Fahmy v. Jay-Z, 835 F. Supp. 2d 783

Fahmy, nephew of Baligh Hamdy, asserts Hamdy heirs own co-ownership rights in Khosara, Khosara and that Jay-Z infringed those rights via Big Pimpin’ (c. 1999).
Plaintiff obtained power of attorney through Farouk Sima to pursue infringement claims in the United States; Nafal later filed a related suit but was deemed a non-exclusive licensee lacking standing and dismissed.
Plaintiff testified knowledge of Big Pimpin’ infringement by December 2000, triggering the start of the three-year limitations period under 17 U.S.C. § 507(b).
Nafal v. Carter (2005) and EMI license discussions are referenced as background and potential tolling arguments, but the district court found Nafal’s filing did not toll the statute for this action.
Plaintiff filed the current action on August 31, 2007; the court addressed whether damages from pre-August 31, 2004 are time-barred and whether discovery of concert revenues is recoverable.
Court grants defendants’ partial summary judgment on statute of limitations, limiting damages to infringements after August 31, 2004, and finds triable issues regarding whether concert revenues are direct or indirect profits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does § 507(b) bar damages for infringements before August 31, 2004?	Fahmy argues tolling or later discovery extends damages beyond 3 years.	Defendants contend pre-2004 infringements are time-barred.	Statute of limitations barred pre-2004 damages.
Are Fahmy’s equitable tolling claims warranted given domicile, language, misrepresentations, or Nafal?	Egyptian residence, language barriers, EMI/Sima/Nafal misrepresentations toll the period.	No extraordinary circumstances; knowledge from 2000 controls; misrepresentation not tolling.	Equitable tolling denied.
Should concert revenues be treated as direct or indirect profits for § 504(b) purposes?	Direct profits: concert revenues tied to infringement through performances of Big Pimpin’.	Concert revenues are indirect profits since tickets are for the event, not a specific infringing performance.	Triable issue; jury to determine direct vs indirect status.

Polar Bear Prods., Inc. v. Timex Corp., 384 F.3d 700 (9th Cir. 2004) (defines 'gross revenue' and discusses apportionment and direct vs indirect profits)
Roley v. New World Pictures, Ltd., 19 F.3d 479 (9th Cir. 1994) (accrual when plaintiff has knowledge; continuing infringement not tolled beyond 3-year window)
Santa Maria v. Pac. Bell, 202 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2000) (equitable tolling when despite due diligence, vital information could not be obtained)
Frank Music I, 772 F.2d 505 (9th Cir. 1985) (direct profits framework for infringing use in a musical production)
Frank Music II, 886 F.2d 1545 (9th Cir. 1989) (affirmed direct profits award and discussed apportionment in infringing performances)
Mackie v. Rieser, 296 F.3d 909 (9th Cir. 2002) (indirect profits concept when copyright used to sell another product)
Andreas v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 336 F.3d 789 (8th Cir. 2003) (discusses nexus and burden shifting for profits cases)
Bergt v. McDougal Littell, 661 F. Supp. 2d 916 (N.D. Ill. 2009) (illustrates indirect vs direct profits in a publishing context)
On Davis v. The Gap, Inc., 246 F.3d 152 (2d Cir. 2001) (mentions profits considerations in anthology context)
Pace Indus., Inc. v. Three Phoenix Co., 813 F.2d 234 (9th Cir. 1987) (prior cases tolling limitations when related but not controlling)