WIPO announce breakthrough on Performers’ rights
Artists , Performer's Rights / July 2011

PERFORMERS RIGHTS Artistes “WIPO’s top copyright negotiating body will recommend to the September session of the General Assembly to resume a Diplomatic Conference on the Protection of Audiovisual Performances after agreement on the last outstanding issue relating to the transfer of rights. The convening of a diplomatic conference signals entry into the final phase of treaty negotiations, with the objective of concluding a treaty that would shore up the rights of performers in their audiovisual performances More at http://the1709blog.blogspot.com/2011/06/performers-to-get-new-instrument-but.html

Hendrix covermount damages determined
Artists , Copyright , Media , Performer's Rights / September 2010

COPYRIGHT / PERFORMERS RIGHT Artists, media By Hugo Cox at www.the1709blog.blogspot.com On 20 September 2006 the Sunday Times was distributed with a covermount CD of Jimi Hendrix’s legendary last UK concert at the Albert Hall in 1969. Experience Hendrix (Hendrix’s family’s company) and The Last Experience (the company of Jerry Goldstein, who recorded the concert) successfully asserted title to the band’s performance rights and the copyright in the recordings of the concert in a summary judgment in 2008. The question Sir William Blackburne has decided today is what damages Times Newspapers should pay. Blackburne J was clear the defendant did have reasonable grounds to know that it was infringing as Experience Hendrix had challenged them prior to publication, though the paper was not recklessly indifferent the problem – so damages would not be increased by reference to flagrancy or ‘moral prejudice’. Article 13 of the Enforcement Directive (2004/48/EC) sets out different damages regimes depending on the defendant’s knowledge, though it seems unclear that this altered the judge’s calculations. At the time of the covermount the claimants were themselves intending to release a film of the concert plus accompanying DVD, CD and merchandising. Following the covermount this project was put on hold because (1) the claimants…

Bourne and others v Davis (trading as Brandon Davis Publishing)

COPYRIGHT / PERFORMERS RIGHTS / CONTRACT Artists This case involves the successful pop musician James Bourne, most latterly of Son of Dork and previously with Bustedin a contest with a certain Brandon Davis who tried to release some early recordings featuring Bourne. Between December 2000 and October 2001 Bourne and three other musicians wrote and performed songs together. While developing songs and compositions they recorded a set of nine songs in a hotel room in London. Later, the four stopped performing together. Bourne then became involved in Busted, and concluded a recording contract with the second claimant. By that contract Bourne assigned all his rights, including his performer’s rights (section 180 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988) for recordings made before the date of the contract. Busted then had a bust-up and stopped playing together and Bourne joined a new group, Son of Dork. At this juncture Bourne signed yet another contract, this time with the third claimant (an affiliate of the second claimant), which also took an assignment of his performer’s rights for performances occurring before the date of that contract. However Davis made a compact disk comprising an album of the nine tracks performed by the original group of four…

Experience Hendrix LLC files additional suit against Purple Haze Records

COPYRIGHT AND PERFORMERS’ RIGHTS Record Labels, Artists Following its victory over Purple Haze Records earlier this year, Seattle-based Experience Hendrix LLC filed a second suit (on September 12th 2005) to stop the marketing and sales of all unauthorized Jimi Hendrix recordings through the U.K. independent label. In February, the High Court of Justice in London held Purple Haze and proprietor Lawrence Miller liable for infringing the rights of Experience Hendrix in recordings of the Jimi Hendrix Experience’s 1969 Konserthuset performance in Stockholm as these breached the artists performers rights provided for under the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (as amended in 1996 and as applied retrospectively). See law updates July 2005 and June 2005 Experience Hendrix LLC v Purple Haze Record Ltd and Another

Experience Hendrix LLC v Purple Haze Record Ltd and Another
Artists , Performer's Rights / July 2005

PERFORMERS’ RIGHTS Artists The Court of Appeal has now given directions for the conduct of the appeal by Purple Haze Records Ltd against the summary judgment obtained by Experience Hendrix LLC. The case alleges infringement of performers’ rights and was brought by Experience Hendrix LLC (the successor in title to the Jimi Hendrix estate) against Purple Haze Records Ltd and Lawrence Miller for the release of an album with a performance by Jimi Hendrix and his band that had been recorded in Stockholm in 1969. At the time of the recording, UK legislation did not protect performers unless the recording itself was unauthorised – performers’ rights in their present form were only introduced in the UK in 1998. However, the High Court found in its summary judgment that later legislation could be applied retrospectively. See Law Updates June 2005

Hendrix Estate wins infringement action for 1969 recording: Experience Hendrix LLC v Purple Haze Record Ltd and Another
Artists , Performer's Rights / June 2005

PERFORMERS’ RIGHTS Artists A performance by the late Jimi Hendrix with his band the Jimi Hendrix Experience in Stockholm in 1969 has been found to be subject to the retrospective provisions of the Copyright Designs & Patents Act 1988 and the later Copyright & Related Rights Regulations 1996. The High Court upheld an infringement claim by Experience Hendrix LLC (successors in title to Jimi Hendrix’s estate) against defendants Purple Haze Records Ltd and Lawrence Miller who had released the recording as an album. At the time of the Stockholm recording, UK law only offered criminal sanctions against unauthorised recordings. The so called ‘performers right’ was introduced in 1988 but was conferred retrospectively. Even though held in Stockholm in 1969 the High Court held that Hendrix’s personal performer’s right could be asserted as Stockholm was a country designated as receiving reciprocal protection in 1969 and in 1995 became a EU member. Mr Justice Hart held that both the performance itself (which could be individually owned by Mr Hendrix even if part of a band performance) and the place of performance fell within the scope of the Act. Summary judgement was given against Purple Haze Records Limited and Mr Miller. Source: The Times Law Report…

Dark Side Of The Moon Claim

COPYRIGHT/PERFORMERS’ RIGHTS Artists A female vocalist has won an out-of-court settlement for a piece of music recorded over 30 years ago. Clare Torry was paid £30 to perform on Pink Floyd’s 1973 album Dark Side of the Moon and was given a written credit at the time for her contribution to the track The Great Gig in the Sky. Torry has taken her claim to the High Court where she has won a half-share on copyright ownership on the song performed from Pink Floyd and EMI and a settlement. Ms Torry had employed a special wailing technique, recorded in a series of sessions, which effectively helped compose the track and it is this which would have been her contribution to the copyright. Dark Side of the Moon subsequently stayed in the charts for the next 26 years amassing sales of 36 million copies. The case is not the only dispute for Pink Floyd, after legal action last December from 23 members of the north London school choir who claimed they were due royalties from their performance on the worldwide hit, Another Brick in the Wall previously reported in Law Updates. See: http://www.freelanceuk.com/news/1006.shtml

UK Government consults on moral rights for performers
Artists , Performer's Rights / April 2005

PERFORMER’S RIGHTS Artists The UK Government is consulting on legislation which would give performers the same moral rights as those owned by authors of literary, musical, dramatic and artistic copyrights under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. These include the right to be identified as the author (or here performer) and to object to the derogatory treatment of a work (or here a performance). The new right could have important ramifications for screen credits and the right to object to derogatory treatment of a performance could impact on the producer’s right to edit programmes and performances. The changes result from the UK’s adherence to the WIPO Performances and Phonograms treaty. Source: PACT Magazine March 2005

The Wall school choir seek royalties
Artists , Copyright , Performer's Rights / January 2005

COPYRIGHT & PERFORMERS’ RIGHTS Artists The original choir members who featured on Pink Floyd’s The Wall are looking to receive royalty payments for their performances. The children who were at the Islington Green School in 1979 took time out of lessons to record the contribution at Britannia Row with the help of their music teacher. Through the website www.friendsreunited.com a number of original choir members have got together and have asked PAMRA, the Performing Artists Media Rights Association, to collect royalties on their behalf. The Wall album has sold 12 million copies worldwide. At the time the children’s school received a payment of 00. Not all of the choir members have yet been confirmed or identified and it appears that no paperwork exists from the session.