Law and the Media in Britain - Essay Example

Introductory Remarks: Legal system in Britain is a product of smooth and unique evolutionary process in which courts’ dictums and legal precedents have played a major role. The body of law established through this process has wisdom of centuries and generations. The most beautiful aspect of this process is the role of interpretations which rests with the judiciary and hence, the gaps, if any, in the legislation may be filled accordingly. In other words intent of the legislature may be dressed up to meet the requirements of the society. Role of interpretations and precedents is becoming even more important in ever changing present day needs and demands of the society. Cultural lag is getting shorter and shorter and the body of law has to adopt the pace so defined. This aspect is much more prominent in case of media where this pace can even be seen with the naked eyes. Media in the world has grown into an established economy in past few decades with its revenues becoming more than many nation states. Laws in this regard are also adopted and changed regularly to meet the complexities emerging in every day life. Enactments by the legislature, rules and regulations by respective departments and legal precedents are important factors in such changes. In the recent case of Fisher (original respondent and cress appellant) vs. Broker and other (original Appellants and cross-respondent) contractual obligations arising out of copyright and royalty agreements - both in express and implied terms- have been dealt in length and this case has given new dimensions to media law. In the below discussion we will discuss the details of the case in detail while looking at its implication for the media law. Historical perspective of the case: This case is about the copyrights and ownership of an all times hit song which was recorded in year 1967 by a band Procol Harum comprising of respondents of the appeal. Methew Fisher, plaintiff of the case joined the band soon after the first recording of the song, but the recording contract was agreed after inclusion of plaintiff in the band as organist. Plaintiff had contributed to the song by introducing a composition of organ solo at the start of the song which acted as counter melody through out the song. During the proceedings of the suit judge rated the contribution of the plaintiff as 40% of the total work. Before inclusion of plaintiff into the band, respondents, Mr. Brooker and Mr. Reid had entered into a contract of copyrights with Essex for the royalty of the song. It is observed that initial recording was made before the joining of Fisher but the song so produced and recorded for business was the same in which Fisher had played its part. Royalty was never paid to Mr. Fisher, though at some stages he had raised that demand but respondents made him stop on one pretext or the other, until he claimed his share of royalty from Essex and Mr. Brook through his solicitor and on refusal of the same he filed suit before Blackburne J. in May 2005 after a lapse of about 38 years. This case was decided in favor of Mr. Fisher on major points. In appeal, decision was reversed in two out of three declarations. When the case reached the House of Lords, a number of issues arose during proceeding at different stages. Those issues touched upon the questions of majority in contract, refusal of judge to grant injunction, concepts of estoppel & laches and meanings in the instant case, implied assignment as pleaded in this case, limitation laws as applicable in different parts of United Kingdom, and recording contracts in new scenario. a) Majority – a condition of contract: A person should be of legal age to enter into a legally binding contract. Although, this point was never raised in the court of first instance and even in first appeal, Lord Baroness Hale of Richmond noted the same in this appeal. Although, it was later found that plaintiff was of 21 year of age at the time of joining the band, an argument to the extent of a minor’s capacity to make an implied and gratuitous assignment of his copyright forced the Lord Baroness to opine on the issue very rightly that Had Matthew Fisher been under the age of 21, this would have been an additional reason for rejecting the respondents’ enterprising argument. b) Injunction was declined: Another point discussed in the appeal is if the judge had rightly declined the injunction to the plaintiff/appellant? Basic principle for injunction in a civil suit is to refrain from disturbing the status quo established at the time of initiation of suit. Judge in this case also did not find any reason to believe that the defendants in original had any intention to defy any interest in which plaintiff was able to establish his case and hence he rightly declined to grant an injunction. House of Lords also rightly concluded the issue. c) Application of limitation laws: In this appeal this question is also discussed in detail and a comparison of limitations laws was made. Limitation is legal curtailment or restriction upon a claimant or his legal heirs to claim the right as to maximum period of time. English law does not provide for any limitation as to the cases of incorporeal property and in absence of any express provision to that effect, Lord Walker declined to extend provisions relating to corporeal property on copyright issue. Legal dictums also guide us not to infer the intent of legislation at the time of interpretation of law, which is evidently missing and benefit shall be extended to the person claiming under the law which this house rightfully endorsed. However, it is said that if the same case was presented in Scotland or some other country where the limitation is applicable the fate of the case might be different. d) Effects of implied assignment: Concept of implied contracts and assignments is prevalent in contact law and business world. Word implied means ‘involved, indicated, or suggested without being directly or explicitly stated’. (dictionary.reference.com) In an implied contract behavior of the parties define its existence for instance if a laborer picks your language and you do not stop him it is an implication on your part to accept his offer to carry the language for price token indicated in bus stop schedule. So is the case with implied assignment. Here one’s act indicates the assignment of one’s right to the other. Same argument was made by the respondents in this appeal that behavior of the appellant was itself an evidence of the fact that he has impliedly assign his right to the Essex. For sake of argument if we agree to this point of implied assignment by the appellant in this case then we must have to find out the compensation for the same. Whether this assignment was for a royalty or gratuitous in nature has to be defined. The facts of the case indicate that there was no compensation or consideration for assigning right impliedly or expressly for the plaintiff and no circumstances proved that it was gratuitous in nature. Therefore, House again evaluated the issue on merits and decided it in favor of appellant. e) Principles of laches and estopple: Laches and estopple are legal dictums to refrain any person from his previous conduct or behavior. Right in law may also be confirmed due to non denial of the same by the others. In law of easement if a right has been exercised by a person for a certain period of time as prescribed by law, it would establish his right over the others. And rest of the world is refrained to challenge the right after that period. Before discussing it further it would be appropriate to define both concepts. Estopple may be defined as,” A legal principle that bars a party from denying or alleging a certain fact owing to that partys previous conduct, allegation, or denial”.(Lambertini v. Lambertini) Whereas laches means, ”A defense to an equitable action that bars recovery by the plaintiff because of the plaintiffs undue delay in seeking relief”. It is based on maxim that law helps the vigilant and not the indolence. For laches an important requirement is detrimental reliance on such delay. In this case, major arguments were based on these two principles stating that the behavior of the appellant being silent over such a fair long time has debarred him from claiming any right even if the same existed in any way at the time of recording of the song. For this purpose respondents forwarded two instances; Firstly, in 1967 when the song was actually recorded and secondly, in 1969 when he failed to raise his claim to the share in musical copyright and left the band. At both occasions, he should have spoken about his right but he did not so it was claimed that he was not entitled to claim his right, even if existed. This conduct never raised a question in minds of the respondents as to any right of appellant in royalty. In appeal, however, House, observed otherwise. Lords were of the opinion that the contribution made by the plaintiff was so great that without that the song might not be a great success and the track introduced by the plaintiff has actually amounted to 40% of the total impact of the song, so the right of the plaintiff could not be neglected in any way. House noticed that if at the time of release any contract could be concluded between the parties, plaintiff would get a reasonable share out of it. Therefore, estopple was not established. On the other hand, laches also could not found ground as there was no reliance on part of respondents on that delay. Without establishing a case of reliance on that delay principle of laches could not be invoked. Although, both the judge and House concluded that there was no room for estopple and laches in the instant case but if we go through the record of the case , it is evident that on some instances appellant had agitated about his share but one way or the other respondents made him silence or satisfied. In this case, cause emerged early and since last denial by the respondents, there was a considerable time lapse. Here it can not be said that there was no intention on part of the appellant and no reliance on part of the respondents. Therefore, House considered the opinion of the court of appeal in this particular instance and rejected the appeal. f) Recording Contract: Another issue which found place in the judgment of House was the effects of recording contract. As per the clauses of contract Essex was given right to exploit the work so recorded. But the respondents pleaded that it was aimed to give exclusive rights to Essex over the creative work of the members which was wrong and the House rightly negated this assertion and made it clear that exploitation of work for copyright can not be termed as a right over the creativity of somebody. Conclusion: Although there might be difference of opinion with the judgment, the importance of this judgment can not be overruled because of the fact that it has interpreted a number of concepts prevailing in today’s world of media especially with reference to copyright and royalty issues. Creativity is protected by copyright law but the same should not be used to deprive an eligible person from his right. This judgment has shaken some established principles like limitation and estopple by negating the orthodox versions. Moreover, it also reflected the flexible fabrics of the society in England which projects its pro people thinking and a progressive thought process. It was mentioned in introductory paragraph that English law is an evolutionary law and this case further elaborates the same point to a further degree. Jurist of the day will find a new way to record their thoughts and lawmakers will proceed toward laws which would safeguard the rights of all the parties involved in media contracts against exploitation. Work Cited Fisher (Original Respondent and Cross-appellant) v Brooker and others (Original Appellants and Cross-respondents), available at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldjudgmt/jd090730/fisher- 1.htm Implied definition retrieved on December 8, 2009 from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/implied Lambertini v. Lambertini, 655 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 3d Dist. Ct. App. 1995) Laches, definition retrieved on December 8, 2009 from: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/laches Read More