A brewing legal storm threatens to expose troubling questions about artistic integrity and proper credit in hip-hop’s commercial landscape. Kanye West, the Chicago rapper and music mogul, must submit to questioning on Feb. 26 regarding claims he illegally lifted vocal samples from Memphis hip-hop pioneers Criminal Manne and DJ Squeeky for his Vultures 1 album track.
The legal confrontation stems from a copyright lawsuit filed by the artists and the estate of Kilo G, who assert Kanye used their creative work without obtaining permission or providing compensation. Criminal Manne, DJ Squeeky, and Kilo G’s representatives are demanding both financial damages and formal acknowledgment of their contributions to Kanye’s commercially successful release.
Stolen Vocals From Memphis Underground
The plaintiffs claim Kanye West appropriated vocal recordings from their song Drank a Yak Part 2 for his own track. Criminal Manne asserts the opening lines feature his distinctive voice rapping about smoking with friends while drinking malt liquor. The estate of Kilo G maintains that additional vocals from the late artist surface later in the same composition, compounding the alleged theft.
This case represents more than a simple dispute over unauthorized sampling. Criminal Manne and DJ Squeeky emerged as foundational architects of the gritty 1990s Memphis underground scene, crafting a raw sonic aesthetic that would influence Southern hip-hop for generations. Their basement studios and independent releases established production techniques and lyrical frameworks that became essential DNA for countless artists who followed.
The Memphis sound they pioneered blended dark, minimalist beats with aggressive delivery styles that challenged mainstream commercial radio’s polished approach. Their innovations occurred without major label backing or industry resources, making proper recognition and compensation for their creative contributions particularly significant in this legal battle against Kanye.
Collapse of Settlement Discussions
Kanye’s team explored potential resolution through Alien Music Services beginning in March 2025, attempting to negotiate retroactive licensing agreements with the Memphis artists. Those conversations reached a standstill by June, coinciding with major personnel turnover within his business operations.
The plaintiffs now contend Kanye has deliberately avoided financial settlement while refusing to credit their artistic work properly. This pattern of stalled negotiations and alleged evasion has pushed the Memphis artists toward aggressive legal action rather than collaborative resolution.
The timing of staff departures within the organization raises questions about operational stability and whether proper systems existed to handle sample clearances appropriately. Industry observers suggest such internal disruption may have contributed to the authorization failures at the heart of this lawsuit.
Notorious Deposition Behavior
Previous legal proceedings involving Kanye West have established a reputation for chaotic, unpredictable conduct that concerns opposing counsel. During a 2021 technology-related lawsuit, Kanye appeared wearing facial coverings and refused to disclose his location to questioners. He insisted lawyers had no right to see his face and declared they would never encounter him again.
Such theatrical defiance of standard legal protocols has created anxiety about how the upcoming Feb. 26 session might unfold. Kanye’s attorneys likely harbor serious concerns about managing his responses and keeping proceedings focused on relevant jurisdictional questions rather than tangential outbursts.
The deposition will specifically address whether courts possess proper authority over Kanye in this matter. Given his documented history of straying off-topic and disregarding conventional expectations during questioning, legal experts anticipate potential disruption that could complicate the case’s progression.
High Stakes for Hip-Hop’s Future
This confrontation arrives amid broader debates about sampling ethics, copyright enforcement, and how the music industry treats foundational artists from earlier generations. The outcome could establish important precedents regarding whether prominent stars like Kanye face meaningful accountability for allegedly bypassing proper licensing channels.
Kanye’s testimony will likely face intense scrutiny regarding his knowledge of the samples’ origins, his personal involvement in clearance discussions, and internal communications about the disputed material. His answers could prove pivotal in determining whether the case advances to trial or prompts settlement negotiations.
The lawsuit transcends simple monetary recovery for Criminal Manne and DJ Squeeky. These artists seek validation that their pioneering work contributed directly to Kanye West’s commercial success while establishing that underground innovators deserve the same protections and respect afforded to mainstream industry figures.
If the Memphis artists prevail, the decision could influence how established stars approach sample clearances and whether courts will enforce stricter standards for proper authorization and credit. Conversely, a favorable outcome for the defendant might embolden other artists to adopt looser interpretations of sampling protocols.
As the deposition date approaches, the music community watches closely to see whether this legal battle vindicates the Memphis pioneers or becomes another controversial chapter in the artist’s career. The case underscores persistent tensions between mainstream commercial exploitation and the often-overlooked creators whose innovations made that success possible.
