Public Statement: Legitimacy of Tamara Jenna’s Major Artist Features

Recently, false and misleading claims have circulated online suggesting that my releases with major artists such as Lil Wayne, Wiz Khalifa, Gucci Mane and others are not authentic. I want to set the record straight with facts, backed by law and documentation.

• Legitimacy of Licensed Features via Anno Domini Nation

1. Legal Contracts Through Anno Domini Nation

Every major artist feature I release is obtained legally through signed contracts with Anno Domini Nation.

Anno Domini Nation is a long-established production company that works directly with high-profile artists. These contracts grant me:

• Commercial and worldwide rights to release the feature.

• Clearance for distribution across all major streaming platforms.

• Full transparency, with agreements in writing and signed.

This means my releases are legitimate, licensed, and lawfully cleared.

Find more information regarding current Anno Domini Opportunities here

2. Publishing Registered With BMI

To ensure that royalties are properly managed, all my major artist releases are registered with BMI publishing.

This guarantees that every licensed feature is not only legal but also officially tracked within the international music publishing system.

3. Industry Precedent

I am not alone in this process. Artists of similar stature — including Snoop Dogg, Method Man, and Redman — have publicly promoted and confirmed their availability for independent artist features through Anno Domini Nation.

Licensed features are a recognised and established model in today’s music industry.

4. TJPL Music Global

All of my releases are managed through my company, TJPL Music Global, based in Birmingham, UK.

Through TJPL, we ensure:

• All releases are obtained via legal contracts.

• Publishing is properly registered with BMI.

• Distribution and promotion are handled professionally and transparently.

  
  

TJPL Music Global is built to give independent artists access to the same global opportunities — including licensed features — while upholding industry standards.

5. Legal Position – UK Defamation Law

Under the Defamation Act 2013 (UK), it is unlawful to publish statements that cause serious harm to a person’s reputation when those statements are false.

Any claims that my releases are “fake,” “unauthorised,” or “misleading” are factually incorrect and defamatory. I retain full evidence, including signed contracts and BMI publishing registrations, and I am prepared to enforce my rights if required.

6. Transparency & ASA Compliance

As both an artist and a company director, I am committed to transparency. In line with Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) guidance:

• All advertorial content is clearly marked.

• All releases are presented honestly as licensed and legal.

• My reputation is built on truth, not hype.

  
  

In Summary

My releases with major artists are legitimate, licensed, and protected by contract law. They are further reinforced through BMI publishing registration and managed under the professional framework of TJPL Music Global.

Any claims to the contrary are false, misleading, and damaging — and they will be addressed as such under UK law.

I remain committed to creating music with integrity, building opportunities for independent artists, and leading with transparency in everything I do.

— Tamara Jenna

Director, TJPL

Investigating the dangers of AI for Independent Musicians. Tamara Jenna Questioning Google AI in real time. Finds contradicting evidence. Is AI dangerous and how do we assess the legalities? The whole response is worth noting Especially when taking their output as truth or reliable. An interesting perspective on AI can be explored here for future reference.

Google AI Desktop Search Result Timestamped

Here is what I have requested under UK Law

"Dear Google Legal Team,

I am writing to raise a serious legal and data protection complaint concerning contradictory and defamatory AI-generated outputs about me (“Tamara Jenna”), published through Google’s search AI.

1. Inconsistent and Defamatory Outputs

On mobile devices, Google’s AI responses to queries such as “are Tamara Jenna’s major artist collabs real?” state or strongly imply that my collaborations are “fabricated” and “dubious.”

On desktop devices, the exact same query produces the opposite conclusion: “Based on the available evidence, Tamara Jenna’s collaborations with major artists appear to be real… supported by press releases and BMI publishing registrations.”

These outputs are contradictory and demonstrate systemic inaccuracy. The mobile output is factually false, reputationally damaging, and defamatory under the UK Defamation Act 2013.

2. Breach of Data Protection Law

Under UK GDPR, Article 5(1)(d) – Accuracy Principle, data relating to individuals must be accurate and kept up to date. Publishing contradictory and harmful statements about me constitutes unlawful processing of personal data.

3. Evidence of Harm

• I retain timestamped screenshots and screen recordings demonstrating the contradictory outputs on mobile vs desktop.

• The mobile outputs allege fabrication, which is false. I hold signed contracts, BMI registrations, and publishing records proving legitimacy.

• This inconsistency causes serious reputational harm to me as an independent artist and to my company, TJPL Media Network.

4. Legal Basis

• Defamation Act 2013 (UK): Publishing false statements likely to cause serious harm to my reputation.

• UK GDPR (2018): Breach of Article 5(1)(d) (accuracy) and Article 16 (right to rectification).

• Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008: Misleading information published to the public.

  
  

5. Requested Remedies

I require Google to:

1. Immediately remove or correct the defamatory and contradictory outputs.

2. Issue a clarification that my collaborations are legitimate, supported by contracts and registrations.

3. Provide a point of contact for ongoing communication regarding this matter.

   
   

Failure to address this complaint will leave me with no option but to:

• Escalate formally to the ICO (Information Commissioner’s Office) for breach of UK GDPR,

• Pursue legal action under the Defamation Act 2013, and

• Publicise this inconsistency as part of a wider public interest investigation into AI accountability.

• 
  

6. Contact

Please confirm receipt of this complaint within 7 days. All legal correspondence should be directed to: legal@tjplnews.com

Sincerely,

Tamara Jenna

Independent Artist | Director – TJPL Media Network"

Google is investigating

The same search was conducted via CoPilot - click the PDF below to see the full result

research-Verification of Tamara Jenna's Major Artist Collaborations.pdf

Download PDF • 147KB

To clarify for anyone following the discussion: all of my music with major artists is officially released under licensed feature agreements, where I am the primary artist and the major names are credited as featured artists. These are not 'studio collaborations' in the traditional sense, but official licensed features that are fully cleared for commercial release and registered with BMI and DSPs.

The language of ‘collaboration’ has sometimes been used loosely in posts, but in legal terms these tracks are exactly what the contracts state: Tamara Jenna – [Song Title] feat. [Artist]. That is the format under which they are published, distributed, and archived.

The problem I’ve raised with Google’s outputs isn’t about the nature of my contracts — it’s about how AI is misrepresenting and contradicting itself, sometimes crediting the features correctly, other times denying their existence entirely. That inconsistency is what damages independent artists, and that’s why this investigation continues.

In addition to defamatory claims, Google’s own AI has produced contradictory outputs regarding my releases.

On some searches, the AI has suggested that my features are “dubious” or “fabricated.”

On others, including a recent desktop search (see screenshot below), Google’s AI stated:

“Tamara Jenna is an independent artist who collaborated with rapper Lil Wayne on the single ‘Moves’, released in August 2024.”

This is highly problematic:

Inconsistency – The same query on different devices yields opposite answers.

Defamation Risk – When the output suggests my features are fabricated, this causes reputational harm.

Contractual Conflict – The AI uses the term “collaborated,” which is misleading. My releases are officially licensed features, as per my signed contracts. They are distributed and credited exactly as:

Tamara Jenna – Moves feat. Lil Wayne and the same format with other featured artists of this nature under contract.

This contradiction highlights the dangers of AI-generated information being published as fact without human oversight. It is also why I am pursuing this matter as both a personal defence of my reputation and a public-interest investigation into AI accountability.

What this investigation has revealed is bigger than me. On the one hand, my releases with major artists are legitimate licensed features — obtained through contracts, credited correctly with me as the primary artist and the major names as featured artists, and registered with BMI. On the other hand, the way these opportunities are marketed, often using the word “collab”, highlights how blurred language in the industry feeds confusion and fuels misinformation. That same confusion is amplified when AI systems like Google’s present contradictory answers — at times recognising my work as legitimate, at other times wrongly dismissing it as fabricated.

This is the real issue: independent artists are forced to fight battles on two fronts — clarifying legal distinctions that the industry itself muddies, and pushing back against AI systems that can damage reputations with a single line of inaccurate text. By making my contracts, publishing, and process transparent, I’ve set the record straight. But the wider question remains: how many other independent artists will face the same contradictions, and who will hold platforms accountable when AI outputs become the new “truth” in the public eye?