Hat tip to Mike Tobin for this: According to Music Week, American folk singer Jake Holmes (it seems one can be excused for not having heard of him) is suing a rather better-known act called Led Zeppelin for copyright infringement. He claims that Jimmy Page took his (Holmes's) song, Dazed and Confused. The allegation has been around for long enough, but only now - and with no prospect of recovering more than three years back-royalties - is he taking action ... Even so, that might be worth a few bob, and going forward there should be a few more in it for him too.
[Whiter] Shades of ...
Postscript: Mike Tatroe (who must be another Facebook Rhubarb Thrasher) added that one of the commenters on the NY Times version of this article (http://nyti.ms/9Q5vAr) claims to have known Jake Holmes and previously asked him why he'd never sued Page. At the time, Holmes "...said that Page had so reconstructed the song that he'd made it into something altogether different so he never bothered." You be the judge ...
Showing posts with label A Whiter Shade of Pale. Show all posts
Showing posts with label A Whiter Shade of Pale. Show all posts
Thursday, 1 July 2010
Saturday, 1 August 2009
And so it was that later ...
The House of Lords, in its last batch of judgments before its metamorphosis into the Supreme Court, upheld Blackburne J's judgment in Matthew Fisher v Gary Brooker which had been rather emasculated by the Court of Appeal. The interesting copyright point - that the organ part was worth 40 per cent of the song, basically, and surely few music fans would dispute that - was not in issue: what was being argued about was laches and estoppel. The time it took Matthew Fisher to pursue his claim has been the subject of much comment, but their Lordships and Ladyship (Lady Hale admitting to being able to remember the sixties, which I thought was evidence that the speaker couldn't have been there: what were the other Lords doing at the time?) proceeded on the basis that there was no detriment to Gary Brooker. Quite the opposite: he enjoyed exclusive copyright in the music for many years during which, had Matthew Fisher moved a bit more speedily, he would only have had 60 per cent. That benefit clearly outweighed any possible detriment, although their Lordships took the view that the laches claim was fatally flawed anyway.
In fact, Mr Fisher did not have it all his own way in the House of Lords. Their Lordships did not reinstate the third declaration entirely: they asked the parties for further submissions on the matter of whether Essex Music's rights had been validly assigned to Onward Music, which is however a bit of a sideshow.
The Court of Appeal's judgment had, their Lordships thought, been inconsistent. Lord Neuberger said that, granted that Mr Fisher originally owned 40 per cent of the musical copyright and had not been estopped from asserting it, there was no reason to deny him the right to seek an injunction or compensation for infringement of his copyright. The Court of Appeal had taken the view that, on equitable grounds, it should refuse to declare that the right existed because he should not be entitled to seek an injunction. Lord Neuberger said that if Mr Fisher applied for an injunction, it would be for the court to which the application was made to decide whether it would be oppressive, and he also made the point that the Court of Appeal would have denied him the opportunity to protect his 40 per cent copyright by obtaining an injunction against other infringers. Just because there was no threat that Procol Harum or Gary Brooker personally would use the copyright in a way that Mr Fisher might want to stop did not mean that he should not be able to stop others.
Lord Neuberger's opinion also made clear that there is no statutory time limit for bringing an action for infringement of copyright, which it is good to have confirmed - this is something that delegates on courses have asked me about in the past. Their Lordships also held that the respondents' reliance on the equitable doctrine of laches was irrelevant where what the claimant sought was a declaration relating to a property right - which is not equitable relief. Even if laches were relevant, Lord Neuberger said that the respondents would have to show acts during the period of delay that would mean the balance of justice justified refusing the relief. Here there were omissions, not acts.
Lady Hale's comment about delay had a little more to it: "As one of those people who do remember the sixties, I am glad that the author of that memorable organ part has at last achieved the recognition he deserves", she said. Am I wrong to think that lacks the impartiality that we expect from judges? Or are they entitled to stop being impartial when they have heard all the evidence? I suppose they have to, otherwise nothing would ever be decided. But I too am glad - though on the other hand, I think it right that Robert Godfrey should not be able to claim copyright in Mockingbird ... but that's another story.
In fact, Mr Fisher did not have it all his own way in the House of Lords. Their Lordships did not reinstate the third declaration entirely: they asked the parties for further submissions on the matter of whether Essex Music's rights had been validly assigned to Onward Music, which is however a bit of a sideshow.
The Court of Appeal's judgment had, their Lordships thought, been inconsistent. Lord Neuberger said that, granted that Mr Fisher originally owned 40 per cent of the musical copyright and had not been estopped from asserting it, there was no reason to deny him the right to seek an injunction or compensation for infringement of his copyright. The Court of Appeal had taken the view that, on equitable grounds, it should refuse to declare that the right existed because he should not be entitled to seek an injunction. Lord Neuberger said that if Mr Fisher applied for an injunction, it would be for the court to which the application was made to decide whether it would be oppressive, and he also made the point that the Court of Appeal would have denied him the opportunity to protect his 40 per cent copyright by obtaining an injunction against other infringers. Just because there was no threat that Procol Harum or Gary Brooker personally would use the copyright in a way that Mr Fisher might want to stop did not mean that he should not be able to stop others.
Lord Neuberger's opinion also made clear that there is no statutory time limit for bringing an action for infringement of copyright, which it is good to have confirmed - this is something that delegates on courses have asked me about in the past. Their Lordships also held that the respondents' reliance on the equitable doctrine of laches was irrelevant where what the claimant sought was a declaration relating to a property right - which is not equitable relief. Even if laches were relevant, Lord Neuberger said that the respondents would have to show acts during the period of delay that would mean the balance of justice justified refusing the relief. Here there were omissions, not acts.
Lady Hale's comment about delay had a little more to it: "As one of those people who do remember the sixties, I am glad that the author of that memorable organ part has at last achieved the recognition he deserves", she said. Am I wrong to think that lacks the impartiality that we expect from judges? Or are they entitled to stop being impartial when they have heard all the evidence? I suppose they have to, otherwise nothing would ever be decided. But I too am glad - though on the other hand, I think it right that Robert Godfrey should not be able to claim copyright in Mockingbird ... but that's another story.
Thursday, 7 May 2009
A Whiter Shade of Pale Revisited
I am rather pathetically proud of a piece I wrote about the original high court action, and now that the case has reached the dizzy heights of the House of Lords my effort will be of historical value only. I have therefore placed it in my public dropbox folder, secure in the knowledge that it is so different from what appeared in the Entertainment Law Review that no copyright problems can arise (even if, which I don't think I did, I assigned anything to the publishers).
The reason it comes to mind is that I am engaged in a similar project: including as many song titles by the artist in question as I possibly can. My pride in this piece of nonsense about Procol Harum derives from the inclusion of 25 of their song titles, not counting the subject of the article. I couldn't manage to do anything with Repent Walpurgis, Salad Days, Conquistador, She Wandered Through The Garden Fence, Homburg, A Salty Dog, Grand Hotel, or Broken Barricades, or many more that I would have to look up on the web first.
I hope it brings you a small amount of the enjoyment it gave me. But I doubt it ...
The reason it comes to mind is that I am engaged in a similar project: including as many song titles by the artist in question as I possibly can. My pride in this piece of nonsense about Procol Harum derives from the inclusion of 25 of their song titles, not counting the subject of the article. I couldn't manage to do anything with Repent Walpurgis, Salad Days, Conquistador, She Wandered Through The Garden Fence, Homburg, A Salty Dog, Grand Hotel, or Broken Barricades, or many more that I would have to look up on the web first.
I hope it brings you a small amount of the enjoyment it gave me. But I doubt it ...
Thursday, 23 April 2009
How White a Shade of Pale?
Frances Gibb reports in The Times that A Whiter Shade of Pale is now the first piece of popular music to be considered by the House of Lords (House of Lords business here) - as well as being officially the most-listened-to song of the last 75 years, according to PPL who should know. (I like the outfits.)
It's probably not my most-listened-to song, but it's not far off, and while this is a story that's only going to become interesting when their Lordships hand down a judgment (well, the arguments could be interesting, but I'm not proposing to go to hear them - although I could, I suppose) it does give me an excuse to publish photos of the protagonists that I took on one of the last occasions that they shared a stage (Cropredy, 2003).
For those of you who are interested: I can't remember the technical details, except it was on Ilford HP5 Plus, pushed rather further than was really wise. They look better at this size ...
It's probably not my most-listened-to song, but it's not far off, and while this is a story that's only going to become interesting when their Lordships hand down a judgment (well, the arguments could be interesting, but I'm not proposing to go to hear them - although I could, I suppose) it does give me an excuse to publish photos of the protagonists that I took on one of the last occasions that they shared a stage (Cropredy, 2003).
For those of you who are interested: I can't remember the technical details, except it was on Ilford HP5 Plus, pushed rather further than was really wise. They look better at this size ...
Monday, 7 April 2008
An even whiter shade of pale
When Blackburne J not only held that Matthew Fisher was joint composer of A Whiter Shade of Pale, but that notwithstanding the organist's 38-year delay in bringing a claim he was entitled to 40 per cent of the royalties in the future, many people found it hard to understand. Was his claim not statute-barred? (No, it wasn't.) Was his contribution really something that copyright should protect? (Yes, it was, and can you imagine the song without the organ part?)
The Court of Appeal, which has taken several months to hand down its judgment, has now reversed the judgment of the lower court - though crucially it did not interfere with the key joint authorship point, which follows a long series of earlier cases. However, on the basis (inter alia) that the implied licence generally accepted to have been granted by Mr Fisher back in 1967 had become irrevocable, he would not be entitled to royalties.
That seems to me a satisfactory result. The law about authorship and ownership stands, as it should: musicians who make an important contribution to another's composition will receive recognition, but there is no reason to fear an opening of the floodgates - claims will be limited to contributions that really make a difference to the finished product. But they will have to be brought promptly, and other musicians involved will be saved the uncertainty inflicted on Gary Brooker and other interested parties by Mr Fisher's extraordinary action.
The Court of Appeal, which has taken several months to hand down its judgment, has now reversed the judgment of the lower court - though crucially it did not interfere with the key joint authorship point, which follows a long series of earlier cases. However, on the basis (inter alia) that the implied licence generally accepted to have been granted by Mr Fisher back in 1967 had become irrevocable, he would not be entitled to royalties.
That seems to me a satisfactory result. The law about authorship and ownership stands, as it should: musicians who make an important contribution to another's composition will receive recognition, but there is no reason to fear an opening of the floodgates - claims will be limited to contributions that really make a difference to the finished product. But they will have to be brought promptly, and other musicians involved will be saved the uncertainty inflicted on Gary Brooker and other interested parties by Mr Fisher's extraordinary action.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
