Gabrin v Universal Music Operations Ltd & Anor

Gabrin v Universal Music Operations Ltd & Anor

The arrangements between the claimant and Stiff Records did not amount to a commission under s.4(3) of the Copyright Act 1956, or, if they did, there was a contrary agreement that the claimant would retain copyright in photographs not purchased for record sleeves. The claimant remained the copyright owner of the photograph. The screen-print copyright was not validly assigned to the claimant as there was insufficient evidence of a grant of letters of administration to the assignor. The defendants' use of the photograph in the CD booklet and promotional material constituted infringement. The defence of estoppel/acquiescence failed as there was no unconscionable conduct or detrimental reliance.

Parties
Claimant: Christopher Gabrin; First Defendant: Universal Music Operations Limited; Second Defendant: Jill Jewiss
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 June 2003
Procedural Posture
Copyright Infringement Action / Judgment on Liability
Outcome
Claim for infringement of copyright in the photograph succeeds; claim for infringement of copyright in the screen-print fails.
Legal Topics
Copyright Ownership, Commissioned Works, Assignment of Copyright, Estoppel, Acquiescence
Intellectual Property Copyright Law Copyright Ownership Commissioned Works Assignment of Copyright Estoppel Acquiescence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher Gabrin

Claimant

Universal Music Operations Limited

First Defendant

Jill Jewiss

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Copyright Infringement Action / Judgment on Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant retained copyright in the photograph taken in 1977 for Stiff Records
  2. 2 Whether the screen-print copyright was validly assigned to the claimant
  3. 3 Whether the defendants' use of the photograph and screen-print infringed copyright

Ratio Decidendi

The arrangements between the claimant and Stiff Records did not amount to a commission under s.4(3) of the Copyright Act 1956, or, if they did, there was a contrary agreement that the claimant would retain copyright in photographs not purchased for record sleeves. The claimant remained the copyright owner of the photograph. The screen-print copyright was not validly assigned to the claimant as there was insufficient evidence of a grant of letters of administration to the assignor. The defendants' use of the photograph in the CD booklet and promotional material constituted infringement. The defence of estoppel/acquiescence failed as there was no unconscionable conduct or detrimental reliance.

Court Disposition

Claim for infringement of copyright in the photograph succeeds; claim for infringement of copyright in the screen-print fails.

Orders

  • Damages to be assessed for infringement of copyright in the photograph.
  • Injunction and further relief to be determined after further submissions.