Cases

Ludlow Music Ltd v Williams & Others (No.2)

Held

An injunction against future exploitations of the work was granted. There was no reason why a new track should not be substituted and no relevant delay. Such an injunction would not be oppressive. The principles in General Tire v Firestone [1975] 1 WLR 819 were relevant here. A royalty or profit share was the proper basis for damages, measured on the basis of a transaction between willing parties. A 25% interest in the song was the right amount. The decision of the House of Lords in Redrow Homes v Betts Brothers [1998] 2 WLR 198 did not exclude the possibility that an award of damages under s.97(2) Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 might include a restitutionary element. EMI did knowingly infringe the Claimant's copyright in allowing the CD containing the infringing song to be pressed but it was not a cynical decision, rather one made in the expectation that an agreement would be reached. There was no basis for an award of additional damages in this case.

Also