- A legal battle is brewing in Nairobi between rapper Nyashinski and music producer Sam Eli Are, fueled by the hit song “Wach Wach” and its use in a Tecno phone endorsement deal
- Eli, who produced the song, claims he is entitled to 50% of the endorsement income due to his 50% ownership of the publishing rights
- However, Nyashinski counters, asserting his 100% ownership of the master rights and arguing that the Tecno deal focused on his image and appearances, not the song itself
A Nairobi court has ignited a legal battle between Kenyan rapper Nyashinski and Nigerian music producer Sam Eli Are, centering around the hit song “Wach Wach” and its use in a Tecno phone endorsement deal.
The dispute boils down to copyright infringement and rightful compensation, with Eli claiming he deserves a 50% share of the endorsement income.
Eli, who produced “Wach Wach,” argues that his 50% ownership of the song’s publishing rights entitles him to half the profits generated from its use in Tecno’s Camon 20 commercials.
However, Nyashinski counters by asserting his 100% ownership of the master rights and maintains that the Tecno deal wasn’t a publishing agreement but rather one involving his image rights and appearances.
The heart of the matter lies in the nature of the Tecno contract. Eli contends that it constituted a publishing agreement, requiring the sharing of profits based on song usage.
Nyashinski, on the other hand, insists it was focused on his image and performance, not the song itself. This disagreement hangs heavy as the court awaits the submission of key documents.
Justice Selina Muchungi, presiding over the case, ordered Nyashinski to furnish the court with both the brand ambassadorship agreement signed with Tecno for the Camon 20 campaign and detailed royalty reports for all digital platforms involving the four other songs Eli produced for the rapper.
These documents are crucial in determining the true nature of the Tecno deal and the extent of Eli’s rightful claim.
Further complicating the issue is the matter of compensation. Nyashinski reportedly offered Eli a one-time payment of Sh50,000 for synchronization rights, which Eli rejected.
Also read:
1: Eric Omondi Faults Kenyans for Ruining Eve Mungai’s Relationship with Trevor, Vows to Reunite Them
2: Video of Charlene Ruto Struggling to Walk in Heels Leaves Netizens in Stitches: “Stepping Ahead”
While Nyashinski claims this offer was more than adequate based on Eli’s past earnings, Eli argues that a proper synchronization deal requires a legal agreement between the copyright owner and the party seeking to use the music, and in this case, there are two copyright holders.
Eli further disputed the relevance of the Ksh42,632 paid to him for other songs, claiming it has no bearing on the specific copyright infringement related to “Wach Wach.”
He emphasized that only a full examination of the Tecno contract can offer a fair judgment on his entitlement.
With the pre-trial hearing scheduled for March 12, 2024, the court awaits the submission of the requested documents.
The outcome of this case will depend on the court’s interpretation of the Tecno deal, the value of the endorsement, and whether the Sh42,632 paid earlier can be considered sufficient compensation for Eli’s claims.
This legal battle promises to not only settle the dispute between Eli and Nyashinski but also shed light on the complexities of copyright ownership and profit sharing in the music industry.
