Julia Kogan v Nicholas Martin
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Floyd |
| Judgment Date | 09 October 2019 |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] EWCA Civ 1645 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | Case No: A3/2018/0070 |
| Date | 09 October 2019 |
[2019] EWCA Civ 1645
Lord Justice Floyd
Lord Justice Henderson
and
Lord Justice Peter Jackson
Case No: A3/2018/0070
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ENTERPRISE COURT
HIS HONOUR JUDGE HACON
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Simon Malynicz QC, Lionel Bently and Ashton Chantrielle (instructed by Keystone Law) for the Appellant
Tom Weisselberg QC (instructed by Lee & Thompson LLP) for the First and Second Respondents
Jonathan Hill (instructed by Wiggin LLP) for the Third, Fourth and Fifth Respondents
Hearing date: May 2, 2019
Approved Judgment
This is the judgment of the court to which all its members have contributed.
Introduction
This appeal concerns a dispute over the authorship of the screenplay of a film about the latter part of the life of Florence Foster Jenkins (“FFJ”). FFJ was a wealthy American socialite who loved music. She considered herself to be a talented operatic singer, but she was an awful one. The first and second claimants and respondents, Nicholas Martin and his company Big Hat Productions Limited, brought these proceedings against the defendant and appellant, Julia Kogan, for a declaration that Mr Martin was the sole author of, and sole owner of the copyright in, the screenplay. Ms Kogan, in response, sought a declaration that she was a joint author with Mr Martin, and thus a joint owner of the copyright. She claimed that Mr Martin and the second respondent had infringed the copyright in the screenplay by exploiting it without her participation, and claimed a share of the royalties received by them. By Part 20 proceedings, Ms Kogan also sought relief for infringement of copyright against the third to fifth respondents who are various companies involved in the production and financing of the film. I will refer to the third to fifth respondents as “the film companies”.
After a two-day trial in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (“IPEC”), during which each of the rival protagonists was cross-examined for half of the first day, HHJ Hacon (“the judge”) declared Mr Martin to be the sole author and owner of the copyright in the screenplay. The judge also held that Ms Kogan was estopped from asserting any right she might have had in the copyright against the film companies so as to interfere with the public performance of the film, because she had stood by in the knowledge that the film was being produced and released, and thus represented that she would not seek to prevent these activities.
Ms Kogan appeals, with permission granted by Henderson LJ. On the appeal, Ms Kogan was represented by Simon Malynicz QC, Lionel Bently and Ashton Chantrielle. Mr Martin and his company were represented by Tom Weisselberg QC, and the film companies were represented by Jonathan Hill. We are grateful to all counsel for the skilful and economical presentation of their cases in the written materials and in their oral submissions.
The facts in outline
Mr Martin was and is a professional writer of film and television scripts. The judge's findings do not provide a picture of his career up to the point at which he wrote the screenplay for the film, but his first witness statement provided an outline of it. He began his professional career in 1991 but, in his words, by 2000 he had not had a big television hit and none of the feature film scripts he had written had been produced. Between 2000 and 2006 no show which he had written was produced, a period of his career which he described as “testing”. In that period he had written, amongst other things, a series of scripts entitled The Music Room, which concerned a corrupt policeman who fell in love with a music teacher, and also worked on a script for a feature film, The Angel of Ferrara, a historical thriller set during the Italian renaissance. In 2007 he wrote episodes of the television police drama The Bill and from 2008 to 2011 episodes of the television detective series Midsomer Murders. By 2012 he had written 55 television scripts of which 32 had been produced. He had also written 12 short films, three plays and nine feature films. As to his enjoyment of music, he described himself as a Classic FM rather than a Radio 3 man, knowing what he liked. The film Florence Foster Jenkins was his first feature film script to be produced. It was a success.
The judge described Ms Kogan as “principally a professional opera singer”, but again did not refer in any detail to other aspects of her career which were covered in her evidence. She had attended Ohio State University where she was an English Literature and Vocal Performance major. She had authored three children's books while in her twenties. From 2006 she began creating her own theatre/music projects, the first of which was Troika (2006–2011), an album on which 8 composers set poetry of her choosing to music. The Lad (2008–2013) was an opera ballet which she claimed to have conceptualised. She says that she adapted and translated the libretto, as well as structured scenes. In 2010 she began researching lost and forgotten personal songs written by exiled composers in Hollywood for a recording project.
Mr Martin and Ms Kogan met in late September or early October 2011, and began a romantic relationship. According to Mr Martin, he was intrigued by Ms Kogan's life as an opera singer and Ms Kogan was fascinated by his work as a writer. It appears that they lived together from February 2012 to March 2014 when Ms Kogan moved out of Mr Martin's flat. On Ms Kogan's account, the relationship continued until October 2014, although the couple remained on reasonably good terms until March 2015.
It was common ground before the judge that it was through Ms Kogan that Mr Martin was introduced to the story of FFJ, although the judge made no findings as to the circumstances in which this occurred. Ms Kogan claimed in her witness statement to have had a long-standing interest in FFJ, having first heard about her in 1991 whilst at university. She said that shortly before she met Mr Martin she had been asked by an actor/pianist about the possibility of performing in a Parisian production of “ Souvenir”, a fantasy play based on the life of FFJ. Ms Kogan's account was that she had shown Mr Martin some YouTube clips of FFJ's singing. She said that she told Mr Martin that a film script about her should be written as soon as possible, as she was amazed that no one had made a film about FFJ. Her evidence was that she “talked Nick into working on FFJ despite his misgivings”. Mr Martin denied this account and said he had come home to find Ms Kogan in the spare bedroom in his flat listening to a YouTube clip of FFJ, and that Ms Kogan had explained who FFJ was, i.e. that she was a wealthy woman who had booked Carnegie Hall and sung to a sell-out crowd. He said that over the next few days he found himself returning to FFJ's recordings and had looked at a Wikipedia article about her. It slowly began to occur to him, he said, that FFJ might make a good subject for a film. He told Ms Kogan about this and she agreed. It was his case, therefore, that Ms Kogan had no input into the initial idea of writing a screenplay for a film about FFJ. The judge did not resolve this conflict of evidence.
According to Mr Martin's Particulars of Claim, shortly after his initial encounter with FFJ, he and Ms Kogan together watched a documentary by Donald Collup about FFJ and her life. It is common ground that the Collup documentary proved an important source of factual information for the screenplay.
At all events, the project of writing a screenplay commenced (“the Florence project”). A draft outline treatment was produced, followed by a series of draft screenplays. The first draft was written between February and April 2013; the second draft was completed on 19 June 2013. In July 2013 Mr Martin travelled to Los Angeles where he met various people in the film industry with whom he reviewed the Florence project. These included Ben Lewin, a director, producer and writer of screenplays, and his wife Judi Levine. On his return to London work was done on the third draft. Mr Martin was concerned that Mr Lewin and Ms Levine would claim a share of the authorship, making it difficult for him to sell the film to finance companies, so he decided to offer them a share of his writing income. A figure of 15% was later agreed.
Ms Kogan alleged in her defence that on a train journey on 17 February 2014 Mr Martin asked her what proportion of the screenplay she thought she owned, and that Mr Martin had volunteered that it was 15%. The judge did not make any finding about this, however.
On 5 March 2014 the second claimant signed an agreement with the third Part 20 defendant for the financing of the film. The agreement contained a warranty that Mr Martin was the sole author of the script.
On 8 April 2014, following a therapy session which Ms Kogan and Mr Martin had attended in an attempt to save their personal relationship, Ms Kogan raised with Mr Martin the question of whether she should be given a share of the income.
There were many drafts of the screenplay. Ms Kogan accepted that her involvement in draft four and subsequent drafts was not significant as she had by then moved out of Mr Martin's flat.
The film “Florence Foster Jenkins” was released in 2016. The film starred Meryl Streep and Hugh Grant and was directed by Stephen Frears. All members of the court were invited to watch the film prior to the hearing, and we did so.
IPEC and the case management of the issues
Because the argument...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aston Risk Management Ltd v Mr Lee Jones
...where a witness feels strongly about an issue, or harbours a particular grievance. 136 However, the Court of Appeal in Kogan v Martin [2019] EWCA Civ 1645, at [88], stressed the importance of making findings by reference to all the evidence, that is both documentary evidence and witness ev......
-
JXJ v The Province of Great Britain of the Institute of Brothers of the Christian Schools (“the de la Salle Brothers”)
...the observations of Floyd LJ (giving a judgment of the court to which Henderson and Peter Jackson LJJ contributed) in Kogan v Martin [2019] EWCA Civ 1645, [2020] EMLR 4, [88]–[89]. Floyd LJ emphasised that, subject to questions of limitation, a proper awareness of the fallibility of memory......
-
James Richard Scott Brearley v Higgs & Sons (A Firm)
...at [15]–[22] about the unreliability of memory, but I would also note the Court of Appeal's more recent reminder in Kogan v Martin [2019] EWCA Civ 1645 at [88] of the importance of making findings by reference to all the evidence. In my assessment of the evidence I have obviously paid part......
-
Briggs v Drylined Homes Ltd
...[instead] it is one of a line of distinguished judicial observations that emphasise the fallibility of human memory” ( Kogan v Martin [2019] EWCA Civ 1645 at [88–89], per Floyd 4 It must be remembered that Onassis, like Gestmin, was a dispute about recollection of business conversations, w......
-
Court Of Appeal Revisits Joint Authorship Need To Ask More Than Who Did The Writing
...v Martin and others [2019] EWCA Civ 1645 In a case concerning the authorship of the screenplay for a 2016 film, the Court of Appeal has allowed an appeal against the decision of the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) which decided that the first respondent was the sole author of ......
-
Court Of Appeal Clarifies When A Work Is A Product Of Joint Authorship
...v. Martin et al., [2019] EWCA Civ 1645, Case No: In a recent decision addressing works of joint authorship, the U.K. Court of Appeal sets out factors to consider when undertaking the often complex analysis of whether a work is indeed a product of joint ownership. It is important to bear in ......
-
Intellectual Property Update Is There Protection In An Idea?
...than the idea behind it. However, in October 2019 the Court of Appeal decided the case Julia Kogan v Nicholas Martin & others [2019] EWCA Civ 1645 and the Judges accepted that it is in theory possible for there to be some copyright protection in an idea This case related to the developm......
-
NFTS: AN OVERVIEW OF LAW AND REGULATION IN 2022 AND BEYOND.
...of a dramatic work, the subject of the case being a screenplay for a film) came before the UK courts in 2019-20: Kogan v. Martin [2019] EWCA Civ 1645; Martin & Anor v. Kogan [2021] EWHC 24 (19) The first AI artwork ever sold at auction, 'Portrait of Edmond de Belamy' by French collectiv......
-
IS THE CURRENT UK COPYRIGHT FRAMEWORK SUFFICIENT FOR PROTECTING EMERGING TECHNOLOGY IN AI-GENERATED ART?
...CDPA, s. 10(1). (88) Julia Kogan v. Nicholas Martin, Big Hat Stories Ltd, Florence Film Ltd, Pathe Productions Ltd, Qwerty Films Ltd, [2019] EWCA Civ. 1645; [2020] E.C.D.R. 3; [2019] 10 WLUK 163 (CA (Civ. (89) Cola Homes v. Alfred McAlpine Homes [1995] F.S.R. 818, 835. (90) Kogan v. Martin,......
-
COPYRIGHT AND FICTIONAL CHARACTERS: Shazam Productions Limited v. Only Fools the Dining Experience Limited'.
...work is a work of action, with or without words or music, which is capable of being performed before an audience." In Martin v. Kogan [2019] EWCA Civ 1645 the Court of Appeal overturned the first instance finding that a screenplay for a film was a literary work, holding instead that it is a......
-
Artists and the Art Market--A Shifting Dynamic?
...and Patents Act 1988, ss. 3-8. (21) Ibid., s. 4(2). (22) Ibid., s. 12(2). (23) Ibid, s. 16. (24) Ibid, s. 16(2). (25) Kogan v. Martin [2019] EWCA Civ 1645. (26) Trade Marks Act 1994, s. 1(1). (27) UK Trade Mark No. UK00902024644. (28) UK Trade Mark No. UK00903434198. (29) Christie's, '7 Imp......