the Plaintiffs work without seeking her consent. That ignorance is immaterial and does not amount to a defence to the Plaintiff‘s case. Counsel further relied on a textbook by Copinger and Skone James on COPYRIGHT between pages 176 and 177 paragraphs 410 to 412. The gist of which is that ignorance that the work that is used directly or indirectly by the Defendant is that of the Plaintiff is not an excuse. Secondly the cause of action for infringement of copyright does not require proof of the damage since Copyright is a right of property and the Plaintiff is entitled to come to court for the protection of the property. Thirdly subconscious copying has been discussed as a possible infringement of Copyright. The Defendant claims that its officers did not know that it was wrong to use the Plaintiffs work is not a defence. Secondly they cannot prove that they used the work subconsciously because DW1 admitted that they knew the copyright in the song belongs to the Plaintiff who is the holder thereof. On the question of whether a substantial portion of the Plaintiff‘s song was used under section 46 any dealing with the copyright holders work without a licence, transfer, assignment or other authorisation amounts to copyright infringement so long as they use is contrary to the permitted free use of the work. Even the tiniest use of the Plaintiffs work without authorisation amounts to copyright infringement unless it falls within the exception of "fair use". The Plaintiff's Counsel contends that even in jurisdictions such as the UK which only punishes use of the production or "any substantial portion thereof" under the U.K.'s Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, the meaning of "any substantial part" was considered by Hugh Laddie, Peter Prescott and Mary Victoria (supra) at page 87. They write that what is "substantial" is a question of fact and degree and a matter for the jury. Sheer arithmetical quantity per se is not the test because a short extract may be a vital part of the work and the question is whether the Defendant has copied a substantial part and it depends more on the quality than the quantity of what he has taken. The underlying principle is that the Defendant is not at liberty to use or avail himself of the labour which the Plaintiff has been put to the purpose of producing his work and merely to take the benefit of another man's labour. Consequently the use of a small but vital part of the work amounts to infringement. In the case of Hawks and Sons Ltd versus Paramount Field Services Ltd [1934] CH 593 the use of only a little over 30 seconds out of a 4 min recording was found to amount to infringement. For instance the use of a single page out of a book may amount to infringement. However in this case, Counsel submitted that PW1 explained that this song is used very audibly without any other material for several seconds at the beginning of the advertisement and at the end. Most importantly it is used as the background music throughout the whole length of the advertisement. DW1 admitted that the song comes out for a total of 10 seconds out of the 1 min and 10 seconds of the advertisement. The recording of the advertisement was tendered in court as an exhibit. The audio brings out the chorus of the Plaintiff's song throughout the advertisement. The song is a 1 min and 30 seconds recording; the use thereof for 1 min and 10 seconds is substantial. The