Producer Mohsen Jaber revealed the details of the crisis of ownership of Umm Kulthum’s songs between his company and Sawt al-Qahira, during a special coverage of Youm7 television.
The artistic producer, Mohsen Jaber, said that it is known that Umm Kulthum was the producer of her songs and was buying words from Ahmed Rami and contracting with Al-Sunbati and thus the songs would be her property, explaining that when the artist Muhammad Fawzi set up a record company, at that time Umm Kulthum gave her songs to Muhammad Fawzi for printing them on CDs instead of sending them abroad, pointing out that the artist Mohamed Fawzy Company was nationalized after the revolution and in 1960, and it was converted to be the Cairo Company for Audio and Video, so the contracts that Umm Kulthum had rented with the Mohamed Fawzy Company as a distribution of her songs to Sout Factory Cairo for cylinder printing.
Producer Mohsen Jaber noted in statements to Al-Youm Al-Sabea TV, that upon the death of Umm Kulthum and the emergence of the heirs, means other than cylinders such as cassette tapes and laser cylinders appeared, and Cairo Voice had to sign new contracts with the heirs in 1990 and 1993, and these contracts confirm that the heirs are owners of Umm Kulthum’s works. As she was a producer of her songs, and the heirs gave Cairos voice the master to print it on videotapes and CDs, and the duration of this contract is 5 years and after the end of the contract, these works return to the heirs.
Mohsen Jaber confirmed that in 2003 the heirs did not like the revenues of Cairo’s Voice and sent a warning not to renew the contracts and announced that they would sell them to an outside company, and at that time he intervened and addressed the heirs and offered them to buy Umm Kulthum’s songs from them, and indeed he bought them.
The artistic producer indicated that after buying the songs, a dispute occurred between him and the Cairo Voice Company that lasted for 7 years, and in 2010, a reconciliation report was signed between him and the Cairo Voice Company, and the record indicated that the contracts would be renewed with Cairo Voice through him because it became the place of the heirs and the owner of the songs. He had already renewed the contract with the company and collected 30% of the revenue.
He explained that since that time, no compensation has been received from the Voice of Cairo Company, which prompted a lawsuit against the Voice of Cairo Company, indicating that the contracts that were signed with the heirs were CDs and cassettes, while the company used digital means in the song printer, At that time, he addressed the company and confirmed that the contracts do not allow this, and filed a lawsuit to compensate him for the company’s transgression of the terms of the contract and the exploitation of songs. However, the court rejected his request and confirmed that the “reconciliation contract” signed by him with Cairo Voice gives it the right to use all means and the right to exploit songs .
Mohsen Gaber confirmed that according to the contracts concluded with the Cairo Voice Company and the heirs of Umm Kulthum concluded in 1993, those contracts are renewed every 3 years, indicating that he had warned the company within the legal period that he would not renew the contracts with it, and it is assumed that these contracts expired.
Mohsen Jaber pointed out that the ruling on which the Supreme Council for Media based its statement after the Voice of Cairo Company sent a notice indicating that it had obtained a historical judgment. Mohsen Jaber confirmed that this historic ruling did not mention the ownership of the Cairo Voice Company at all for the songs of Umm Kulthum, whether in the verdict or In his merits, indicating that he is ready to conduct a competition to extract evidence that the Cairo Company owns the songs of Umm Kulthum, whether in the verdict or its merits.
Mohsen Jaber confirmed that the ruling confirms that his company gave exploitation rights to Sawt al-Qahira, while in the operative the case was rejected, and in the appeal the case was rejected, because the terms of the contract included the right of exploitation, and therefore there is no right to request compensation.