Annanova reports that Raymond Collier, a farmer in Locks Heath, Hampshire has been reported to Fareham Borough Council for playing music to his pigs too loudly. The farmer has said claimed that the tunes calmed the pigs and may have made them grow bigger. Environmental health officers found that the music was not loud enough to constitute a nuisance, although an abatement order was issued to prevent unpleasant odours caused by the build-up of manure and slurry.
The IPKat wonders whether playing music to your pigs counts as performance in public for the purposes of ss.16 and 19 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. The legal feline notes that there’s no definition of what constitutes “the public” in the CDPA so there’s nothing to say that his porcine pals don’t count. Also, is playing music so loudly that your neighbours can hear it (whether they want to or not) classed as public performance?
Performing pigs here, here and here
Pig songs here and here
Music for cows here and for hens here
The IPKat wonders whether playing music to your pigs counts as performance in public for the purposes of ss.16 and 19 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. The legal feline notes that there’s no definition of what constitutes “the public” in the CDPA so there’s nothing to say that his porcine pals don’t count. Also, is playing music so loudly that your neighbours can hear it (whether they want to or not) classed as public performance?
Performing pigs here, here and here
Pig songs here and here
Music for cows here and for hens here
PUBLIC PIGS?
![<strong>PUBLIC PIGS?</strong>]()
Reviewed by Anonymous
on
Monday, August 11, 2003
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] EUIPO Second Board of Appeal refers case to Grand Board of Appeal following earlier refusal to register a photograph of a man’s head/face as an EU trade mark](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUj9v-k3DYaSVMR4lsmKDLHVB5nIoINuvZNbH2TQCelrfaAE9qmGSAQs-plzQ7HnZ7Svk_gRdrIODp0Nat5vpWajduit3xkArNhK76AHhX770RIJ62thfCVI5fnvcXU-5zH4NkUSfPY9FjRMFiK7OKJ7m7YSo2FzhyPSoA8ZWCsxaOXb0bBCoPQA/s72-c/Picture%201.png)
![[Guest post] Benelux Office rules on opposition proceedings prepared by ChatGPT](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi29VY0rNNP1Hqyz8RgB47r4q7fhqQfYHxsEbX_RKmT4KU5Y_vg7vB6dsAW91CidjMfJ38klTvD4mMtZb3QmwFPAHaGF88BPttWSbfYvo7UUg7MpFRTNtEjThmG0QaX2qZFFHSnN71i3YQZSBFC0SL7PgkAlme-XH8cSNWRFbOAOuLr_LMOGcImLQ/s72-c/Screenshot%202024-12-04%20at%2020.45.58.png)
Posts
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html