header-logo header-logo

04 November 2016
Issue: 7721 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Copyright

Phonographic Performance Ltd v CGK Trading Ltd and others [2016] EWHC 2642 (Ch), [2016] All ER (D) 177 (Oct)

The Chancery Division held that the third defendant (K), who was the designated premises supervisor of a nightclub in Essex, was liable to the claimants, Phonographic Performance Ltd and Performing Rights Society Ltd, for authorising and procuring infringement of their copyrights as a result of the unlicensed playing of sound recordings at the nightclub. The court held that irrespective of whether or not K had been present at the club at the relevant time or whether or not she had approved lists of songs to be played, the relevant act was engaging the performers and, on the evidence, K had been carrying out a managerial role at the club, and her responsibilities had extended to authorising and procuring the performance of music at the club.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Charles Russell Speechlys—James Paterson

Charles Russell Speechlys—James Paterson

Charles Russell Speechlys further bolsters Private Equity expertise with the appointment of James Paterson

Ellisons—Samuel Flower

Ellisons—Samuel Flower

Ellisons strengthens Rural Affairs team with senior appointment

Sidley—Carl Hotton

Sidley—Carl Hotton

Sidley adds insurance mergers and acquisitions partner to London office

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll