Nicholas Martin v Julia Kogan

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeMr Justice Meade
Judgment Date19 May 2021
Neutral Citation[2021] EWHC 1242 (IPEC)
Date19 May 2021
Docket NumberCase No: IP 2016 000050
CourtIntellectual Property Enterprise Court

[2021] EWHC 1242 (IPEC)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ENTERPRISE COURT (Ch D)

Rolls Building

Fetter Lane

London, EC4A 1NL

Before:

Mr Justice Meade

Case No: IP 2016 000050

Between:
(1) Nicholas Martin
(2) Big Hat Stories Limited
Claimants
and
Julia Kogan
Defendant/Part 20 Claimant

and

(1) Florence Film Limited
(2) Pathé Productions Limited
(3) Qwerty Films Limited
Part 20 Defendants

Tom Richards (instructed by Lee & Thompson LLP) for the Claimants

Ashton Chantrielle and Beth Collett (instructed by Keystone Law) for the Defendant

Jonathan Hill (instructed by Wiggin LLP) for the Part 20 Defendants

Hearing dates: 12, 13 and 16 November 2020

Approved Judgment

I direct that no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.

Mr Justice Meade
1

In my main judgment in this action I found that Ms Kogan was an author, in the sense of the CDPA 1988, as to 20% of the screenplay for the film Florence Foster Jenkins (“the Film”). As against the Film Companies, the Part 20 Defendants, I found that they should arrange a credit on IMDb to reflect Ms Kogan's work. They did not resist this in the event that I found she was an author.

2

At the consequentials hearing before me on 26 April 2021, it was apparent that there was a disagreement between the Claimants and Ms Kogan about what that credit should be. The Film Companies had by then arranged a credit on IMDb which was, and currently is:

Writing Credits

Nicholas Martin … (written by)

Julia Kogan … (written by) (originally uncredited)

3

“Writing Credits” will appear on IMDb come what may; it is the section title on the web page and not created by user or IMDb input for the specific film.

4

The rest of the text is subject to user input and had been arrived at by the Film Companies applying the IMDb rules, which are to the effect that the credits will be as appeared on the screen when the film was played, but that exceptionally an “(originally uncredited)” will be given where there is later evidence – in this case my judgment – that someone else had input.

5

Ms Kogan submitted at the consequentials hearing that no further investigation of the right credit was appropriate and that what the Film Companies had done should stand, or alternatively that I should decide the point there and then. I ordered instead that the Claimants and Ms Kogan should, sequentially and in that order, put in short written submissions. They have done that (and I received a short supplemental email from Counsel on behalf of the Claimants to which I refer below), and this is my ruling. The Film Companies remain neutral and IMDb has played no part; it is expected to do what the Film Companies ask following a ruling by me, and generally.

6

The parties referred to two sets of guidelines, one from the Writers Guild of American (“the WGA”) and one from the Writers Guild of Great Britain (“the WGGB”). Each set has written definitions and each Guild offers an arbitration service to determine their application. The guidelines' respective definitions differ, including for the three relevant to my considerations, namely “Written by”, “Screenplay by”, and “Story by”.

7

In addition, as I say, IMDb has its own rules based primarily on what appeared on screen, although in some circumstances (not relevant here) it will apply the WGA rules.

8

Quite apart from the guidelines, I think it is very important that I have regard to the findings in my judgment. So far as possible the IMDb credits should accurately reflect my judgment, while having regard to the facts that:

i) The WGA, the WGGB and IMDb use their own definitions, so while as a freestanding matter “written” would be a good word to reflect the test of “authorship” in the CDPA, it does not follow that that word has the same connotation in the context of the Guilds' guidelines, or IMDb;

ii) The IMDb credits are, with only slight flexibility, multiple choice. It is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
2 firm's commentaries

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT