Black Market Records barred from monetising Fathermoh, Harry Craze's music

Musicians Fathermoh and Harry Craze/FILE

The Copyright Tribunal has temporarily barred Black Market Records LLC and related parties from monetising the artistic works of Kenyan gengetone musicians Moses Otieno Ojwang, alias Fathermoh, and Harry Otieno Adoyo, alias Harry Craze, pending the hearing of their suits before the tribunal.

In interim orders issued on May 22, the tribunal certified the matter as urgent and directed that the application be heard expeditiously.

“Pending the hearing and determination of this application inter partes, and/or further Orders of the Tribunal, an injunction be and is hereby issued restraining the respondents jointly and severally, whether by themselves, their agents, employees or any person acting under their direction whatsoever or claiming through their authority from further claiming, asserting ownership, commercialising, monetising, publishing or in any other way exploiting the claimant’s musical or artistic works howsoever,” the tribunal ruled.

The orders also restrained the respondents from interfering with the artistes’ performances, concerts, and promotional campaigns pending further directions of the tribunal.

The case was filed against Black Market Records LLC, Black Market Media LLC, and Cedric Singleton.

The musicians state, in their court documents, that they entered into exclusive recording agreements with the respondents, with FatherMoh acting both in his individual capacity and as part of Mbuzi Gang, while Harry Craze is said to have engaged in separate arrangements linked to Rico Gang.

According to the application, the agreements covered the production, marketing, distribution, and management of their music in exchange for royalties, publishing rights, and other agreed remuneration.

The claimants, however, told the tribunal that disputes later arose over royalty payments, ownership of their music catalogue, and management of their artistic works on digital streaming platforms.

In the pleadings, Father Moh stated that during his career as an independent artiste and as part of Mbuzi Gang, he released a total of 63 songs between 2020 and 2024.

The application states that the respondents allegedly continued distributing and monetising the songs on platforms such as YouTube, Spotify, and Boomplay while disagreements over ownership and revenue sharing persisted.

The musicians further told the tribunal that copyright strikes and takedown notices affected their ability to upload and distribute new music online.

“Monthly Spotify listeners have declined markedly within a span of one month, from 80,000 monthly listeners to forty-six thousand 46,000 monthly listeners, reflecting a severe loss of audience engagement and earning capacity,” the application by Fathermoh claims.

“Decline in YouTube subscribers from 228,000 subscribers before the strike down, to 32,900 subscribers after the strike down,” It adds, following copyright-related disputes.

The artist also cited alleged loss of streaming revenue, publishing income, and Google AdSense earnings.

Harry Craze, on the other hand, raises related concerns regarding the control, monetisation and distribution of his musical works on various digital platforms.

He contends that his artistic output, released under arrangements linked to Rico Gang, has been commercially exploited through streaming and online distribution channels without what he considers adequate transparency on royalties and revenue accounting.

“That the Claimant (Harry Craze) independently created and released several musical works specifically 'Matopare,” “Luku Ni Pyam,' and 'Diglo' in his capacity as an individual artist,” his filings read.

He, however, alleges that the tracks were subsequently removed from digital platforms and that they may have been monetised during the period of dispute without his consent.

In the two separate suits before the tribunal, lawyer Adrian Kamotho, acting for the artists, argued that the matter required urgent intervention to avert what he described as the risk of continued commercial exploitation of the works in dispute.

The matters are scheduled for directions on June 4.

Until then, the temporary injunctions issued by the tribunal will remain in force pending further orders after hearing both sides in the dispute.