Trajik's single "Holla'back," featured on our first EP release, was the subject of a copyright infringement lawsuit in 2003. 

The lawsuit was featured on Celebrity Justice, MTV news and numerous internet sites and radio stations. This suit alleged that international superstars and platinum selling- rapper/super producers Fabolous /the Neptunes' platinum selling single Young'N (Holla back), released in 2001, was derived from one of Trajik's first releases,"Holla'back" (released in 1999).

The first of two Independent Expert Reports documented that "similarities occur within 50% of the primary elements" of these songs. This document also discussed the "'MUSICAL FINGERPRINT'" which was "indicative of copying;" (THE ECHO EFFECT AFTER THE HOLLA 'BACK, BACK BACK). This document, (shown in its entirety below), in addition to Dr. Ramsey's expert report, stated the following lyrical/musical similarities:

1. The title/hook phrase:  The most important part of song; exactly the same 

2. Genre: Both songs rapped, not sung in exactly same eighth note, eighth note, quarter note; despite both Experts testifying that there are numerous  ways to rap the word Holla'back

3. Time Signature/Tempo: Exactly the same: 4/4 Common Time

4. Structure: Exactly the same: Each starting with Introduction; then alternating between Verse, Chorus, Closing, Lack of Bridge (despite a composer having option to to include bridges or interchange these elements at will).  Holla'back hook appears throughout entire chorus of each and is repeated and reappearing over and over again in each (40x-Holla'back) Trajik (24x Young'N Holla back) Fabolous; 10x in chorus Holla'back; 8x in chorus Young'N, every other measure, throughout each song.The most repeated lyric in each is the hook phrase Holla'back  

5. Melody/Pitch: Both songs use ONE SINGLE NOTE, REPEATED EXACTLY THE SAME NUMBER OF TIMES (3X),                     CONSISTENTLY,THROUGHOUT BOTH SONGS; Continuous G's in minor mode in Trajik and F sharp (minor) in Fabolous. 

6. Length of Holla'back Chorus: Exactly the same: 16 measures 

7. Instrumentation: Essentially the same:

Trajik-voice, electric guitar, organ, bass, drums

Fabolous-voice, electric guitar, flute synthesiser, bass and drums

Bass guitar and bass drum are doing exactly the same thing

"...Basic beat sets, in some instances, transferred to other elements of the timbrel soundscape of the piece..."Dr. Ramsey 

8. Key Signature: You can transpose everything in Young'N a half step up (two adjacent notes on the piano) to have the same tonal center (or key) as Trajik (this is their expert's  admission) 

9. Rhythm: Exactly the same;Three Notes Syncopated. Every other measure (dotted quarter, dotted quarter, dotted quarter), repeated every other measure, throughout both songs

10PhrasingThe "musical fingerprint", never mentioned by either court, the echo, mini-extension the Holla back, back, back EACH SONG SEPARATING HOLLA'BACK BY EXACTLY SIX RESTS (other than last phrase in Holla'back). And both use Call and Response motif

11. Shifted Cadence: the  shifting of time of when Holla'back is stated

12. Timbre: use of the cuckoo sound in rhythm track of Trajik and timbre of flute synthesizer in Fabolous "...the similarity of the sound quality of these gestures is striking in loops that are already similar in instrumentation." Dr. Guthrie Ramsey

Both their and our experts testified that there were only 2 out of over 50 songs that musically expressed the word"holla back" with  all of these similarities; Trajik (Holla'back released 1999)  and Fabolous (released 2001).

Despite these similarities, our case was, we believe, ILLEGALLY DISMISSED without giving us our Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial of our peers!

On the cusp of a stunning, disappointing and frustrating fight within the judicial system, Holla'back returns; broken in spirit but determined to fight regardless as to what the emotional effect will be...this Injustice is addressed in the Groundbreaking Documentary "InJustice for All...Summary MisJudgment."

Independent Expert Report of Musicologist Documenting Similarities between Songs

Judith Finell Music Services, Inc. prepares Preliminary Comparison of "Holla Back" as performed by Trajik and Young'N (Holla Back)" as performed by Fabolous. In her "Summary," Ms. Finnel reports numerous similarities and, additionally, states in her Comparison of "Trajik" and "Fabolous:... item 6. Fabolous contains a possible musical "fingerprint" suggestive that copying occurred in the sense that a similar distinctive feature is present in both songs. This distinctive feature, an "echo effect," in "Fabolous" is the phrase back, back, back, "which similarly occurs in "Trajik." When a variation or departure from the initial statement of a phrase ("Holla back') is similar in 2 songs, this is further evidence that copying is likely to have occurred. Judith Finell's Expert Report can be viewed in its

entirety below:

1. judith1

2. judith2

3. judith3

4. judith4.jpg

How can one Industry be accused, repeatedly, of stealing BILLIONS of dollars in Intellectual Property and virtually NEVER have to face a trial? How can virtually every politician contacted, in addition to law enforcement agencies, civil/constitutional rights advocates/attorneys, virtually ignore nearly 4 years of campaigns complaining about the denial of everyday, working class citizens' Seventh Amendment, Constitutional right to an unbiased jury trial of their peers being violated and each of these pleas continuously are IGNORED! 

Despite the law clearly stipulating that these federal copyright infringement lawsuits should only be dismissed if there was NO REASON for a trial (going to trial would be a waste of the courts' time), 96% of all copyright cases filed AGAINST networks and studios, in NY and CA  (and the lower courts within these circuits), in the last 20 YEARS , NEVER WENT TO TRIAL? By allowing 46/48 cases to be dismissed, the court is basically saying that NONE OF THE CASES COULD have won if permitted to go to trial. *Steven T. Lowe, Esq. in his November 2010 article "Death of Copyright.

Attorney Steven T. Lowe statistically validates our allegations of "How Hollywood "allegedly" Steals...In the Name of the Law (Summary Judgment)and the Documentary Injustice for All... Summary Mis Judgment shows you how!

This shocking documentary takes you through five 5 Independent artists' lawsuits, filed against multi-million-dollar corporations/their employees (nationally recognized superstars/works), their shockingly similar stories of filing their lawsuits, the specific details of similarities in the 2 works in question in each case, similar stories of questionable attorney activity and the similar roller coaster rides each of these artists experienced with each of their attorneys, the hiring/firing of  numerous attorneys in virtually each case due to allegations of questionable conduct/activity, the law vs. the questionable rulings made by judges and finally the dismissal of each and every one of these lawsuits on Summary Judgment Motions.

Case 1Holla'back vs. Young'N Holla back (Boone vs. Jackson-Fabolous, The Neptunes et. al)-rap song

Case 2- Pay the Price vs. Drumline (Lassiter and Two Believers vs. 20th Century Fox, Dallas Austin et. al.)-movie

Case 3Bob Spongee vs. SpongeBob (Walker vs. Viacom)-cartoon 

Case 4Psi-Ops vs. Psi-Ops (Mindgate Conspiracy) (Crawford vs. Midway Games)-video game 

Case 5No Harm/No Foul-Bronx House vs. Life (Hudson vs. Universal, Eddie Murphy, Heavy D, et. al)-movie  

INJUSTICE FOR ALL...SUMMARY   MISJUDGMENT...AVAILABLE NOW!

June 12, 2009

Gregory L. Hudson-Playright and Author ran marathon wearing LIMITED EDITION RUN4JUSTICE T-SHIRT

JUDGE:  SO THE ARGUMENT IS, THAT, LET'S SAY THAT EVEN IF SOME COPYING TOOK PLACE, YOUR ADVERSARY DID NOT SHOW UNLAWFUL APPROPRIATION

CYNTHIA ARATO'S RESPONSE:  THAT'S CORRECT.... 

UNLAWFUL APPROPRIATION WOULD MEAN THAT THE AMOUNT TAKEN WAS "DE MINIMIS" OR ABOUT MINIMAL THINGS. YET EXPERTS, BOTH EXPERTS, CLEARLY STATED THAT SUCH COPYING WAS NOT DE MINIMIS. 

JUDITH FINELL CLEARLY STIPULATED THAT SIMILARITIES OCCUR IN OVER 50% OF RECORDING AND DR. RAMSEY STATED THAT THE SIMILARITIES WERE "STRIKINGLY SIMILAR;" AND INCLUDED THE HOOK, THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF THE SONG, AS BEING SIMILAR.

WE ALLEGE THAT BOTH EXPERT REPORTS WERE, ESSENTIALLY, IGNORED AND REPLACED WITH SUBJECTIVE OPINIONS OF JUDGES.  

Holla'back Records released its new album featuring unreleased and therefore, unjacked tracks from artists previously signed to the label; R&B sensation Kyee, & hip hop superstars Kevlar & Trajik.

AS STATED IN THE GREATEST MOVIE MADE THIS CENTURY, "THE GREAT DEBATERS" WHO IS THE JUDGE? THE JUDGE IS GOD! WHY IS HE THE JUDGE? BECAUSE HE DECIDES WHO WINS OR LOSES, NOT MY OPPONENT... ...Who is your opponent ? He does not exist....Why doesn't he exist? Because he is a mere dissenting voice of the truth i speak !!"

June 30, 2005 The District Court dismissed case on a Summary Judgment motion, which we allege denied Boone her Constitutional right to have case heard by an unbiased  jury of her peers.

Numerous legal errors were made by the District Court Judge (and subsequently admitted by Court of Appeals). Attorneys filed for sanctions (asking that Boone pay all their attorney fees) for filing a frivolous case. Sanctions were denied by the District Court stating that there was reasonable basis for Boone's counsel to believe that her allegations were "grounded in fact "when complaint was filed.

Throughout proceedings Defendants claimed that they had "never heard of us!"

Our new release is our response to these superstars! Holla'back...Ya-Heard-A-Uz!

August 2, 2005 Case sent to Court of Appeals. Appeals Court acknowledged that numerous legal errors made by District, but denies Boone's appeal to remand case back to District

March 5, 2007  Case sent to Supreme Court. Supreme Court denies Boone's writ

Dr. Lawrence Ferrara, Ph.D. prepares rebuttal report basically contending that Holla' back is unprotectable as it has been used in numerous pieces and that Holla'back and Young'n do not share any element of original musical expression. However, of over 50 songs presented by the Defense as evidence, none of them (except Young'n (Holla back) and Holla' back) share the numerous admitted similarities divulged during deposition questioning and testimony.

Since Defendants never proved that Boone copied her work from anyone (nor did anyone other than Boone and Defendants share all the similarities noted; thus no PRIOR ART existed for Boone to copy from) and it was proven that Boone's work was published PRIOR TO Defendants, the piece should have been deemed original (in accordance with copyright definition which is not new/novel..it must come from authors creative mind).

Yet, we allege and the court records will show that expert testimony was manipulated, despite regulations  not permitting its use in the analysis, to reach what we now know is the PRO DEFENDANT BIASED RESULTS THAT HAVE PLAGUED ARTISTS FOR CENTURIES; THE ILLEGAL, UNETHICAL, AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSAL of this and hundreds of other cases!

 

Dr. Guthrie Ramsey, musicologist, pianist and Associate Professor of music history at the University of Pennsylvania was also hired to analyze 2 pieces. Dr. Ramsey wrote detailed and specific report discussing & analyzing the recordings in question, the history of rap music and "stiiking similarities" (musical and lyrical) which he stated abounded throughout each piece.

RSS feed

FEATURED TRACKS