RADIO MUSIC IN PUBLIC

Evening Post, Volume CXV, Issue 109, 11 May 1933, Page 19

RADIO MUSIC IN PUBLIC

IMPORTANT LEGAL DECISION

INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT

X ruiiiig pgainst loud-speaker reproductions of 8.8.C. broadcasts to guests in Hotels and public houses was' given by Mr. ,'ustic'c Maugham in a test case in the Chancery Division.on April 5. It was intimated that the cose would probably be taken to'the. Court of Appeal. The action was brought by the Performing Bight Society, Ltd., of George Street, Hanover Square, for an injunction restraining Hammond's. Bradford Brewery Company, Ltd., of Bradford, from permitting the George Hotel, Brighouse, to be used for the public performance of any musical work of which the society held tho rights of performance. Mr. Justice Maugham ruled that the reproduction was a performance, and that the use of the turttng-in apparatus and the loud-speaker for the benefit of the guests at the hotel was an act not justified or authorised by tho licence aivon to the corporation. Accordingly the performance was an infringement of the .copyright, and he granted a doclaration to that effect with costs. In delivering judgment, Mr.' Justice, Maugham said that the reproduction, in his opinion, was, as . much , a performance as the reproduction" of a musi-: cal piece by a, gramppnone apparatus. If, as hud to be admitted, that was a performance within. thY mowing of the Copyright Act,' 1911, he could see no reason why the. broadcasting apparatus was not given f6vth a musical; piece just as much as if a gramophone was employed to do it—and witn the tamo result, from the point of view of the original author. He pointed,out.that a performance was not an infringement of copyright in. itself. To be an infringement it had to be in public, and be, hole that the use of loud speakers for the benefit of public gatherings was an infringement. "In my opinion, " said the Judge, "the use of the tuning apparatus and the loud-speaker for the purpose of reproducing musical works for the benefit of h6tel guests is an act which was not justified or authorised by the licence Riven (by the copyright owners) to the 8.8.C." He would make a declaration to that effect and entered judgment for the ■ Performing Eight Society, Ltd., with costs. TWEWDLY TEST AOWOW. Mr. G. H. Hatchman, secretary of the Performing.Eight Society, Ltd., said to a "Daily Mail" representative:— <!This has been a friendly test action to decide a very importaut principle, The greater proportion-of composers, in this country are- members of our organisation and, by; agreement witn similar organisation* in other «ountries, we are empowered **«k: :wue liconces for the performance of;,n»ost of the music published the world «yer. Hitherto, a good proportion of the Uotel, restaurant, and public-houao own. ers—the larger ones, at any rate—who use wireless sets to entertain tuoir patrons have applied to us and have beon granted licences, the payment tor wWch covers them in respect of copy-, right music. "The charge for these licences varies according to the sixe of the place in which the wireless in being used; for example, the annual fee for a small publicbouse would be about £3 3s. "We are not contemplating any fur', ther action at the moment, but we have established the principle that we are empowered to Insist on payment tor licences in every case brought to our notice," . . Another organisation which is inter* ested in the decision is the Incorporated Society of Authors, Playwrights, and Composers. The secretary, Mr. Kilham Roberts, said:—"ln thei cart of dramatic works which are broaaf cast, as well as muric and other forms of entertainment covered by copyright* we are now, arid I understand it, em; powered to insist on royalty payments for the authors wherever we hear of a; case of. these broadcasts being repro< duced in public."