"Whiter shade ..." -- we await their Lordships' pleasure

The IPKat learned from the BBC this April that the copyright dispute over Procol Harum's classic "A Whiter Shade Of Pale" had been appealed to the House of Lords (the UK's highest appeal court, soon to be rebranded the Supreme Court). You can read all about the dispute at first instance here and in the Court of Appeal here. The dispute arises from the claim by Matthew Fisher, who played the organ on the track, that he is entitled to a share of royalties dating back to 1967.

Right: the Lords are leaping with excitement over the Procol Harum appeal -- but when will they share their ruling with us?

What the IPKat wants to know is whether any of his readers can tell him when the ruling of their Lordships might be expected. He's checked the House of Lords website for exciting developments, but this information was not among them. If you know, can you please post the information below or email the IPKat here.

Merpel says, how strange it is to think that the average age of the Law Lords hearing this appeal is lower than that of the pop group litigants ...

Watch and listen to "Whiter Shade of Pale" here ...
... and here on the ukulele
"Whiter shade ..." -- we await their Lordships' pleasure "Whiter shade ..." -- we await their Lordships' pleasure Reviewed by Jeremy on Wednesday, June 03, 2009 Rating: 5


  1. Well, Mr. Fisher waited 38 years or so to sue. Why should their Lordships be in any great hurry?

  2. The first House of Lords decision on the notion of joint authorship (Fisher v Brooker; "A Whiter Shade of Pale") is to be handed down on Thursday, 30th July 2009 at 4.30 pm ....


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

Powered by Blogger.