Phonographic Performance Ltd (PPL) exists to enforce and protect the exclusive right to play in public, and to authorise the playing in public of, copyrighted sound recordings that have been issued to the public.

Mr Reader was part of a partnership that owned a club in Brighton. In 1999, PPL had successfully obtained an order restraining Mr Reader from playing in public (without PPL’s licence) copyrighted recordings. Mr Reader subsequently obtained a licence from PPL to play copyrighted recordings at his club. This licence was not renewed and the premises were unlicensed for two years. In July 2004, Mr Reader was found guilty of contempt of court, as his club had played three copyrighted recordings. Mr Reader admitted the recordings he had played were copyrighted. PPL applied for an order for additional damages for the admitted copyright infringement.

Could PPL recover the following damages:

  • The cost of employing enquiry agents and of pursuing Mr Reader to take a licence;
  • Damages reflecting the benefit to Mr Reader of running the club without a licence.

Reference

PPL were entitled to (1) the costs of the enquiry agents and (2) a sum equal to unpaid licence fees down to the date of the application to commit as Mr Reader had deliberately and flagrantly infringed PPL’s copyright. The infringements complained of were in breach of a court order, which rendered either an enquiry as to additional damages or, in a proper case, a summary award of additional damages to the copyright owner suitable. In this case, if it was appropriate to base an award of additional damages on the contribution of the copyright infringements to the profitability of Mr Reader’s club, there would be little alternative to an enquiry to establish that contribution. However, the court could take a more broad-brush approach, which it adopted in this case.

*Full case details
Phonographic Performance Ltd vs Stephen Russell Reader, 22 March 2005, High Court – Chancery Division.

Contact Fenwick Elliott on 020 7421 1986 or NGould@fenwickelliott.co.uk

Postscript

This case is interesting because it shows that judges will allow additional damages for an infringement of copyright. In assessing whether additional damages are appropriate, judges will have regard to the flagrancy of the infringement and any benefit accruing to the person breaching the copyright.