The singer had recorded a song, ‘Forever After’. She sought damages in copyright saying that a later recording by the defendants titled ‘Nothing Really Matters’ was infringing, having copied elements of the voice expression of her own performance, particularly the timbre, pitch contour and the syncopation. The defendants asked the court to strike out the claim, asserting that what was alleged to have been copied was not itself protected by copyright, that it was not a musical work, but just certain selected features of the work. They went on to say that if copyright was to be claimed for some part of a work, it had to form a substantial part, and it was not open to the claimant to herself select which features went to make up the work for which she claimed protection. The claimant answered saying that there might well be circumstances where a constituent part of a larger work may be entitled to a copyright.
Held: The strike out request succeeded. Copyright existed in a work in its entirety, not in parts of or extracts from the work. A copying of part of a work might infringe the copyright in the entire work, if it formed a substantial part. An assessment have to be made in each particular case according the facts. The court declined to follow a path which would lead to recognition of layers making up different artistic copyrights, and open up all sorts of new problems. To find a separate copyright the court should look to see whether the element for which a separate copyright was asserted could in some way stand alone.
Judges:
Blackburne J
Citations:
[2005] ECDR (21) 312, HC 03CO4523, [2005] EWHC 449 (Ch)
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – IPC Media Ltd v Highbury-Leisure Publishing Ltd ChD 21-Dec-2004
The claimant magazine publisher alleged breach of copyright by the defendant in their magazine, as to the cover page designs used. It was not clear just which cover was said to have been copied.
Held: The first step in a copyright action is . .
Cited – Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd v Marks and Spencer Plc HL 12-Jul-2001
The respondent company subscribed to a cuttings service, but redistributed the cuttings within its offices. The cuttings agency claimed that the re-distribution infringed their rights in the typographical arrangement. The cuttings did not give any . .
Cited – Coogi Australia Pty Ltd v Hysport International Pty Ltd 1998
(Federal Court of Australia) What makes up the copyright work is in any given case is not governed by what the claimant alleging copyright infringement chooses to say that it is. It is rather a matter for objective determination by the court.
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property
Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.246800