Musa v Le Maitre: QBD 1987

The defendant appealed by case stated against his conviction under the 1956 Act saying that no evidence had been brought that the videos on which the conviction was based were infringing copies.
Held: As to items from the US, no evidence had been brought. It was required, and the appeal succeeded. However where the country of first publication was covered by section 13 of the 1956 Act, it was enough to show that first publication. Furthermore expert evidence could be employed to establish that the copies were infringing. Evidence from the copyright holder himself was not necessarily required.
Stephen Brown LJ said: ‘I can see no practical difficulty to prevent a prosecutor from inviting a defendant to make an admission of fact as to first publication. An obstructive attitude might result in substantial costs. In any event it is unlikely to require the evidence of the actual maker or the holder of the copyright.’


Stephen Brown LJ


[1987] FSR 212


Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 101, Copyright Act 1956 13 18 21 49, Copyright (International Conventions) Order 1979

Crime, Intellectual Property

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.543467