Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.

X

Coffey v Warner

[2005] EWHC 449

Case summary last updated at 28/01/2020 17:06 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team.

Judgement for the case Coffey v Warner

C sued D, Warner Bros, for breach of copyright; alleged that a song co-written by Madonna was an infringement of C’s musical copyright, a song called ‘Forever After’. In C’s claim of particulars, however, C defined the ‘musical work’ infringed as the vocal expression, syncopation and pitch contour around the vocal hook “does it really matter” – rather than the actual song ‘Forever After’ itself. Held:
 
·        Performer’s interpretation of music or personal performance characteristicsdo not constitute a ‘musical work’
Ø  thus things not capable of being ‘musical works’ include the performer’s: 
-        voice expression
-        pitch contour
-        syncopation the hook “does it really matter”
 
Separability
·        Whether something is a ‘work’ matter for objective determination by the court.
·        In this case, C could not simply select parts of her song most similar to Madonna’s and use them as basis for her copyright work.
Ø  i.e. by removing the rest of song (which was obviously not copied), was danger of creating an illusion of copying in the parts that remained.
·        In addition the three features identified by C were not sufficiently separable from rest of song to constitute musical work in their own right.

Have you seen Oxbridge Notes' best Intellectual Property Law study materials?

Our law notes have been a popular underground sensation for 10 years:

  • Written by Oxford & Cambridge prize-winning graduates
  • Includes copious adademic commentary in summary form
  • Concise structure relating cases and statutes into an easy-to-remember whole
  • Covers all major cases for LLB exams
  • Satisfaction guaranteed refund policy
  • Recently updated
Intellectual Property Law Notes

Intellectual Property Law Notes >>