Taylor v Rive Droite Music Ltd

Taylor v Rive Droite Music Ltd

The 1998 publishing agreement was for a term of two years, not three, as clause 4(a)(i) expressly defined the term and prevailed over the machinery provision in clause 11(c). The definition of 'Compositions' in the publishing agreement referred to completed works, not unfinished works, so copyright in unfinished songs did not vest in RDM. There was no basis for an injunction as there was no ongoing threat of infringement. Mr Taylor was not liable for more than nominal damages for interference with goods, as the pleaded case did not support a finding of dishonesty or common design. There was no breach of an implied term regarding the Cher project as Mr Taylor did not take positive steps to...

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Mark Taylor; Defendant/appellant: Rive Droite Music Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed in part; cross-appeal allowed in part.
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Contracts, Copyright Infringement, Implied Terms, Unlawful Interference With Goods, Injunctions
Contract Law Intellectual Property Law Tort Law Interpretation of Contracts Copyright Infringement Implied Terms Unlawful Interference With Goods Injunctions

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Taylor

Claimant/respondent

Rive Droite Music Limited

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1998 publishing agreement was for a term of two or three years
  2. 2 Whether Mr Taylor infringed RDM’s copyright in certain songs
  3. 3 Whether RDM was entitled to an injunction to restrain further breaches of copyright

Ratio Decidendi

The 1998 publishing agreement was for a term of two years, not three, as clause 4(a)(i) expressly defined the term and prevailed over the machinery provision in clause 11(c). The definition of 'Compositions' in the publishing agreement referred to completed works, not unfinished works, so copyright in unfinished songs did not vest in RDM. There was no basis for an injunction as there was no ongoing threat of infringement. Mr Taylor was not liable for more than nominal damages for interference with goods, as the pleaded case did not support a finding of dishonesty or common design. There was no breach of an implied term regarding the Cher project as Mr Taylor did not take positive steps to...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed in part; cross-appeal allowed in part.

Orders

  • RDM’s appeal on the duration of the 1998 publishing agreement dismissed; agreement term is two years.
  • Mr Taylor’s cross-appeal on copyright infringement allowed; no infringement found.