Coffey-Coloured Copyright Claim Fails Earlier A Ray Of Light

stumbled across Coffey v Warner/Chappell Music Ltd as well as others [2005] EWHC 449 (Ch), a Chancery Division determination that has been trawled upwards past times LexisNexis' subscription-only All England Direct service. Coffey, a vocalizer as well as songwriter, alleged that, inward publishing as well as recording Madonna's 'Nothing Really Matters' (NRM), the 3 defendants (the Warner/Chappell tape fellowship as well as 2 publishers) had infringed her copyright inward a vocal she wrote betwixt Nov 1995 as well as March 1996. NRM, which was credited every bit existence co-written past times Madonna as well as Patrick Leonard, appeared on Madonna’s 'Ray of Light' album which Warner/Chappell released inward 1998. Coffey did non claim copyright inward the entirety of her song, but cited specific elements of it such every bit vocalisation facial expression as well as pitch contour.

The defendants applied (i) to smasher out the claim on the the world that the particulars of claim, every bit re-amended, disclosed no reasonable grounds for bringing it, or (ii) for summary judgment on the ground that Coffey had no reasonable prospect of succeeding on her claim. They argued that the copyright existed inward a operate inward its entirety, rather than inward parts of or extracts from the work, as well as that the operate relied on past times Coffey could non direct maintain constituted a musical operate inward which copyright could exist, inward that it comprised no to a greater extent than than features of, or extractions from, the work.

Madonna: no infringement through "voice expression" as well as "pitch contour"

Mr Justice Blackburne allowed the defendants' application. He held every bit follows:

* What constituted the copyright operate inward whatever given illustration was a thing for objective determination past times the court. If the discipline thing of a copyright infringement claim were defined also narrowly, it mightiness to deprive a accused of a proficient defense forcefulness that what he took had non involved the taking of a substantial role of the truthful copyright work. This approach mightiness also practise layers of unlike artistic copyrights.

* In this case, what was relied upon every bit the copyright operate was not, inward law, capable of existence properly as well as then regarded. It was clear that cherry-picking those features of the work, such every bit vocalisation facial expression as well as pitch contour, inward lodge to lay every bit the fabric copyright operate matters where arguably NRM was the same was exactly what Coffey appeared to direct maintain done. Accordingly, the claim would endure struck out.

thinks this is the correct assort to take. Even where the volume of a claimant's operate is unoriginal (for illustration where it is an quondam musical operate that has been re-edited, every bit inward Sawkins v Hyperion), the comparing betwixt plant for the job of establishing substantiality is based on the entire operate every bit edited past times the author, non simply on his ain added bits. This determination seems to endure based on the same approach.

Nothing actually matters here as well as here