Fahmy v. Jay-Z et al

Filing 271

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANTS' EXPERT AHMED Y. ZOHNY AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Judge Christina A. Snyder: The Court DENIES plaintiff's motion to exclude testimony of Ahmed Y. Zohn 256 . The Court GRANTS plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment 227 with respect to the following issues: (1) that Baligh Hamdy authored and owned the copyright in the 'Khosara, Khosara' musical composition; (2) that plaintiff Osama Fahmy is a Hamdy heir, and a co-owner of the 'Khosara, Khosara' copyright; (3) that plaintiff Osama Fahmy has standing to bring claims that defendants' works infringed the 'Khosara, Khosara' copyright. The Court DENIES plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment 227 with respect to the following issue, which it concludes present triable issues of fact for the jury: that defendants do not have a grant of permission to make derivative works from the 'Khosara, Khosara' musical composition. The Court also DENIES plaintiff's motion with respect to the following issue to the extent it conflicts with this order: that the copyright, insofar as it includes 'moral rights' in Egypt and the exclusive right to make derivative works, descended to and is controlled by Hamdy's heirs. (gk)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

WESTERN DIVISION

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

OSAMA AHMED FAHMY,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
)
JAY-Z AKA SHAWN CARTER, ET
)
AL.;
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
_______________________________ )

I.

Case No. CV 07-5715 CAS (Ex)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO EXCLUDE
TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANTS’
EXPERT AHMED Y. ZOHNY AND
GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR PARTIAL
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION
On August 31, 2007, plaintiff Osama Ahmed Fahmy initiated the instant suit

against defendants Jay-Z (aka Shawn Carter) (“Jay-Z”), Timothy Mosley, 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 Publishing Ltd., Kenji Kobayashi Music, Lil Lulu Publishing, Machine Shop
Recordings LLC, Marcy Projects Productions II, MTV Networks Enterprises Inc.,
Nondisclosure Agreement Music, Paramount Home Entertainment Inc., Paramount

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Pictures Corporation, Radical Media, Rob Bourdon Music, Roc-A-Fella Records LLC,
Timbaland Productions Inc., UMG Recordings Inc., Universal Music and Video
Distribution Inc., and Warner Music Inc. Plaintiff alleges claims for copyright
infringement under the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq. (claims one, two
and three) and for violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq. (claim four).1
On March 19, 2008, the Court dismissed plaintiff’s fourth claim for relief pursuant to
Rule 12(b)(6). Plaintiff’s allegations stem from an alleged infringement of his copyright
interest in the Egyptian musical composition, “Khosara, Khosara,” through the
performance, recording and transmittal of the song “Big Pimpin’” and its variations.
On September 20, 2010, plaintiff filed the instant motion for partial summary
judgment as to material facts and issues of law, including foreign law. On December 13,
2010, defendants filed an opposition to plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment.
On January 17, 2011, plaintiff filed a reply in support of his motion. On February 8,
2011, defendants filed a sur-reply. On January 31, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion to
exclude testimony of defendants’ expert Ahmed Y. Zohny. On February 7, 2011,
defendants filed an opposition to plaintiff’s motion. On February 14, 2011, plaintiff
filed a reply in support of his motion. On February 28, 2011, a hearing was held on both

1

Previously, Ahab Joseph Nafal (“Nafal”) filed suit against Jay-Z and others in the
case entitled Ahab Joseph (“Julian”) Nafal v. Shawn Carter, et al., Case No. CV 05-2480
SVW (PJWx) (C.D. Cal. 2005) (“Nafal Action”). Nafal asserted claims similar to those
alleged herein: that the song “Big Pimpin,’” and variations thereof, infringed Nafal’s coownership interest in an exclusive license to use the Egyptian musical composition,
“Khosara, Khosara.” Defs.’ Req. Judicial Notice (“Defs.’ RJN”), Ex. 3 (“Aug. 3, 2007
Order, Nafal Action”) at 44. Nafal claimed that he had acquired his interest in a license for
“Khosara, Khosara” pursuant to a January 27, 2005 written agreement. Id. at 45.
However, the Court determined that Nafal was in fact a non-exclusive licensee, not
authorized to prosecute an action against alleged infringers. Id. at 73. The court dismissed
the case, concluding that Nafal lacked standing to maintain the lawsuit. Id. at 73-74.

27
28
2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

of plaintiff’s motions. Having carefully considered the parties’ arguments, the Court
finds and concludes as follows.
II.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff alleges that Baligh Hamdy (“Hamdy”), an Egyptian composer, co-

authored the musical composition “Khosara, Khosara.” Compl. ¶ 8. According to
plaintiff, Hamdy wrote the music in or about 1957. Id. Plaintiff alleges that thereafter,
Hamdy authorized Mamoun El Shinnaway to author lyrics for the musical composition.
Id. Plaintiff alleges that in or about 1960, Egyptian vocalist Abdel Halim Hafez
(“Hafez”) recorded “Khosara, Khosara” for use in the Egyptian film “Fata Ahlami,” with
Hamdy’s authorization. Id. Hamdy allegedly retained all copyrights in the musical
composition “Khosara, Khosara,” but licensed the right to reproduce and distribute
Hafez’s recorded composition. Id. In or about 1960, Hamdy also allegedly registered
his copyright in the “Khosara, Khosara” musical composition pursuant to Egyptian law.
Id. ¶ 9.
Hamdy died in 1993. Id. Plaintiff alleges that upon Hamdy’s death, Hamdy’s
three siblings, Morsi, Asmaa, and Safia, inherited his copyright interests in “Khosara,
Khosara.” Id. Plaintiff claims that after Safia and Asmaa’s deaths, Morsi and Asmaa’s
four children, one of whom is plaintiff, jointly owned the “Khosara, Khosara” copyright
interests. Id. Plaintiff alleges that he has the general power of attorney to act on behalf
of the Hamdy heirs. Id. Plaintiff alleges that in or about 1995, Morsi and Asmaa’s
children “licensed the right to mechanically reproduce the ‘Khosara, Khosara’
composition and [Hafez’s] 1960 Sound Recording without change or alteration, onto
records, cassettes, and cartridges.” Id. ¶ 10. According to plaintiff, “[p]ursuant to this
license, . . . [Hafez’s] 1960 Sound Recording of ‘Khosara, Khosara’ was published in or
about 1997, as a track on an album title ‘The Movie Collection,’ containing original
movie soundtracks sung by Abdel Halim Hafez.” Id.

28
3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Plaintiff alleges that in approximately 1999 defendants Jay-Z and Timothy Mosley
authored and then recorded a musical work entitled “Big Pimpin,’” wherein the rap/hiphop artist Jay-Z sings rap lyrics over a “recording . . . of the musical composition of
‘Khosara, Khosara.’” Id. ¶¶ 3, 12. Plaintiff alleges that Jay-Z and Timothy Mosley then
released a CD entitled “Jay-Z Volume III: Life and Times of S. Carter,” (“Life and
Times”) which contains the song “Big Pimpin.’” Id. ¶ 12. Subsequently, Jay-Z and the
band Linkin Park performed a new musical work entitled “Big Pimpin’/Papercut” at a
concert known as “Collision Course.”2 Id. ¶ 14. Plaintiff alleges that this work also
infringes the musical composition “Khosara, Khosara.” Id. Jay-Z and Linkin Park
released a DVD with a recording of the their “Collision Course” live performance, and a
CD with a studio recording of the song “Big Pimpin’/Papercut” in or about November
2004. Id. Later, in or about April 2005, defendants Jay-Z and Paramount Pictures
Corporation released a documentary film entitled “Fade to Black.” Id. ¶ 15. Plaintiff
alleges that the film’s soundtrack includes the musical composition “Khosara, Khosara.”
Id. Plaintiff further alleges that in recent years defendants Jay-Z, Timothy Mosely, Rob
Bourdon, Brad Delson, Mike Shinoda, Dave Farrell, Joseph Hahn, Chester Bennington
and the various corporate entity defendants “released and or distributed other, as-yetunidentified, music-video, film and artistic works that substantially copy the creative
elements of the ‘Khosara, Khosara,’ musical composition, all without license or other
permission.” Id. ¶¶ 5, 16.
III.

LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment is appropriate where “there is no genuine dispute as to any

material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(a). The moving party has the initial burden of identifying relevant portions of the
2

Linkin Park consists of defendants Rob Bourdon, Brad Delson, Mike Shinoda,
Dave Farrell, Joseph Hahn and Chester Bennington. Compl. ¶ 5.

28
4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

record that demonstrate the absence of a fact or facts necessary for one or more essential
elements of each cause of action upon which the moving party seeks judgment. See
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).
If the moving party meets its initial burden, the opposing party must then set out
specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial in order to defeat the motion. Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c), (e). The
nonmoving party must not simply rely on the pleadings and must do more than make
“conclusory allegations [in] an affidavit.” Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 497 U.S. 871,
888 (1990); see also Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324. Summary judgment must be granted for
the moving party if the nonmoving party “fails to make a showing sufficient to establish
the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will
bear the burden of proof at trial.” Id. at 322; see also Abromson v. Am. Pac. Corp., 114
F.3d 898, 902 (9th Cir. 1997).
In light of the facts presented by the nonmoving party, along with any undisputed
facts, the Court must decide whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law. See T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 631 &
n.3 (9th Cir. 1987). When deciding a motion for summary judgment, “the inferences to
be drawn from the underlying facts . . . must be viewed in the light most favorable to the
party opposing the motion.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475
U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (citation omitted); Valley Nat’l Bank of Ariz. v. A.E. Rouse & Co.,
121 F.3d 1332, 1335 (9th Cir. 1997). Summary judgment for the moving party is proper
when a rational trier of fact would not be able to find for the nonmoving party on the
claims at issue. See Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 also provides for partial summary judgment.
“[The court] may enter an order stating any material fact–including an item of damages
or other relief–that is not genuinely in dispute and treating the fact as established in the

28
5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

case.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(g). See also L.R. 56-4 (authorizing motion for order
specifying material facts that appear without substantial controversy).
IV.

DISCUSSION
A.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude Testimony of Ahmed Y. Zohny

Both parties submit expert testimony pursuant to Rule 44.1 to assist the Court in
making its determination with respect to foreign law. “In determining foreign law, the
court may consider any relevant material or source, including testimony, whether or not
submitted by a party or admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. The court’s
determination must be treated as a ruling on a question of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 44.1.
Plaintiff argues that Dr. Zohny does not have the requisite expertise to offer the opinions
to which he testifies in his declaration, based on statements made in his deposition.
While the Court recognizes the limitations of defendants’ expert, it concludes that
plaintiff’s arguments go to the weight, rather than admissibility of the testimony. The
Court concludes that the witness is qualified to offer his opinions under Rule 44.1 and
104(a), and finds his testimony helpful to consider in making the determinations herein,
while not determinative. Therefore, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s motion.
B.

Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order that Material Facts and Issues of
Law, Including Foreign Law, Exist Without Substantial
Controversy

Plaintiff argues that the Court should grant partial summary judgment with respect
to the following material facts and questions of law: “[(1)] that Baligh Hamdy authored
and owned the copyright in the ‘Khosara, Khosara’ musical composition[;] [(2)]that the
copyright, insofar as it includes ‘moral rights’ in Egypt and the exclusive right to make
derivative works, descended to and is controlled by Hamdy’s heirs[;] [(3)] that Plaintiff
Osama Fahmy is a Hamdy heir, and a co-owner of the ‘Khosara, Khosara’ copyright;
[(4)] that he has standing, for purposes of the trial of claims that defendants’ works

28
6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

infringed that copyright; [(5)] and that defendants do not have a grant of permission to
make derivative works from the ‘Khosara, Khosara’ musical composition.” Mot. at 24.
There does not seem to be any dispute that “Khosara, Khosara” was authored by Baligh
Hamdy, nor that plaintiff is among his heirs. The gravamen of plaintiff’s motion is that
the treatment of moral rights and of the right to make derivative works under Egyptian
law precludes a finding that defendants had a license to make the work at issue.
First, plaintiff argues, because Hamdy was an Egyptian national at the time of the
composition of “Khosara, Khosara,” and because the song was first published in Egypt,
“Egypt law governs the moral rights in the ‘Khosara, Khosara’ musical composition that
are at issue.”3 Id. at 7. “The law of the country of origin [of the copyrighted work]
governs the ‘essential nature of the copyrights alleged to have been infringed,’” and “the
effectiveness of a purported transfer of copyright ownership.” Id. at 18, citing Itar-Tass
Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc., 153 F. 3d 82, 84 (2nd Cir. 1998), Russian
Academy of Sciences v. American Geophysical Union, 1998 WL 34333239 * 11
(D.D.C. 1998). According to plaintiff, “[u]nder Egyptian copyright law, ‘moral rights’
in a musical composition, like ‘Khosara, Khosara’ include the right to make derivative
works, the right to make new arrangements, the right to synchronize the composition
with images or moving pictures, and the right to make any other fundamental alteration
of the composition.” Mot. at 8. Further, plaintiff argues, under Egyptian law, “‘moral
rights are perpetual, inalienable, and imprescriptable,’” and therefore, “‘whilst the author
can assign or transfer any or all of his economic rights, a disposition of any of the moral
rights is null and void.’” Id., citing 1 Copyright Throughout the World §14:20, citing
3

Plaintiff also argues, and defendants do not appear to challenge, that “the United
States is obligated to protect the Plaintiff’s rights in ‘Khosara, Khosara’ musical
composition under applicable international conventions, treaties, and agreements,”
specifically the Berne Convention, and the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. Mot. at 1218.

28
7

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Article 143 of Egypt’s Intellectual Property Law No. 82 of 2002 (the “IP code”), and §
14:29, citing Article 145 of the IP Code. Plaintiff submits testimony by its expert that
[a]ny assignment of or more of [an author’s moral rights] is prohibited, as they may be
exercised, for the life of the work, solely by the author or his heirs; and consents to
exploit a work through the use of the moral rights may be granted by the author or his
heirs on a case-by-case basis in consideration of the specific use proposed, prior to
placing the proposed new, derivative work into public circulation.” Mot. at 7-8, citing
Loutfi Decl. ¶ 9.
Moreover, plaintiff argues, its expert “has reviewed the documents upon which
defendants apparently rely for a purported license or other transfer of such rights, and no
such license or transfer of rights exists.” Mot. at 9. First, plaintiff argues, “Plaintiff’s
Complaint does not allege that defendants infringed what Egypt calls the economic
rights in a copyrighted work. By the same token, it is clear that, to the extent defendants
suggest they obtained a license in the economic rights to an Egyptian copyright work
such as ‘Khosara, Khosara,’ such a license would extend only to the reproduction,
performance or distribution of the work ‘without alteration.’” Id. at 22. Furthermore,
plaintiffs argue that “any license that defendants may claim that they obtained with
respect to a particular sound recording of ‘Khosara, Khosara’ was not in itself a license
of any right to the underlying musical composition, which is the subject of this lawsuit.”
Id. at 22-23.
In sum, plaintiffs argue that “since moral rights under Egyptian law include the
right to make derivative works, no defendant in this case could have created a derivative
sound recording that incorporated the musical composition ‘Khosara, Khosara’ without
the express permission of one of Mr. Hamdy’s heirs. No general transfer of any such
right could have been granted as a matter of Egyptian law. And defendants have no

27
28
8

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

evidence that they obtained any specific permission to use the ‘Khosara, Khosara’
musical composition in any of the infringing works at issue in this case.” Id. at 24.
In opposition, defendants argue that plaintiff’s motion “makes clear that he is
attempting to assert a violation of moral rights under Egyptian law, [and therefore] this
Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this lawsuit,” and should, as a result, dismiss
it. Opp. at 1. Defendants cite various portions of plaintiff’s brief and declarations by his
expert to demonstrate that “[p]laintiff’s claims are all grounded on the argument that
Defendants’ use of Khosara Khosara constituted a mutilation of the composition (itself a
doubtful proposition), i.e., violated his (uncle’s) moral rights. Thus, the claims are based
squarely on the concept of moral rights, not ‘financial’ or ‘economic’ rights.” Id. at 9.
Defendants argue that the Court should therefore dismiss the action for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction because “there [has] never been a claim assertable under U.S.
copyright laws for violation of an author’s moral rights, in contrast to his economic
rights.” Id. at 11, citing Vargas v. Esquire, Inc., 164 F. 2d 522, 526 (7th Cir. 1947).
“Because Plaintiff’s claims are for violation of his moral rights and because this Court
will not, and in fact cannot, adjudicate those claims, the proper result is dismissal of
Plaintiff’s complaint.” Id. at 16.
Alternatively, defendants argue, plaintiff’s motion should be denied because
plaintiff cannot show that defendants have violated U.S. copyright law “because
Defendants acquired (from EMI Music Arabia) and paid for the economic rights in
Khosara Khosara almost a decade ago.” Id. at 17. “Whether or not the use of Khosara
Khosara at issue in this case amounts to a ‘change’ or ‘modification’ is irrelevant under
U.S. law, although Plaintiff has alleged that Defendants have copied, without change,
Khosara Khosara. See Complaint, Docket No. 1 at ¶ 13. That is an exercise of the
economic right of reproduction.” Id. at 18. Therefore, defendants argue, the motion
should be denied because “[a]t the least, an issue of fact exists as to the scope of the

28
9

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

license Defendants obtained and whether their use of Khosara Khosara was a
reproduction, an adaption and if so whether it was within the grant of rights.” Id. at 19.
In reply, plaintiffs argue that “[d]efendants’ license argument fails as a matter of
law for many reasons. First, no license in the ‘chain of title’ that Defendants purport to
rely on could have included any right to modify or change the Khosara musical
composition, as a matter of Egypt law (which governs alienability issues). Second, any
economic rights that were conveyed by Hamdy or his heirs were necessarily limited by
Egypt law, and could not have included the right to make derivative works that
fundamentally changed the character of Khosara.” Reply at 1-2.
Specifically, plaintiff argues that defendants do not demonstrate that they had a
license to create a derivative work, and because the works complained of are derivative
works, they are outside of the scope of any license that might exist and therefore infringe
plaintiff’s rights under Section 106(2).4 “Despite any license Defendants claim to have,
the accused works were new ‘derivative works’ of the underlying Khosara musical
composition, and under Egypt law no agreement making a blanket assignment or general
license of rights to make derivative works based upon and modifying the Khosara
musical composition was, or could have been, granted to the Defendants.” Id. at 7.

4

Plaintiff challenges defendants’ characterization of their complaint, arguing that
“Plaintiff does not claim that Defendants ‘copied’ Khosara without changing it. Rather,
Plaintiff explicitly alleges that Defendants made infringing or ‘derivative works.’” Reply
at 20, citing Compl. ¶¶ 4, 21, 28, 34. Plaintiffs also disagree with defendants’
characterization of their claimed violations of moral rights. “That Hamdy or his heirs have
moral rights in ‘Khosara’ under Egypt law is not an element of Plaintiff’s copyright claims.
. . . “Moral rights have become an issue only because Defendants have made it one, by
asserting a license affirmative defense. . . . . Plaintiff relies on Egypt’s moral rights law in
rebuttal–to explain why Defendants cannot, and do not, have any license that includes the
right to make derivative works that are based on and fundamentally change the Khosara
musical composition.” Reply. at 24. Moreover, plaintiff adds, defendants’ argument that
the suit should be dismissed is not properly before the Court. Id. at 22.

28
10

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Plaintiffs point to the Loutfi Reply Declaration, and Articles 7, 9 and 37 of the IP Code
to argue that “the right to make ‘modifications or changes’ to the Khosara musical
composition was not one of the “financial exploitation rights’ that could be disposed of;
any attempted disposal of the right to make ‘modifications or changes’ would have been
‘null and void’ . . . . And even if making ‘modifications or changes’ were a financial
right–it is not–it would still have to be the subject of an express, detailed document of
transfer. . . . . Defendants have not identified any such document.” Id. at 8-9.
Defendants review the agreements at issue in this case–specifically the 1968
Hamdy/Sout El Phan Agreement; the August 8, 1992 Authorization; the Sout El PhanEMI Music Arabia License Agreement; and the EMI Music Arabia Settlement
Agreement–and argue that “[a]ll of [these] documents in Defendants’ purported chain of
title share the same fatal defect: not one of them makes any mention of any grant to
make new derivative works that are based on, and fundamentally modify, any musical
composition.” Id. at 12.
Plaintiffs also argue that the opinion of defendants’ expert Dr. Zohny is
inadmissible and should be disregarded by the Court because he “is not qualified as an
expert on the issues actually presented by this motion,” and he “did not apply a reliable
methodology to reach his conclusions about what kinds of rights were transferred to
defendants under the instruments he reviewed.5 Id. at 10-11. Moreover, plaintiffs argue,

21
5

22
23
24
25
26
27

Plaintiffs make additional arguments in this regard in their motion to exclude
testimony by defendants’ expert. In surreply, defendants note that they have responded in
depth in their opposition to plaintiff’s Daubert motion, and assert that plaintiff “misstates
and selectively quotes from [defendants’] expert’s testimony,” and outline the portions of
his deposition testimony that they contend demonstrate the mischaracterizations. Surreply
at 15. Moreover, defendants argue, “[n]otwithstanding Plaintiff’s mischaracterizations, and
even if the Court somehow gave credence to them, such assertions would not, and do not,
change the result on this motion. This is because Plaintiff’s expert has not done enough
(continued...)

28
11

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

to the extent he purports to give expert testimony with respect to U.S. law, these are “not
proper subjects for opinion by an ‘expert’ witness.” Id. at 11.
In surreply, defendants argue that plaintiff’s reply impermissibly sets forth “a
different theory of the case.” Surreply at 1. Moreover, defendants argue, based on the
theory asserted in plaintiff’s reply, “at the least several key issues of fact will necessarily
remain. Second, to the extent Plaintiff’s claim is based on a violation of an economic
derivative work (adaptation) right, contrary to Plaintiff’s contention those rights were
transferable. Third, the evidence is that the right to reproduce a sample of Khosara,
Khosara in Big Pimpin’ was granted to Defendants or, at a minimum, there remain
issues of fact concerning whether the various contractual grants of rights (culminating in
the license from EMI Music Arabia to Defendants) conveyed that right.” Id.
First, defendants argue, there remain issues of fact on defendants’ license defense.
Id. Defendants contend that plaintiff “concedes that Hamdy and his successors did
transfer the reproduction right, and that right permitted the use of the Khosara, Khosara
musical composition.” Id. However, defendants argue, “[t]here is not . . . any evidence
on this motion as to whether Defendants’ use, if any, was a ‘reproduction’ use or an
‘adaptation’ use. . . . There is no evidence of how the recording was created and how
much of or how Khosara, Khosara was used. Neither expert pointed to relevant law or
authority on how Egyptian law defines these rights in the context of sampling, let alone
in a context where Defendants are alleged to have copied portions of Khosara, Khosara
without change. Nor did . . . either expert opine on whether Big Pimpin’ was a
derivative work–either under Egyptian law or U.S. law.” Id. at 2. Also missing,
according to defendants, is any evidence by plaintiff’s expert as to “the methodology an

25
5

26
27

(...continued)
to allow the Court to determine, as a matter of law, issues of foreign law applicable to
Defendant’s chain of title in Plaintiff’s favor.” Id. at 17.

28
12

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Egyptian court would use to interpret the scope of the relevant agreements, and indeed,
whether they granted to Defendants the economic derivative work right (to the extent it
was necessary. Plaintiff provided no evidence of the circumstances surrounding the
agreements, the intent of the parties, the conduct of the parties, or how Egyptian law
construes agreements either internally or in light of extrinsic evidence. That Loutfi
opined, without such evidence, that rights to create derivative works were needed and
were not granted (or not granted with the proper wording), is irrelevant and beyond the
scope of expert testimony.” Id. at 3. Given these gaps in evidence, defendant argues
that “at worst the chain of title documents are ambiguous, and then interpretation is for
the trier of fact.” Id.
Second, defendants argue that plaintiff improperly conflates moral rights with the
right of adaptation. “To be sure, the complaint ‘alleges’ a violation of the derivative
work (adaptation) right. The point, however, is that according to Plaintiff whether there
has been a violation of the economic adaptation right depends on whether Plaintiff’s
moral rights have been violated.” Id. at 4. “The fatal flaw in Plaintiff’s reasoning is that
while moral rights cannot be transferred, economic rights, including the adaptation right,
can be transferred.” Id. at 5-6. To support this assertion, defendant compares Articles 7,
37 and 38 in the 1954 Egyptian Copyright Law with Articles 145, 138 and 149 of the
2002 Egyptian IP Law, which it contends is proper as they provide the same rights with
respect to derivative rights, according to plaintiff’s expert. Id. at 7. Defendants contend
that the 2002 law clarifies a seeming inconsistency in the 1954 law, and makes the
“dichotomy” between the economic right of adaptation and an artist’s moral rights
“explicit.” Id. Specifically, defendant contends that Article 149 allows the author to
transfer “all or some of his economic rights,” which includes the right to authorize and
exploit adaptations. Id. “On the other hand, the moral right, which is defined as ‘the
right to prevent any modification considered by the author as distortion or mutilation of

28
13

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

the work,’ (Article 143) may not be alienated.” Id. According to defendants, this
distinction is consistent with the Berne Convention, and therefore, under both Egyptian
law and the Berne Convention, “an economic adaptation right is assignable; therefore, a
license of the economic right is a defense to an infringement claim under U.S. law.” Id.
at 8.
Defendants further argue that the Court should find that “the financial right of
adaptation was conveyed to defendants or remains an issue of fact,” precluding a grant
of summary judgment in plaintiff’s favor.6 Id. at 10. “[T]he issue of whether the
documents here transferred to Defendants the right to include a sample of Khosara,
Khosara in Big Pimpin’ is a matter of fact. . . . Moreover, an examination of the relevant
documents in detail also leads to the conclusion that, at the least, there remain issues of
fact as to what was conveyed to Defendants’ predecessors and to Defendants and
whether any use of Khosara, Khosara by Defendants would be outside the conveyance.”
Id.
The Court construes the relevant questions raised by the instant motion as follows.
First, under Egyptian law, could rights to create derivative works be transferred? If the
answer to the first question is in the affirmative, the Court must next ask if the licenses at
issue here effectively transfer the right to make derivative works based on the musical
composition Khosara, Khosara.7

21
22
23
24
25

6

Defendants further argue that plaintiff has also “not shown that transfer of the
adaptation right under Egyptian law was required to authorize a sample of Khosara,
Khosara,” based on the theory that the reproduction right purportedly conceded by
plaintiffs may have been sufficient to allow defendants’ to make the use of Khosara
Khosara at issue. Surreply at 10.
7

26
27

The Court does not, and cannot, reach the question of whether defendants could
have used Khosara, Khosara in Big Pimpin’ with a license that provided solely a
(continued...)

28
14

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

With respect to the first question, the expert testimony presented is contradictory.
While the experts agree that Egyptian law provides for both economic and moral rights,
they disagree on what rights fall into the category of “financial rights,” and, specifically,
whether there exists a financial right to make derivative works or adaptations. Plaintiff’s
expert states that “[t]he right to make derivative works, recognized under the United
States Copyright Act, is one of the rights falling within what is considered a personal
and inalienable moral right in Egypt. Only the rights that in Egypt are called the
‘financial rights’ may be the subject of a general transfer by the author. The financial
rights, under Egyptian law, are limited to the right to perform, reproduce and distribute a
work to the public without alteration.” Loutfi Decl. ¶ 6. Defendants’ expert, on the
other hand, states that “Egypt’s IP Law of 2002, in Articles 143, 145 and 147, clarifies
the distinction between inalienable moral rights and fully transferable economic rights,
which once again, as in the Berne Convention, include economic rights equivalent to the
various exclusive rights under U.S. law, including reproduction, adaptation and
translation. Moreover, as Loutfi acknowledged at his deposition, even under Egypt’s
earlier 1954 law, blanket statements regarding an author’s right to prevent
‘modifications’ or ‘changes’ to a work refer to the author’s moral rights, not financial
rights.” Zohny Decl. ¶ 10. The Court is persuaded, based on an examination of excerpts
of Egypt’s Law 82 of 2002, provided by defendants at Exhibit 16 to the Zohny
Declaration, that a transferable adaptation right exists independently of inalienable moral
rights.8

23
24
25
26
27

7

(...continued)
reproduction right, because, as noted by defendants, there is not sufficient argument or
evidence in the record to make such a determination.
8

To the extent that plaintiffs request that the Court determine whether defendants’
(continued...)

28
15

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Having determined that an economic right to make derivative works exists, the
Court is left with the question of whether the licenses at issue provided defendant with
the right to make a derivative work; in other words whether the use of Khosara Khosara
was outside the scope of the licenses at issue. With respect to the second question, the
Court must consider whether, as a matter of law, the right to create derivative works
based on the musical composition Khosara, Khosara such as defendants’ was outside or
within the scope of the licenses, or whether there remains a question of fact.
The relevant documents to determine the chain of title are as follows. First, the
1968 agreement between Hamdy and Sout El Phan, through which it is agreed by all
parties that some rights in Khosara, Khosara were initially transferred. Next, the August
8, 1995 Fahmy-Sout El Phan Agreement, through which Hamdy’s heirs confirmed the
continuing viability of the rights transferred through the 1968 agreement. Then, the
1995 Sout El Phan-EMI Music Arabia agreement, through which Sout El Phan
transferred some rights in Khosara, Khosara to EMI Music Arabia. And, finally, the
March 2001 agreement between EMI Music and defendants (through defendant
Timbaland). While it may be relevant to an analysis of the other documents, the 2002
agreement between Fahmy and Mohsen Jaber is not part of the chain of title.
Plaintiff argues that these documents only address sound recordings, not the
musical composition Khosara, Khosara. Moreover, Plaintiff argues, none of the
agreements specifically provide the right to make derivative works, and could not have
8

(...continued)
use of Khosara, Khosara violated plaintiff’s moral rights in the work by making changes
that might be considered “mutilation or distortion” of the original work, the Court agrees
with defendants that the claim does not arise under U.S. copyright law, except to the extent
that it is a reformulation of the question of whether defendants acted outside of the scope
of the relevant licenses. To the extent plaintiffs argue that defendants acted outside of
those licenses, the Court, as discussed herein, finds that this issue raises there is a triable
question of fact.

28
16

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

because such a transfer would have been null and void. Moreover, even if Hamdy or
plaintiff could have transferred such a right, these licenses fail to do so because under
Egyptian law, the document would have to expressly and specifically grant the right,
which they do not.
Defendant argues first that these documents transfer rights in the musical
composition of Khosara, Khosara, not just sound recordings, and that these rights
include the right to make derivative works. In support of their argument, defendants
contend that while the Third Article in the 1968 agreement indicates that Hamdy “will
have sole and full ownership” of “melodies” he “may prepare,” the prospective language
used suggests that Hamdy would have ownership of future musical compositions, but
that for the songs already composed and listed as part of that agreement, that Sout El
Phan would own rights to the musical compositions as well. Surreply at 12. Moreover,
defendants argue, analysis of the 1995 and 2001 agreements “confirm, explain, elaborate
and even expand the grant to Sout El Phan.” Id. at 13. Specifically, in the 1995
agreements, defendants point to multiple uses of the term “music” and “songs” as
distinct from “recordings,” to argue that these agreements clearly transferred both,
separate rights. Id. at 13-14. Further, defendant argues, an examination of the 2002
Fahmy-Mohsen Jaber (Alam El Phan) agreement is instructive, as plaintiff has conceded
that this grant “authorize[d] the same rights that had been authorized originally from
Baligh Hamdy to Sout El Phan and then renewed after Baligh Hamdy’s death.” Id. at
14, citing Lewis Opp. Decl., Ex. 12 (Fahmy Depo. 206:25-207:4). According to this
document, “Alam El Phan was confirmed as ‘publisher of the melodies of these songs
and all current publishing means in any way.’” Id. at 14. Moroever, this agreement
“specifically conveyed, among other things, the right of ‘musical re-segmentation and
alteration methods while maintaining the original segment of the song,’” which
defendants contend might well describe the actions taken by defendants with respect to

28
17

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

the use of Khosara, Khosara in Big Pimpin’. Further, defendants argue, an examination
of the March 31, 2001 agreement between EMI Music Arabia and Timbaland makes it
clear that “EMI Music Arabia, which had obtained its rights directly from Sout El Phan,
understood it possess the right to license Defendants[’ use of the composition].” Id. at
12.
To the extent that plaintiff argues that these documents do not contain the right to
make derivative works because to do so would necessarily violate Egyptian law with
respect to an artist’s moral rights, the Court finds that this argument is unsound. The
Court concludes that a triable question of fact otherwise exists with respect to the scope
of the grant. In making this determination, a jury can consider whether the grant was
specific enough under Egyptian law, and defendants’ argument that the 2002 agreement
and the March 31, 2001 agreement make clear that the chain of title includes the right to
make the type of use of Khosara, Khosara complained of here.
V.

CONCLUSION
In accordance with the foregoing, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s motion to exclude

testimony of Ahmed Y. Zohny. The Court GRANTS plaintiff’s motion for partial
summary judgment with respect to the following issues: (1) that Baligh Hamdy authored
and owned the copyright in the ‘Khosara, Khosara’ musical composition; (2) that
plaintiff Osama Fahmy is a Hamdy heir, and a co-owner of the ‘Khosara, Khosara’
copyright; (3) that plaintiff Osama Fahmy has standing to bring claims that defendants’
works infringed the ‘Khosara, Khosara’ copyright. The Court DENIES plaintiff’s
motion for partial summary judgment with respect to the following issue, which it
concludes present triable issues of fact for the jury: that defendants do not have a grant
of permission to make derivative works from the ‘Khosara, Khosara’ musical
composition. The Court also DENIES plaintiff’s motion with respect to the following
issue to the extent it conflicts with this order: that the copyright, insofar as it includes

28
18

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

‘moral rights’ in Egypt and the exclusive right to make derivative works, descended to
and is controlled by Hamdy’s heirs.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 2, 2011

________________________________
CHRISTINA A. SNYDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
19