Citations:
[1943] UKPC 10
Links:
Commonwealth
Updated: 27 September 2022; Ref: scu.448633
Lahore
[1944] UKPC 32
Updated: 26 September 2022; Ref: scu.448594
(New Zealand)
[1944] UKPC 24
England and Wales
Updated: 26 September 2022; Ref: scu.448597
India
[1944] UKPC 52
Updated: 26 September 2022; Ref: scu.448614
Ceylon
[1944] UKPC 2
Commonwealth
Updated: 26 September 2022; Ref: scu.448568
(Malta)
[1945] UKPC 66
Updated: 26 September 2022; Ref: scu.448041
[1945] UKPC 46
England and Wales
Updated: 26 September 2022; Ref: scu.448026
(Supreme Court of Canada) The Vigneux brothers supplied coin-operated juke boxes with records to restaurants, cafes and other places attended by the public. The proceeds were divided between the Vigneux brothers and the owner of the establishment. In some instances the Vigneux brothers received a pre-determined share; in others a fixed amount irrespective of the number of plays. The latter was the arrangement in place in the case at bar. Theye were accused of copyright infringement.
Held: Lord Russell said: ‘In regard to Vigneux, no doubt in law they are the owners of the gramophone. As such they might, if necessary, claim to be protected by the subsection, but in their case no such claim is necessary, because, as their Lordships think, they neither gave the public performance of ‘Stardust’, nor did they authorize it. They had no control over the use of the machine; they had no voice as to whether at any particular time it was to be available to the restaurant customers or not. The only part which they played in the matter was in the ordinary course of their business, to hire out to Raes one of their machines and supply it with records, at a weekly rental of ten dollars.’
Lord Russell
[1945] UKPC 1, [1945] AC 108
Updated: 26 September 2022; Ref: scu.447987
Oudh
[1945] UKPC 2
Updated: 26 September 2022; Ref: scu.447985