Experience Hendrix LLC v Purple Haze Records Ltd & Anor

Experience Hendrix LLC v Purple Haze Records Ltd & Anor

The Stockholm Performances are qualifying performances under the relevant statutes and regulations. Performer’s rights are vested in the claimant via valid assignment from Jimi Hendrix’s estate. The Yameta Agreement did not assign or authorise exploitation of performer’s rights to the defendants. The defendants infringed the claimant’s performer’s rights by making and selling recordings without consent. The second defendant is personally liable as a joint tortfeasor due to his direct involvement and control over the infringing acts.

Parties
Claimant: Experience Hendrix LLC; First Defendant: Purple Haze Records Ltd; Second Defendant: Lawrence Miller
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 February 2005
Procedural Posture
Intellectual Property Infringement / Summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Summary judgment granted for the claimant against both defendants.
Legal Topics
Performer's Rights, Copyright, Summary Judgment, Joint Tortfeasor Liability
Intellectual Property Entertainment Law Performer's Rights Copyright Summary Judgment Joint Tortfeasor Liability

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Experience Hendrix LLC

Claimant

Purple Haze Records Ltd

First Defendant

Lawrence Miller

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Intellectual Property Infringement / Summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Stockholm Performances were qualifying performances under the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 and 1996 Regulations
  2. 2 Whether Jimi Hendrix's estate validly holds performer’s rights
  3. 3 Whether the Yameta Agreement assigned or authorised exploitation of performer’s rights

Ratio Decidendi

The Stockholm Performances are qualifying performances under the relevant statutes and regulations. Performer’s rights are vested in the claimant via valid assignment from Jimi Hendrix’s estate. The Yameta Agreement did not assign or authorise exploitation of performer’s rights to the defendants. The defendants infringed the claimant’s performer’s rights by making and selling recordings without consent. The second defendant is personally liable as a joint tortfeasor due to his direct involvement and control over the infringing acts.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted for the claimant against both defendants.

Orders

  • Defendants found liable for infringement of performer’s rights.
  • Claimant entitled to remedies for infringement.