This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Business News Legal
Bow Wow refusing to pay French pornstar
By Andy Malt | Published on Friday 22 March 2013
Rapper Bow Wow has said that he will not pay $80,000 in damages and legal fees to French pornstar Celine ‘Katsuni’ Tran, despite a court order issued earlier this week.
As previously reported, Tran claimed that Bow Wow had used, without permission, footage of her dancing, originally shot for a video for French band Electronic Conspiracy, in the pop promo for “his track” ‘Drank In My Cup’ last year. Not owning the copyright to the original video, she sued on publicity right violation grounds.
As Bow Wow failed to respond to the lawsuit, the judge overseeing the case automatically ruled in Tran’s favour, ordering the rapper to pay her $79,346.07. However, he now says he won’t pay, disputing the lawsuit on two grounds. First, ‘Drank In My Cup’ is not his song, but was released by another rapper called Kirko Bangz. And second, neither he nor Bangz created the video in question, it being – he says – a mash up made by a YouTube user.
Posting on Facebook, Bow Wow said: “Yo! That dumb ass pornstar chick who ever she is ain’t getting a dime from us! We ain’t make no video. That video was mashed up by somebody on YouTube and I reposted cuz it was dope. People mash up artist videos all the time online. Everybody looking for a hustle. Then they [try to] say ‘Drank In My Cup’ is my song. That ain’t my song, you dumb broad! Get a life. I don’t play dem games. Niggas work too hard to give away free money”.
Bow Wow does seem to have a more formal link to the track ‘Drank In My Cup’ than he suggests, in that a remix of it was doing the rounds in which he guested, which was presumably the version used in the video in question. Nevertheless, his arguments against his liability for the video – if true – seem pretty compelling. Perhaps he should have said all that in court when he had his chance. Though maybe not quite in those words.
