Copyright Law: A Case Study of Fahmy v. Jay-Z

This assignment discusses the copyright laws of the United States with a case study of Fahmy v. Jay-Z. It covers the facts of the case, the decision of the court, and steps that should have been taken by the respective parties.

Running head: COPYRIGHT LAW
COPYRIGHT LAW
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1COPYRIGHT LAW
Introduction
In this particular assignment, the copyright laws of the United States have been
discussed. In this assignment, the case of Fahmy v. Jay-Z, No. 16-55213 (9th Cir. 2018) has been
discussed. It has been mentioned in the assignment that the parties involved in the
aforementioned case are Fahmy and Jay-Z. The plaintiff and later the appellant in the case is
Osama Ahmed Fahmy. The primary defendants and later the appellees in the given case are Jay-
Z, also known as Shawn Carter, and Timbaland, also known as Timothy Moseley. It has been
stated that the main issue in the mentioned case is that claims in relation to violation of copyright
has been brought by Osama Ahmed Fahmy, who is an heir to the music composer of Egyptian
decent, named Baligh Hamdy. The claim was brought against the defendants, Shawn Carter and
Timothy Moseley. It has been stated by the plaintiff that the defendants have utilized a sample
from the song “Khosara”, a famous song composed by Baligh Hamdy and hence violation of
copyright was caused by the defendants. This case took place in the nation of the United States
and the copyright laws of the nation of Egypt and the nation of United States were involved in
this case. The matter of the mentioned case was heard by the District Court of the Ninth Circuit.
The Facts of the case according to the Timeline
In the year of 1957, the music of the famous Egyptian song “Khosara” was composed by
the celebrated Baligh Hamdy. The song became popular after it was incorporated in a movie of
the nation of Egypt. In the year of 1968, a recording institution of Egypt, known as Sout El Phan,
purchased specific rights in relation to distribution and licensing of the song composed by
Hamdy. In the year of 1993, Baligh Hamdy passed away, and subsequently the heirs of Hamdy
inherited all the rights that Hamdy had in relation to the aforementioned song. Then, in the year

2COPYRIGHT LAW
of 1995, Osama Ahmed Hamdy, the representative of the heirs of Hamdy, entered into an
agreement with Sout El Phan, which confirmed the viability of the rights that were transferred in
the agreement made in the year 1968. In the year 1995, the rights in relation to distribution and
licensing regarding the song “Khosara”, was sold by Sout El Phan to EMI Music Arabia (Knight,
2016).
In the year 1999, Jay-Z, also known as Shawn Carter, and Timbaland, also known as
Timothy Moseley, released their famous song “Big Pimpin”, in which, they utilized a part of the
famous song “Khosara”. The utilization was done based on the idea that the song “Khosara” was
available in the domain of general public and hence, no permission was acquired for it (Shaffer
Van Houweling, 2019). Assertion of rights in relation to the song “Khosara” was given effect to
by EMI and a sum of hundred thousand dollars was paid by Timbaland for the exploitation of the
song “Khosara” in the song “Big Pimpin”. In 2000, Fahmy received the information regarding
the exploitation of the song. Fahmy hired an attorney so that research could be done regarding
any claim in relation to copyright that could be activated against Jay-Z (Branch, Damji & Lentz,
2017).
Afterwards, the control of the music catalogue of Sout El Phan was acquired by another
recording organization of Egypt known as Alam El Phan. In the years 2001 and 2002, an
independent agreement was entered into by Mohsen Mohammed Jaber, the person who owned
Alam El Phan, with Fahmy, the person who acted as the representatives of the heirs of Hamdy.
By this agreement, broad rights in relation to “Khosara” was transferred to Jaber. These rights
included the rights regarding the publication, utilization and selling of the song “Khosara” all
over the world. The agreement made in the year 2002 mentioned that the rights specified in the
agreement made in the year of 1968 shall be transferred to Jaber from Fahmy (Mezei, 2019).

3COPYRIGHT LAW
In the year 2007, a suit was filed by Fahmy against Shawn Carter, also known as Jay-Z,
which stated three different violations regarding the song “Big Pimpin”.
In the year of 2015, an order was forwarded by the district court, which was in support of
Jay-Z, which stated that under the law of the nation of Egypt, the adaptation right is a pecuniary
right. Such right is unlike a moral right that is inalienable. The order stated that the agreement
that was made in 2002, was in compliance with the statutory requirements of the nation of Egypt
that governs the transmission of the rights of economic nature. It also mentioned that the
reservation of the rights to performance of the public and automated printing in favor of Fahmy
in the particular agreement, means the right to obtain royalties, and was inadequate to deliberate
upright to Fahmy for his entitlements regarding the violation (Jacobs-Meadway, Cherin &
Mellott, 2015).
After an appeal was made by Fahmy, three arguments were forwarded in the appeal.
Firstly, it is stated that according to the law of Egypt, the right to generate imitative works is a
moral right of immutable nature, which could not be allocated under any particular agreement.
Secondly, in case where a transfer was imaginable, the agreement of 2002 did not transmit that
right. Thirdly, it is stated that the right to obtain royalties single-handedly bequests him an
upright to sue. All the three arguments that were forwarded were rejected.
The Decision of the Court
The final decision was made in favor of Jay-Z (Velasquez, 2017). According to law of
Egypt, when the heir transported the economic rights that he had in relation to the song to an
individual who owned a music organization in Egypt in the year 2002, the transmission
comprised the right to produce imitative works that have been adapted from the song “Khosara.”

4COPYRIGHT LAW
Any ethical rights reserved by functioning of law of Egypt cannot be enforced in the federal
court of United States, and even if such laws could be enforced, the heir was unsuccessful to
fulfil a compensation obligation of the law of Egypt, which did not make available for his
demanded money recompenses and only delivered for injunctive respite from a court in Egypt.
The element that the heir reserved the right to obtain royalties, did not provide him the upright to
litigate for copyright violation. All the aforementioned decisions were forwarded by the court
(Itanyi & Maduka, 2017).
Steps that should have been engaged by the respective parties
In the mentioned case, it can be said that Timbaland and Jay-Z have followed the law and
have taken actions accordingly. For instance, as mentioned earlier the song “Khosara” was
presumed to be in the populace domain. According to the idea, a sum of hundred thousand
dollars was paid by Timbaland in order to make use of the aforementioned song. A step that was
not followed by Jay-Z and Timbaland was requesting for the permission of the family of Baligh
Hamdy. The song that was created by Jay-Z and Timbaland, included vulgar languages and a
proper permission should have been asked by them regarding the utilization of the song
“Khosara” in relation to the song “Big Pimpin”, a creation of Jay-Z and Timbaland.
Regarding the situation of Fahmy, it can be said that Fahmy should have done a proper
research of the copyright, law in Egypt. For instance, Fahmy should have researched that
whether economic privileges and rights are transferable under the copyright law of Egypt. He
should have researched that whether the law of Egypt can be accurately enforced in the United
States. Fahmy should have proved that proper compliance have been done in order to necessitate
receiving any compensation or damages.

5COPYRIGHT LAW
Plaintiff’s Perception
In the given situation, the plaintiff must take action as per the copyright law. The plaintiff
has to show that there is a similarity of substantial nature that include both tests, that is, the
objective test and the subjective test. The plaintiff must provide accurate evidence in relation to
the violation that has been caused by the respondents. The provisions of the Copyright Act of the
year 1976 shall be applicable. If the plaintiff can prove that violation of the copyright has
actually been caused, then an action can be made against the respondents, that is, the plaintiffs
shall be able to claim compensation from the respondents for such violation.
Conclusion
To conclude it can be said that the idea of copyright is a broad concept in the music and
entertainment industry. The creation of every author must be properly copyrighted and proper
protection must be given to the creators.

6COPYRIGHT LAW
References
Arewa, O. B. (2016). Copyright and Cognition: Musical Practice and Music Perception. . John's
L. Rev., 90, 565.
Branch, D. E., Damji, S. K., & Lentz, D. G. (2017). Testimony Considerations. Litigation
Services Handbook: The Role of the Financial Expert, 1-24.
Copyright Act, 1976
Fahmy v. Jay-Z, No. 16-55213 (9th Cir. 2018)
Itanyi, N., & Maduka, E. (2017). Beyoncé's $20 Million Copyright Infringement Lawsuit:
Predicting the Likely Outcome. Available at SSRN 2953283.
Jacobs-Meadway, R., Cherin, E. S., & Mellott, L. L. C. (2015). Fair Use or Foul:
Transformation, Derivative Works, and What Remains of Traditional Tests in a Digital
Age. Age.
Knight, R. (2016). Jay-Z Has 99 Problems but a Sample Ain’t One. The University of Cincinnati
Intellectual Property and Computer Law Journal, 1(1), 6.
Mezei, P. (2019). Thou Shalt Sample? New Drifts in the Ocean of Sampling. New Drifts in the
Ocean of Sampling (March 27, 2019).
Shaffer Van Houweling, M. (2019). Equitable Estoppel and Information Costs in Contemporary
Copyright. Lewis & Clark L. Rev., 23, 553.
Velasquez, G. (2017). No Credit Where Credit is Due: Exploitation in Copyright. J. Pat. &
Trademark Off. Soc'y, 99, 693.