No conclusion about ownership, infringement or the value of the requested compensation follows simply from the filing of the complaint or the description of earlier settlement talks.
Other disputes involving “Vultures 1,” including claims connected with “Good (Don’t Die)” and “Fuk Sumn,” concern different works and allegations. They do not prove this case. Representatives of the two artists had not responded to a request for comment when the initial account appeared on November 9; that silence is not an admission. For now, the Kanye West claim remains centred on “Joint 2,” the circumstances in which it was shared and whether the later use was authorised.
