(Supreme Court of British Columbia) The court discussed the test for joint authorship after reviewing authorities in Canada, the US and England and said: ‘In the result I find that the test for joint authorship that should be applied to the facts in the instant case is as follows:
i) Did the plaintiff contribute significant original expression to the songs? If yes,
ii) Did each of the plaintiff and Ms McLachlan intend that their contributions be merged into a unitary whole? If yes,
iii) Did each of the plaintiff and Ms McLachlan intend the other to be a joint author of the song?’ and ‘the creation of the intent to co-author requirement in Childress v. Taylor happened despite the statutory definition of joint authorship . . . not because of it. The court looked beyond the language of the section and moved on to review policy considerations in the application of the section. In particular, the court could not accept that Congress intended to extend joint authorship to, for example, editors and researchers. It was for this reason that the court created the intent to co-author requirement.’
Judges:
Cohen J
Citations:
[1999] RPC 935
Jurisdiction:
Canada
Cited by:
Still Good Law – Hodgens v Beckingham CA 19-Feb-2003
The defendant appealed a finding of infringement in a music copyright work, ‘Young at Heart’, based on a claim of joint authorship. The claimant had delayed his claim for many years, but now sought only rights to future royalties.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Commonwealth, Intellectual Property
Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.266723