neighbouring rights assumes that the Plaintiff is not the author of the works which is the subject
of the copyright ownership independently of the Plaintiff's right. In other words neighbouring
rights are auxiliary to the original works. Even if that decision is to be re-visited, the Plaintiff
obviously did not agree to any performance or performing right as may enjoy the protection of a
performer.
According to Halsbury's laws of England fourth edition reissue volume 9 (2) and paragraph 11
thereof on the right in performances:
"There is no copyright in the performance of a work as distinct from the work itself, but
performers are protected by both civil and criminal law against the unauthorised
recording, filming, broadcasting and inclusion in a cable programme service of their
performances and have both property and non property rights in their performances."
Even in the UK law quoted above, there has to be a work as distinct from the performance itself.
In this case the Plaintiff in the sense of the answers to questions was actually the originator of the
answers. However when it came to the recording, the Plaintiff was not the author thereof.
Secondly the Plaintiff willingly gave his answers for the consumption of the public.
I have additionally considered the provisions of section 11 of the Copyright and Neighbouring
Rights Act which provides for co-authorship rights. It provides that:
"Where work is created by more than one person and no particular part of the work is
identified to have been made by each person, such that the work is indistinguishable, all
the authors shall be co-owners of the economic rights and moral rights relating to that
work and the co-owners shall have equal rights in that work."
To be a joint owner however has to be consensual. According to Halsbury's laws of England
(supra) paragraph 114 a work of joint ownership means "a work produced by the collaboration of
two or more authors in which the contribution of one author is not distinct from that of the other
author or authors". Furthermore there must be a common design and cooperation in the work of
carrying out the design for there to be joint authorship. Furthermore:
"A claimant to joint authorship in work must establish that he has made a significant and
original contribution to the creation of the work and that he has done so pursuant to a
common design."
The analogy in the above provision is useful in the consideration of the Plaintiff's predicament.
The Plaintiff in his own testimony indicated that he complained about the use of his voice. The
Plaintiff had also filed a criminal complaint for copyright infringement.
Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama
Izama *^*~?+:
27