tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post6230952629983944324..comments2024-03-28T08:10:18.991+00:00Comments on The IPKat: House of Lords' IP swan song: a Whiter Shade of PaleVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-10809618751093200472009-08-04T10:14:19.893+01:002009-08-04T10:14:19.893+01:00Re the IPKAT's query on why Fisher should get ...Re the IPKAT's query on why Fisher should get 40% - surely it is all about quality, not quantity. The fact is that all most people remember is the organ intro and "we skipped the light fandango" - seems fair to me.Frances Andersonhttp://www.cobbetts.com/OurPeople/AndersonFrancesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-2958641806966723152009-07-31T16:44:15.294+01:002009-07-31T16:44:15.294+01:00I think it's important to clarify the Lord Hop...I think it's important to clarify the Lord Hope limitation point which I think you've put slightly ambiguously: Lord Hope was saying that a claim TO copyright could not be time barred under the Limitation Act 1980 as its duration is prescribed under the CDPA as amended by the Duration Directive. <br /><br />As Neuberger points out, any claim for royalties (ie per an infringement claim) going back more than 6 years prior to the issue of proceedings would have been time barred, and the claimant accepted this. <br /><br />I have had a couple of cases recently where we've relied on time bar so I don't want Microsoft and others getting excited!Jim Dennishttp://www.blg.co.uk/who_we_are/view_associates/jim_dennis.aspxnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-18706225645609989752009-07-31T13:52:52.327+01:002009-07-31T13:52:52.327+01:00It appears that all concerned successfully managed...It appears that all concerned successfully managed to obscure the real issue; to wit, What in the world is this song about? What are the lyrics and what do they mean?mcvootynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-77927010781339422092009-07-31T12:05:24.678+01:002009-07-31T12:05:24.678+01:00It's interesting that the copyright wasn't...It's interesting that the copyright wasn't split 50/50. In <i>Ray v Classic FM</i> (1998) it was stated that joint authors hold copyright as tenants in common, so are entitled to equal shares regardless of their input. However, in <i>Bamgboye v Reed</i> (2002): <br />'the cases agree that if there are two or more persons who are joint authors they own the copyright in equal shares, but it is suggested that is not an invariable rule because sometimes the authors may be joint tenants rather than tenants in common and in that case until severance there are no shares. Mr Harbottle submitted -- and in my judgment this must be right -- that there is no requirement that joint authorship necessarily involves equality on a 50:50 basis. It would be possible for there to be, as it were, a joint ownership in unequal shares in principle.' <br />But there's no explanation for why. This all seems to be very arbitrary! Joint authors are tenants in common - unless they aren't. Perhaps Mr Harbottle would like to explain?Hugo Coxhttp://the1709blog.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-20591013870686180422009-07-30T22:30:42.981+01:002009-07-30T22:30:42.981+01:00Valuing the percentage of someone's contributi...Valuing the percentage of someone's contribution is always going to be difficult, but I doubt that a simple quotient of the contributed part of a work over the whole is likely to be the right approach in most cases. Surely the extent to which it contributed to the work's success is a better one?<br /><br />And the opening *is* pretty memorable and I suspect without it the song would not have been the hit it was. Just as (I suspect) "Young at Heart" would not have been without the fiddle solo.<br /><br />I suspect the fact that the organ continues playing throughout the piece may have been a factor albeit that it alone would not have been enough for the judge to have found that Mr Fisher was a joint author.<br /><br />Two further thoughts: (i) it seems to me this is partly a result of the rather odd way in which one can be joint authors not in equal shares; and (ii) the defendants never put forward a positive case as to what they percentage should have been, leaving the judge to find his own way.Francis Daveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10228026893626221724noreply@blogger.com