Hadley v Kemp
Members of a band who contributed to the performance and arrangement of songs written by another member were not joint authors, because they did not contribute to the composition of the songs.
Facts
Members of the band Spandau Ballet claimed that they were joint authors of the songs written by the band's guitarist, Gary Kemp, so that they were entitled to a share of the royalties. They argued that their contributions to the arrangement and performance of the songs, such as the saxophone solo in one song, were contributions to the musical works.
Legal principle
Park J held that the other members of the band were not joint authors. He said that a joint author must make a significant and original contribution to the creation of the work, and that the contribution must be of the right kind, namely to the composition of the music, not merely to its performance or interpretation. The other members had contributed to the performance of the songs, but the songs had already been composed by Gary Kemp, and their contributions were not significant contributions to the musical works.
Related cases on copyright: subsistence, originality and authorship
- Cofemel Sociedade de Vestuário SA v G-Star Raw CV Case C-683/17, EU:C:2019:721
- Creation Records Ltd v News Group Newspapers Ltd [1997] EMLR 444
- Exxon Corp v Exxon Insurance Consultants International Ltd [1982] Ch 119
- Fisher v Brooker [2009] UKHL 41, [2009] 1 WLR 1764
- Football Dataco Ltd v Yahoo! UK Ltd Case C-604/10, EU:C:2012:115
- George Hensher Ltd v Restawile Upholstery (Lancs) Ltd [1976] AC 64
- Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening Case C-5/08, [2009] ECR I-6569
- Interlego AG v Tyco Industries Inc [1989] AC 217
Studying intellectual property law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
