C composed garage track. D had been in negotiations to use track on a compilation album, but deal fell through late in day – by which time D had already mixed album. C’s work was used as backing track over which rappers employed by D rapped lyrics. C claimed derogatory treatment in light of fact that lyrics were suggestive of violence and drug usage, and fact the C’s original work had been distorted beyond recognition. Held:
· Section 80(2) requires that mutilation or distortion of C’s work is only derogatory if prejudicial to honour or reputation of C
Ø i.e. this inferred from use of ‘or otherwise prejudicial’
· On facts, no derogatory treatment
Ø Mere distortion of music does not suffice
Ø Lyrics in question were not offensive
· Most importantly, was no evidence that what had happened had caused any prejudice to C’s honour or reputation
