Fahmy v. Jay-Z
Decision Date | 31 May 2018 |
Docket Number | No. 16-55213,16-55213 |
Citation | 891 F.3d 823 |
Parties | Osama Ahmed FAHMY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JAY-Z, AKA Shawn Carter ; Timothy Mosely, FKA Timbaland; Kyambo Joshua; Rob Bourdon; Brad Delson; Mike Shinoda; Dave Farrell ; Joseph Hahn ; Chester Bennington; Big Bad Mr Hahn Music; Chesterchaz Publishing; EMI Blackwood Music, Inc.; EMI Music Publishing Ltd. ; Kenji Kobayashi Music; Lil Lulu Publishing; Machine Shop Recordings, LLC; Marcy Projects Productions II, Inc.; MTV Networks Enterprise, Inc.; Nondisclosure Agreement Music; Paramount Home Entertainment, Inc.; Paramount Pictures Corporation; Radical Media; Rob Bourdon Music; Roc-A-Fella Records, LLC; Timbaland Productions, Inc.; UMG Recordings, Inc.; Universal Music and Video Distribution, Inc. ; Warner Music, Inc., Defendants-Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Keith J. Wesley (argued), Corbin K. Barthold, and Peter W. Ross, Browne George Ross LLP, Los Angeles, California, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Christine Lepera (argued), Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP, New York, New York; David A. Steinberg, Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP, Los Angeles, California; Andrew H. Bart, Jenner & Block LLP, New York, New York; for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: Carlos T. Bea, Consuelo M. Callahan, and Paul R. Kelly,* Circuit Judges.
Days before the turn of the new millennium, rapper Jay-Z released an album containing his soon-to-be hit single Big Pimpin' . The background music to that track used a sample from a 1957 arrangement by Egyptian composer Baligh Hamdy. Today, we are faced with the question whether the heir to Hamdy's copyright (Appellant Fahmy) may sue Jay-Z for infringement based solely on the fact that Egyptian law recognizes an inalienable "moral right" of the author to object to offensive uses of a copyrighted work. We hold that he cannot.
In 1957, Baligh Hamdy composed the music to the song Khosara for the Egyptian movie Fata Ahlami . The song quickly became popular in Egypt. In 1968, Hamdy agreed to transfer certain license and distribution rights to an Egyptian recording company, Sout el Phan.1 When Hamdy died in 1993, his heirs inherited whatever rights he retained in Khosara . Appellant Osama Ahmed Fahmy ("Fahmy") is one of these heirs.
In August 1995, Hamdy's heirs, including Fahmy, who acted as the heirs' representative, executed another agreement with Sout el Phan, confirming the continuing viability of the rights transferred through the 1968 agreement.2 In December 1995, Sout el Phan transferred certain of its exclusive rights to a company called EMI Music Arabia ("EMI"). This agreement transferred to EMI, among other things, "the sole and exclusive right to protect, publish and/or sub-publish songs" contained on records in the Sout el Phan catalog, including Khosara . After the December 1995 agreement, EMI possessed the rights, previously held by Sout el Phan, to license and distribute recordings of Khosara in every country but Egypt. Sout el Phan retained the rights to license and distribute in Egypt.
Appellees enter the picture a few years later. In 1999, rapper Shawn Carter (professionally known as, "Jay-Z") and music producer Timothy Mosley (professionally known as, "Timbaland") produced a hit song, Big Pimpin' , that used portions of Khosara as a background track to Jay-Z's rap lyrics.3 They thought the music was part of the public domain and did not obtain permission to use it. EMI disagreed. As a result, in late 2000, EMI asserted its rights to the music, and Mosley paid EMI $100,000 for the right to exploit Khosara in Big Pimpin' .
Fahmy became aware of Big Pimpin' in December 2000. As a result, he authorized a U.S.-based intellectual property attorney, David Braun, to investigate a copyright infringement claim against Jay-Z. According to Fahmy, an attorney at EMI told Braun that EMI had a valid license to exploit Khosara but refused to disclose the agreement to Braun. Braun eventually declined to represent the Hamdy heirs.
Around 2001, control of Sout el Phan's musical catalog passed to another Egyptian entity called Alam el Phan. In 2002, independent of the agreements previously mentioned, Fahmy, as representative of the Hamdy heirs, including himself, signed an agreement with the owner of Alam el Phan, Mohsen Mohammed Jaber. The agreement transferred to Jaber certain rights to Khosara . Exactly which rights were transferred in this 2002 Agreement4 is the central dispute in this lawsuit. The agreement, in relevant part, reads as follows:
(Emphasis added).
Notwithstanding this 2002 Agreement, Fahmy filed the instant lawsuit against Jay-Z in 2007, claiming to have retained certain rights to the Khosara copyright. The complaint contained three causes of action for copyright infringement6 under Section 106(2) of the Copyright Act7 , and a state law claim for unfair business practices. The claim for unfair business practices was subsequently dismissed and is not at issue in this appeal.
On December 9, 2011, the district court granted Jay-Z's motion for partial summary judgment, holding that based on the Copyright Act's "rolling" statute of limitations Fahmy "may recover damages from any infringement only within three years prior to the filing of his lawsuit—i.e. , from August 31, 2004 to the present." That order is not challenged in this appeal.
On August 12, 2013, the district court granted Jay-Z's motion for summary judgment based on the doctrine of laches, holding that Fahmy's more than six-year delay in filing his complaint after hearing of the infringement was unreasonable and prejudiced Jay-Z. However, on May 19, 2014, the Supreme Court held in a different case that laches cannot be invoked to preclude copyright claims filed within the limitations period. See Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. , ––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 1962, 1967, 188 L.Ed.2d 979 (2014). Thereafter, the district court granted Fahmy's motion for reconsideration and vacated its summary judgment order to the extent it barred certain claims based on laches.
On September 24, 2015, the district court ruled on several pretrial motions. First, it granted Jay-Z's motion in limine to prohibit Fahmy from playing sound recordings of Khosara as evidence of the copyright. The court held that "[p]resenting the sound recordings at trial carries a significant risk of confusing and misleading the jury," which was "particularly problematic because [Fahmy] admits that his copyright does not include the 1992 recording [of Khosara ]."8 Second, the court granted Fahmy's motion to bifurcate the liability and damages phases of the trial. Third, the court denied Jay-Z's request to resolve at the outset of trial issues of foreign law, including whether the 2002 agreement between Fahmy and Jaber "effectuated a complete transfer of plaintiff's rights in Khosara , therefore denying [Fahmy] standing to bring the suit." The court held that, because "neither party had presented expert...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Felarca v. Birgeneau
-
Suntech Power Holdings Co. v. Worley
...the dismissal, Proctor v. Vishay Intertech. Inc., 584 F.3d 1208, 1218 (9th Cir. 2009), and the content of foreign law, Fahmy v. Jay-Z, 891 F.3d 823, 829 (9th Cir. 2018), we affirm. The district court correctly interpreted the contract to exculpate Suntech's directors from all but willful de......
-
Beijing iQIYI Sci. & Tech. Co. v. iTalk Glob. Commc'ns, Inc.
...the infringement occurred, not where the original author created the work or where the author first published the work. Fahmy v. Jay-Z, 891 F.3d 823, 831 (9th Cir. 2018). Moreover, this factor does not support dismissal because this case substantively involves American companies, and the Un......
-
Case Comments
...not confer standing to sue for copyright infringement, in Egypt or the U.S. A dismissal for lack of standing was affirmed. Fahmy v. Jay-Z, 891 F.3d 823, 126 U.S.P.Q.2d 1722 (9th Cir. 2018).COPYRIGHTS - SUMMARY JUDGMENT DJ Plaintiff moved for summary judgment of non-infringement because his ......