Hyperion Records v Sawkins: Copyright Protection of Musical Editions, Slides of Intellectual Property (IP)

Download Hyperion Records v Sawkins: Copyright Protection of Musical Editions and more Slides Intellectual Property (IP) in PDF only on Docsity!

HYPERION RECORDS V SAWKINS [2005]

EWCA CIV 565 (CA)

• (^) Summary of facts
• (^) Essential legal points
• (^) Assessment of the court’s decision

Summary of facts

• Concerns an appellant record company appealed against the decision that they infringed

copyright of Sawkins who made modern performing editions of Lalande’s work.

• (^) Laladnde’s work had been neglected. Sawkins , a musicologist had produced performing

editions of Laladnde’s work making additions and corrections to make it playable but

Sawkin’s work did not involve recomposing Laladnde’s music work and Sawkin’s claimed

copyright in the amended performing editons.

• (^) Sawkins bought action against HR who made recordings of performances of Laladne’s

work using Swakins scores.

• (^) HR refused paying Sawkins any royalties on the basis that Sawkins was not entitled to

copyright on the performance of non-copyright music, from their perspective

• HR submitted the works were merely transcriptions of Laladnde’ music so they denied that

this infringed copyright. They also argued Sawkins had not created an original musical

works under the CDPA.

• (^) A question the Courts considered was whether Sawkins’ work could count as a

contribution to the music?

Assessing the courts

• Court of Appeal upheld that they could and appeal was dismissed.
• (^) The court stated that the effort, time, and skill Sawkins spent in making the performing editions sufficiently satisfied the requirement that they should be ‘original’ works (Walter v Lane [1900]) sufficient labour, judgement, skill must be satisfied.
• (^) Hyperion’s argument that Sawkins’ work was not ‘music’ was rejected as it rested on an unduly narrow view of what constituted as music for copyright purposes. The Court applied Ladbroke (Football) Ltd v William Hill (Football) Ltd [1964]. It was wrong to make that assessment by dissecting the whole into separate parts and submitting that there was no copyright in the parts. Sawkins contributed to what was heard and that to the court was music. Hyperion tried to argue that the notes were the music. - Hyperion’s submission ignored the fact that the totality of the music/ sounds produced were affected by the information inserted by Sawkins
• (^) If copyright subsisted in the performing editions, the performers who used Sawkins’ editions reproduced the majority of the editorial interventions marked up by him in his scores and there was an infringement in his copyright
• Sawkins had not copied from a previous edition in originating the performing editions and the courts found a breach of CDPA as the CD that HR produced did not identify Sawking as the author