Phonographic Performance Ltd v South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 23 November 2000 |
| Date | 23 November 2000 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
CHANCERY DIVISION
Before Mr Justice Neuberger
Copyright - infringement exemption for charities - local authority not entitled to
A metropolitan district council was not a club, society or other organisation the main objects of which were charitable or otherwise concerned with the advancement of religion, education or social welfare. Accordingly it could not avail itself of the copyright infringement exemption in section 67 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
Mr Justice Neuberger so held in the Chancery Division when determining a preliminary issue in an action brought by the claimants, Phonographic Performance Ltd, against the defendant, South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council, for breach of their copyright.
Section 67 of the 1988 Act provides: "(1) It is not an infringement of the copyright in a sound recording to play it as part of the activities of, or for the benefit of, a club, society or other organisation if the following conditions are met.
"(2) The conditions are - (a) that the organisation is not established or conducted for profit and its main objects are charitable or are otherwise concerned with the advancement of religion, education or social welfare…"
Miss Presiley Baxendale, QC and Mr Stephen Bate for the claimants; Mr Roger Wyand, QC and Mr Ashley Roughton for the council.
MR JUSTICE NEUBERGER said that the defendant local authority ran aerobics and keep fit classes at which sound recordings were played which were said to be the copyright of the claimants.
The issue he had to decide was whether the local authority could take advantage of section 67 of the 1988 Act.
His Lordship said that in his firm view the answer to that question was in the negative.
The word "organisation" was capable of extending to a local authority; however, in the context of section 67 it did not do so. Subsections (1) and (2) if read together suggested two limiting factors on the type of organisation contemplated by section 67.
Perhaps the more important was the express limitation in the second half of section 67(2)(a). The normal user of language would not think of any of the functions of a local authority as charitable.
No doubt, one of the main objects of a local authority was the advancement of education but social welfare in the context of section 67(2)(a) was an inappropriate expression to apply to the functions...
To continue reading
Request your trial