Oxbridge Notes | Copyright Case Law - Intellectual Property Law

Robin Ray VERSUS Classic FM

[1988] FSR 22

A&M Records VERSUS Video Collections Limited

[1995] 3 EMLR 25

Beckingham VERSUS Hodgens

[2002] EWHC 2143 (Ch)

Copyright

KEY RULE: The person that creates the content is the author and owner of the content (unless an employee)

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Back in mid-1990s Classic FM launched and its take on popular classics very quickly became a success.

Central to this success was the artfully constructed playlist compiled over many years by Robin Ray, a broadcaster, actor, and musician famed for his encyclopaedic knowledge of classical music.

Ray listened to, graded, categorised and assessed for popular appeal around 50,000 recordings. Ray’s efforts formed the backbone of Classic FM’s playlist

Classic FM formed a lucrative sideline by licensing those playlists to overseas radio stations to which Ray objected

Ray sued and won. The Court held that Classic FM was not a joint copyright owner with Ray and neither was Ray an employee of Classic FM. They had a licence to use his work for UK Classic FM but not for sale overseas

Classic FM exceeded the terms of that licence by sub-licensing the lists overseas with Ray’s permission

NOTES:

In Obiter: Joint authors hold copyright as tenants in common, so are entitled to equal shares regardless of their input. Joint owners all have to agree before any exploitation of the work is permissible. It isn’t sufficient for a joint owner to licence material to a 3^rd party and give a share to the other owners.

REFERENCES: Authorship. CDPA S16A (infringement to make copies), S173(2) consent of all owners required

Copyright

KEY RULE: The first owner of a copyright act is the person who makes the arrangements

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Torvill & Dean wanted to create music to dance to. Their service company, Inside Edge ("IE"), was given the task of doing this.

IE engaged a Mr Pullen who in turn engaged an arranger and a conductor (R). It was common ground that R commissioned and paid for the musical arrangements, booked and paid for the studio, arranged and paid for the attendance of the 51 musicians necessary to make the recording, engaged and paid for the scoring, a sound engineer, and a fixer and paid for all expenses of the sessions such as meals, taxis, etc.

Held that IE owned the copyright. It undertook the arrangements through Mr Pullen.

R made the recordings, but Mr Pullen undertook the arrangements. It was also an implied term in the contract between R and Mr Pullen that IE would own the copyright.

NOTES:

Had IE not been the copyright owner, R would not have been estopped because he was unaware of his rights.

The decision is another case on the test of first ownership of copyright in sound recordings under the CDPA.

It is also interesting on the estoppel point, because R's lack of knowledge rendered it not unjust that he could have asserted his strict legal rights.

REFERENCES: Ownership - CDPA S9

Copyright

KEY RULE: For joint authorship three requirements must be satisfied (a) there must be a collaboration in the creation of a new musical work, (b) there is a 'significant and original' contribution from each joint author and (c) the contributions from each author must not be separate. A fourth requirement that both intended to create the work is not necessary

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Claimant was a professional violin player who was hired to play in the song “Young at Heart” by the Bluebells

He claimed that he composed the violin part in the introduction of the song

First instance held that claimant contributed violin part and was therefore joint author and joint owner

On appeal at EWCA it was argued, inter alia, that joint authorship required an intention to create a joint work

Held that nothing in the statute suggests this intention is a requirement.

EWCA agreed completely with first instance judge

NOTES:

S10.1 states that the contribution should not be distinct so there has to be ‘joint labour’ and collaboration.

In this case, on the facts, the section in question is heavily dependent on what was there already. Without the words the violin piece would appear odd and lose meaning.

Claimant brought action when hit 2^nd time around – no estoppel as claim only for earnings from date of claim

REFERENCES: Authorship CDPA88 S10(1)

Bamgboye VERSUS Reed

[2004] EMLR 5

Brighton VERSUS Jones

[2004] EMRL 26

Brooker VERSUS Fisher

[2006] EWHC 3239

Copyright

KEY RULE: To be a joint author the contribution must be to the creation of the musical work, not to its performance or interpretation. The contribution did not need to equal in terms of quantity, quality or originality with that of the other collaborators, but it had to be significant.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Concerned the copyright in the musical work and the sound recording of song ‘Bouncing Flow’

Bamgboye worked as a trainee tape operator and sound engineer at a recording studio and contributed drum and bass-line parts and cymbal effects

After the track was recorded Reed used equipment at Bamgboye’s house to further work on the track

Judge held that the driving force behind the project was Mr Reed and the final recording would not have been produced without his efforts. My Bamgboye contributed and so was a joint author of the work but Mr Reed (on the facts) was the producer

NOTES:

If there are two or more persons who are joint authors they own the copyright in equal shares, but it is suggested that is not an invariable rule because sometimes the authors may be joint tenants rather than tenants in common and in that case until severance there are no shares. In this case Bamgboye got 1/3 and not a

REFERENCES: Joint authorship - CDPA S10(1)

Copyright

KEY RULE: To be a joint author of a copyrighted work you must make a significant ‘contribution’

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The defendant, Marie Jones, had written the script for the play ‘Stones in his pockets” in 1966 and was listed as the sole author on publicity material.

The claimant, Mrs...

Copyright Case Law - Intellectual Property Law

About Oxbridge

More Intellectual Property Law Samples