HHJ Hacon considered that the agreement merely allowed for the possibility of an assignment and instead primarily operated as a transfer of the recording services of Eminem to the third party. This was despite the existence of an agreement in 1998 in which FBT (then the Bass Brothers partnership T/A "FBT Productions" ( Bass Brothers)) purported to assign, to a third party, all rights in Eminem's recordings by reference to a schedule which was in fact blank. On the first issue, the IPEC found that FBT was the owner of the copyright in the sound recording of Infinite and that LTEV had therefore committed primary infringement. did Plastic Head know or have reason to believe that the vinyl copies of Infinite which it sold (as well as the CD's which it imported and sold) were infringing copies of the sound recording of Infinite?
whether LTEV and the second defendant (a related company of LTEV), Plastic Head Distribution Ltd ( Plastic Head), had committed secondary infringement contrary to s.23 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 ( CDPA), i.e.whether the claimant, FBT Productions LLC ( FBT), owned the copyright in the sound recording of Infinite and therefore had the first defendant, Let Them Eat Vinyl Distribution Ltd ( LTEV), committed primary copyright infringement by making vinyl copies of Infinite and.The IPEC had to consider the following two issues: This ruling by the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court ( IPEC) relates to a claim for primary and secondary copyright infringement of a music album, Infinite, recorded in 1996 by Eminem (Marshall Bruce Mathers III). Dispute over copyright in Eminem's Infinite album provides arena for analysis of the test for primary and secondary infringement What's it about?
0 kommentar(er)
