Notice: Function _load_textdomain_just_in_time was called incorrectly. Translation loading for the microsoft-start domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /wordpress-versions/6.7.2/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6114

Deprecated: Constant FILTER_SANITIZE_STRING is deprecated in /dom35283/wp-content/plugins/wpseo-news/classes/meta-box.php on line 59

Notice: Function _load_textdomain_just_in_time was called incorrectly. Translation loading for the wordpress-seo domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /wordpress-versions/6.7.2/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6114
Judge Rules "Big Pimpin" Lawsuit Against Jay Z Can Move Forward - AllHipHop

Judge Rules “Big Pimpin” Lawsuit Against Jay Z Can Move Forward

JAY Z COULD STILL BE FACING COPYRIGHT LAWSUIT OVER “BIG PIMPIN”

(AllHipHop News) Jay Z and fellow defendants Timbaland, EMI, Warner Music, MTV, Paramount Pictures, and more seemed to be cleared in a copyright infringement lawsuit over the 2000 hit single “Big Pimpin’,” but a judge has ruled that the case filed by the family of Egyptian composer Baligh Hamdy in 2007 can move forward.

[ALSO READ: Jay Z Ranks His Own Catalogue From Best To Worst Albums]

It had appeared that the statute of limitations for a legal copyright claim to the song “Khosara Khosara” had expired. The new ruling now allows the case to continue because the licensing deal between EMI and the Egyptain company Sout El Phan ended in 2006.

Since “Big Pimpin'” was used on television, movies, and live performances after ’06, the court suggested Hamdy’s nephew Osama Ahmed Fahmy pursue further legal discovery to determine if Jay and other defendants infringed on the copyright of “Khosara Khosara” at that time.

U.S. District Judge Christina Snyder wrote:

The Court finds plaintiff’s argument persuasive, and concludes that plaintiff should be permitted to conduct discovery as to what defendants knew during the post-expiration period. Further discovery is appropriate because plaintiff need only show that defendants knew that they were infringing some copyright in Khosara Khosara in order to defeat laches; plaintiff need not show that defendants were aware that they were infringing plaintiff’s copyright.

[ALSO READ: Chris Brown Facing $3 Million Lawsuit]

via THR