[1985] The Times 13 (Eng.)
Complaining Work |
Defending Work |
|
David Lawson Synthetic jingle made for Channel 4 Television
|
David Dundas Synthetic jingle made for Channel 4 Television
|
Comment by Ahsan Alvi
This case involves an owernship dispute between an electronic music artist and a television studio. Channel 4 collaborated with Plaintiff Lawson on creating a new jingle for its television channel to play in between intervals or commercials.
Opinion by Judge Falconer
The plaintiff’s claim in this action relates to the music which accompanies the appearance on the television
screen of the figure 4 logo which is used on Channel 4 Television at the start of programmes and at intervals
to identify the television broadcast as one from Channel 4. The identifying figure 4 logo used by Channel 4
occupies several seconds, commencing with the appearance of several separate blocks, which arrange
themselves into the final figure 4, and the sequence of that arrangement or animation is illustrated in the
animation diagram to be found at page 20 in the agreed bundle of documents.
The accompanying music comprises a four-note theme or jingle in an appropriate orchestral setting. Put
shortly, the plaintiff says that that Channel 4 identification music came into existence as a result of work done
jointly by the plaintiff and the defendant working together, so he says, under an oral agreement between
them to collaborate to produce such a work for Channel 4. The plaintiff claims:
“A declaration that he is entitled jointly with the defendant to the copyright and all other rights in the work as
mentioned in the statement of claim and in the Channel 4 Theme; alternatively that all such rights vest in the
partnership between the plaintiff and the defendant”.
I think that I should pause there to say that the word “work” mentioned in the statement of claim refers to the
particular production on a demonstration tape referred to in paragraph 7 of the statement of claim, which is,
as the statement of claim puts it, a precursor of the actual Channel 4 Theme music.
Secondly, the plaintiff claims:
“An account of all sums due to the plaintiff pursuant to the partnership or other agreement between the
plaintiff and the defendant made in about March 1982 for the production of a theme tune suitable for Channel
Page 1
4 television”;
and he claims further or alternative relief.
The plaintiff is a musician who acts as a consultant specialising in the production of what is known as
synthetic sound or sound effects from electronic synthesisers. He has particular expertise in this field; he is
consulted and engaged by other musicians, in particular composers; and, indeed, the defendant, Mr Dundas,
said of him very fairly in his examination in chief that Mr Lawson, the plaintiff, was the best person he knew
at handling synthesisers.
By synthesisers one can generate sound which either (a) is like ordinary musical sounds such as produced
by various instruments or (b) sounds which are unique to synthesised sound; that is to say, they bear no
relation to any well known musical instrument sound. They can also produce previously recorded sounds,
either those made by musical instruments or previously devised purely synthesised sound.
The plaintiff has his own studio, which is fitted with a number of synthesisers and other ancillary equipment;
and it seems, I think, to be common ground that it is of a high standard and as good as is available anywhere
at the present time in this country. He can record simultaneously, on some of his machines anyhow, on 24
tracks of 2 in wide tape, of which two examples are before me in the exhibits P1 and P2.
By such synthesisers sounds can be produced to provide an appropriate musical backing or accompaniment,
for instance, for jingles, such as are used in television advertisements. Such accompaniments can be made
to simulate sounds such as an orchestra would make, orchestral instruments or may be purely synthesised
sound, and synthesisers are so used by composers of such jingles and, indeed, to assist them in composing
other tunes and other music.
As well as being a musician specialising in synthesisers and synthetic sound production, the plaintiff is a
composer in his own right, as well as a collaborater with other composers. He has composed himself several
jingles used in television advertisements and some individual music for a film.
The defendant, who was formerly an actor, is a composer and has written some 40 songs; but over a
number of years he has been a very succesful composer of jingles, particularly for television advertising. I
think he first made a name as a composer of jingles in about 1976, when he composed the identification
jingle — something which appears to be referred to as an ident — for Capital Radio. For some time he worked
as a composer for a company called Mothers & Masters Ltd and, when that company went into liquidation
early in 1981, he formed his own company, David Dundas Music Ltd. Since then he has conducted his own
business as a jingles composer under the auspices of his company. A considerable number of jingles
composed by him have been used in television advertisements. He estimated there were some 250 to 300;
he was not sure of the exact number.
In about early 1981, while the defendant in fact was still working under the auspices of Mothers & Masters
Ltd he met the plaintiff at a working music session. They apparently got on together very well and thereafter
the defendant engaged the plaintiff on a number of occasions in connection with work on advertising jingles.
There seem to have been two types of engagement involved, the first type where the defendant had already
had had a theme or jingle which had been used and he had been asked, as sometimes happens apparently,
by the advertiser or the advertising agent responsible to produce a fresh arrangement or a fresh version of
the jingle, or the defendant had already composed a jingle or theme and wanted the plaintiff to provide
suitable additional sound, done by the plaintiff’s synthesisers, trying out various backgrounds or additional
material, and according to what the defendant had in mind. For such sessions as those, it was apparently the usual arrangement between the plaintiff and the defendant that the plaintiff would be paid a flat fee for his services, time and the use of his equipment; but he obtained no rights in the final product. The other type of
arrangement seems to have been that when the defendant had a brief from a client to produce a jingle to fit a
particular visual idea, visual representation or pictorial outline for some television advertisement; in such a
case the plaintiff and the defendant might work together and, if successful in producing a jingle accepted by
the agent, as well as the fee for the studio time, the plaintiff would receive 50% of the PRS royalties resulting
from the performances. The initials PRS, of course, refer to the Performing Right Society, which collects the
royalties due in respect of public performances of the works of composers registered with them.
Channel 4 Television was apparently launched in the autumn of 1982. I think that the first actual programme
was broadcast in November 1982, although it is not material for present purposes. It is common ground that
preparations by the Channel 4 company were being made early in 1982; and, again, it was apparently no
secret in the circles interested in advertising jingles, especially composers, that in March 1982 the company
responsible for Channel 4 (to whom I will in future refer to as “Channel 4”) were seeking ident music for
identifying the Channel in association with a visual logo which they had already produced or had had
designed (to which I will refer as the “Channel 4 logo”)
It is plain that the defendant, Mr Dundas, was very interested in the possibility of being involved in producing
such ident music or a theme for the Channel. He had heard from a particular friend apparently — I think this is
early in 1982 and probably in March 1982 — that a company called Lambie-Nairn Ltd were going to be
responsible for the visual logo for Channel 4, and he knew or had had some introduction to the person who
was really behind that company, a Mr Martin Lambie-Nairn. He rang him and suggested that he would like to
do the music to go with the logo.
As a result, he was told that the commission to do the music for the Channel 4 logo was to be put out to
tender to certain invited people who were composers in the jingles field. He had a meeting with Mr
Lambie-Nairn, and Mr Lambie-Nairn had a VHF video of a line test, which he kindly presented to the
defendant, who had therefore an idea as to how the logo timing was to go. That was the importance of that.
The defendant was put in touch through Mr Lambie-Nairn with the person responsible for organising this side
of the matter for Channel 4, a Miss or Mrs Pam Masters. The defendant had a letter as a result of his enquiry
of her from Channel 4, which is to be found at page 19 of the bundle, that letter being dated 25th March
1982.
I should read it because it sets the background. It is addressed to the defendant’s company, and it says:
“Further to your enquiry expressing interest in composing and recording the music which will accompany the
Channel 4 ident, as I am sure you will appreciate we have had many people seeking the commission and in
order that we can make our final decision we are asking a number of people, including you, to submit by the
end of April a demonstration tape to a written brief, which is as follows:
The ident sequence is comprised of five coloured 3D blocks flying together to construct the 4 symbol.
Enclosed is a storyboard which illustrates this animation. There is also another version of the sequence
using 9 blocks instead of 5. However, both versions of the sequence last 5 seconds and we will want to use
the same music for each.
The demo tape is to include the following:
1. 12 Second Ident
(a) Blocks flying together to con-4 secs
struct the symbol 4
(b) Hold 4 secs
(c) Blocks dispersing (reversal
of construction animation)
4 secs
2. 4 Second Single Static Theme
3. Appropriate Loop/Coda repeat”
and so on. Accompanying it was the diagram on page 20 of the bundle, the animation diagram to which I
have already referred.
The plaintiff’s and the defendant’s accounts of what transpired thereafter differ greatly, and the difference
underlines this action. Before I come to the separate versions, I should say that it is not in dispute that certain
events took place, namely, first, that the defendant telephoned the plaintiff, and that was clearly after receipt
of that letter at page 90 of the 25th March from Channel 4, which I have just read, and put a proposal to the
plaintiff, as a result of which they arranged to have a session together at the plaintiff’s studio on 2nd April
1982. It is not in dispute, again, that that session took place on 2nd April; and, as a result, what is referred to
in this industry, if that is the right word, as a demo tape was produced. The plaintiff makes plain in his
evidence — there is no dispute about this — that a demo music track — that is, a track on a tape — is a track to
indicate to a client the style or effect that one thinks the client might want. It is not intended to be a finished
product. References to “demo tapes” and “demos” in the evidence are references to such tracks or tapes.
That demo tape made on 2nd April was produced for submission to Channel 4 by the defendant. It was not
accepted by Channel 4 — I use that term deliberately, for reasons which will emerge — and as a result there
was a further telephone conversation between the defendant and the plaintiff, as a result of which a further
joint session was arranged for 15th April 1982, and that working session took place from 11 am on that day
and resulted in the production of a second demonstration tape for submission to Channel 4.
As I have said, those facts are not in dispute. I should explain what the two demonstration tapes contain. The
works recorded on the two demonstration tapes are quite different. There is a dispute as to which was that
produced on 2nd April and which was that produced on 15th April. One of the tapes — I am not numbering
them when I say that — records a simple four-note theme of four notes AGCA in that sequence, to announce,
as it were — I am using my own language — the programme with something in fanfare style, but in a synthetic
sound setting, none the less having some similarity to an orchestration, but clearly a synthesised sound
setting. The piece is in fact represented in short score at page 24 of the bundle in the top three staves. The
synthehsised sound includes a bass pedal — it is the bass note F that one can see in the lower of the three
staves — and also it is to be observed that there is a quaver figure repeated throughout, which is shown in
the middle staff of the short score. As shown, the figure consists of not a repetition of the single F on the
same note but a series of octaves, as one can see looking at the short score.
On the demo tape for this particular piece the four bars shown in the short score are in fact repeated in an
eight-bar piece. The four-note theme can be seen taking the top notes on the stave — the A G going up to C
and then coming down to A again. There is a simple slight harmony provided to that, as one sees; I will come
back to the harmony in a moment.
The other demo tape has recorded thereon, although it opens with a bass pedal — I think it is F, but that does
not matter — as does the one that I have just discussed; but otherwise it has no theme as such and was
intended to reproduce a sort of ethereal space effect or, as the plaintiff put it, “just such noises as one would
associate with outer space”, although whether an astro-physicist would recognise it as a similitude of sound
emanating from space is another matter. That demo has been referred to as the “space demo” in the
evidence, and it is convenient that I should keep referring to it as such; and I shall for convenience refer to the other as the “four-note theme demo”. As I have already indicated, there is a conflict, and the conflict is as to which demo was made on 2nd April and which was made on 15th April. To anticipate, the plaintiff says
that the space demo was made on 2nd April and the four-note demo was made on the 15th April; and the
defendant says that it was the other way round.
For how the plaintiff came to be involved with the defendant in the Channel 4 theme I must refer to his
evidence. He says that, when the defendant telephoned — it will be remembered that there is no dispute that
there was a telephone call and that it must have been about the end of March, and certainly after the letter of
the 25th March, to which I have referred, and before the 2nd April — the defendant explained that he had
been asked to submit a work for use as the Channel 4 ident music to accompany a visual logo, and he asked
the plaintiff if the plaintiff would like to collaborate in the venture. The defendant’s evidence is that he agreed.
He has no entry in his diary as regards that, but I do not think that that matters for present purposes.
As a result of the telephone call, they having agreed to have a session together on 2nd April, as I have
stated, the defendant came to the plaintiff’s studio, and the plaintiff says that the defendant may have had
some idea of the timings of the “visuals” of the logo but was uncertain. As at that date it had been decided
that in the visual logo the blocks were to appear as if coming from outer space and forming into the actual “4”
he says that they decided that they would try to enhance the “visuals” by sound effects only; he said “without
any concrete feeling as such, but just such noises as one would associate with outer space”.
The the plaintiff explains that they moved to one of his machines, the Synclavier, and they started to sieve
through its range in order to select possible sounds. He says, eventually they arrived at what they thought
was a satisfactory sound effect, by over-dubbing the various sounds putting them together and transferring
them to a cassette or 1/4 in tape, which he says was handed to the defendant for the defendant to take and
play to Channel 4 as a demo of what they might offer. The plaintiff did say that the defendant took away that
cassette or 1/4 in reel and that he himself had never seen it since.
The letter from Channel 4 of 25th March was shown to the plaintiff in his examination in chief. He said that he
did not see the letter at the time, but he thinks he had seen the illustration, by which I took him to mean the
animation diagram, and he rather thought that he had seen that before 2nd April, but I was not told how that
came about.
Although the plaintiff was uncertain in his recollection whether the defendant had with him on 2nd April the
timings for the logo, he was quite certain that the defendant did not bring with him any tape or cassette at
that time.
I should say that in his evidence in chief he gave no evidence as to what, if anything, was agreed between
them except that he said that there was to be no fee, but that, if they were successful, there was to be a
royalty and he was to share the royalty, so that, if it materialised, whatever the agreement was, it would be a
different class of agreement to either of the two which had characterised their association hitherto.
There was put to the plaintiff towards the end of his evidence in chief a passage from a letter at pages 41 to
43 of the bundle, dated 15th October, which the defendant had written to Channel 4 in the person of Pam
Masters, with whom he had had all dealings for the Channel 4 ident music. By this time the dispute had
blown up and this letter was by way of an explanation from the defendant to Pam Masters — in paragraph 2
he referred to the four notes A G C A, which he said that he had arrived at; and then in paragraph 3 he wrote
to Pam Masters:
“In order to present these notes to full effect, and also to achieve a space-like sound at that time required at the beginning of the ident, I went to David Lawson’s studio, as I often used to do in the course of my work in TV music. When I was there I suggested that, if I got the job for Channel 4 and if it involved a synthetic
treatment at which David Lawson is an expert, having the added benefit of a studio and extensive
equipment, we should work together on the project, and split the PRS that would be involved 50/50”.
That paragraph was put to Mr Lawson, the plaintiff, in his examination in chief, and he said (and this is really
all his evidence about the agreement):
“That was not my understanding of the agreement. There was no mention of ‘a synthetic treatment’ or ‘in a
synthesised form’; that the split would be 50/50”;
and he went on to add that no account had been presented to him for any PRS share due on the Channel 4
theme at any time.
With regard to the first of these demos made on 2nd April, the plaintiff produced a 2 in 12-track reel of tape
as exhibit P1, and that has on the top of it a list of the matters which are recorded on it. He agreed that that
list on the outside of the box did not list the items in the order as they appear on the recordings, and he also
agreed in his evidence that the original list — that is to say, the original label on the outside — which he said
had got considerably filled in with alterations, had been replaced by the present label at a considerably later
date.
This particular master tape, as it is, was produced by the plaintiff as containing one of the demos for the
Channel 4 logo; and he puts it forward as containing the first one in time, the one made on 2nd April. It is the
fact that on this label which was added at a much later date the notice in respect of that particular item is
“Channel 4 Log/Demo No 1”. It is common ground, although I do not think that I heard played this 2 in master
tape, that the item happens to be the space demo. It does seem to me that plainly it could not have been
listed on the original of that label as the Channel 4 No 1 demo, because, if these things were listed, as I
understood him to say, as they were recorded or very shortly afterwards, there would be no reason for him to
list that as Channel 4 logo, No 1, because at that time until 15th April there was no Channel 4, No 2 logo.
Another matter that I should point out about that exhibit P1 is that, whereas when we come to the 2 in
corresponding master tape containing the other Channel 4 demo there were track sheets in respect of the
items recorded on it, there are no track sheets available in respect of exhibit P1, and in particular there is no
track sheet for the Channel 4 logo to be found; that is to say, of the “space” demo of exhibit P1. The plaintiff’s
evidence was that those track sheets must have been lost.
With regard to the telephone call between the parties after the 2nd April session and before the 15th April
session, the plaintiff’s version is that Mr Dundas, the defendant, telephoned prior to 15th April and said:
“Channel 4 have rejected our submission, but I believe we are still in with a chance. The plaintiff continued:
“The defendant said: Would I like to have another crack at it with him. He also inferred that he would get
more accurate timings.” As a result, they made the arrangement to meet on 15th April, and the plaintiff wrote
in his diary the appointment as 11 am on 15th April.
On 15th April the plaintiff says that the defendant arrived with a Sony Walkman machine, a Sony Walkman
cassette recorder, and probably with the animation diagram which is page 20. He said that the defendant
hummed some musical notes, signifying a certain notation, which I think was a reference to AGCA; but
importantly the defendant had at that time the timings for the various parts of the ident music to fit what was
required in the letter of 25th March from Channel 4.
The plaintiff’s recollection was not very clear about this. He said about the notes that he said were hummed
on the tape: “I take those to have been the AGCA notes, but I am not too clear about that now”. Specifically
he said: “We were working on the timings at that time because the visuals” — that is to say, the visuals of the
logo — “were in an advanced stage of completion”, and they wanted to get on with that aspect of it. But he did
also add that he did not really remember if the defendant had told him what he was doing and what he had in
his mind. What the plaintiff says is that he proceeded to go to what he called an “acoustic piano”, which I
understood to be an ordinary grand piano, and he said that the defendant sat down, played on the Sony
Walkman recorder the tape which had the hummed theme on it and accompanied it on the piano.
The plaintiff says that they worked on the harmony. The evidence, which I think is common ground, is that
the original harmony that the defendant had in mind for his simple AGCA theme was — if one looks at page
24, this is set out in short score — that the counter melody immediately underneath the AGCA was to start at
F, coming down to E, with the G, going up to G with the C, and coming down to F, with the final A. I think it is
common ground that the plaintiff leant over the piano and suggested an alternation to that simple harmony:
that, instead of the second note or the counter melody coming down to E with the G of the second note of the
theme, the harmony should be on the F. That is exactly what you see in the top stave of the short score on
page 24.
Without going into very great detail, there was work done on the synthesisers, and in particular it seems that
the defendant made clear that he envisaged a pulsing quaver effect; and that was produced by the plaintiff
using his arpeggiator, which would account for the synthesised quaver figure which we see in middle stave of
the short score on page 24. Other aspects were used in working out what this should finally sound like; in
particular the plaintiff recalls that a trumpet-like sound was used from his synthesisers for the announcement
of the theme itself. I think I referred to that at an earlier stage as a “fanfare-like sound”. Various other
embellishments were added and eventually they arrived at something which they regarded as satisfactory;
that is the second demo in time, and is the one which the plaintiff says is that which is to be found in short
score at the top of page 24 and also, he said, is to be found recorded on his master tape on the 24-track 2 in
tape which has been produced as exhibit P 2.
I will come back to exhibit P 2 in a moment, but the plaintiff in his evidence was quite emphatic that on the
master tape P 2 is to be found the AGCA notes piece — that is, the jingle that I have referred to as the
four-note theme — which was the one produced on 15th April; and he confirmed that, saying that it was the
second piece that he had heard in the demonstration in court. His evidence was that after the master tape
waas finished they did some work in balancing the various tracks — they recorded on 21 tracks — and then,
as one can do with these machines, mixed the various recorded sounds reducing down to two tracks. As a
result of that, they ended up with a two-track 1/4 in tape or cassette, a copy of what he called very
graphically “the mix” — and that was handed, he said, to the defendant, who took it away as the second
demo.
The plaintiff was emphatic in cross-examination that the Channel 4 logo which is to be found on exhibit P 1
was that of 2nd April, and that on exhibit P 2 was the demo of the 15th April. He went further and said that,
so far as concerns the four-note theme tape whichever it be — he says that it is the one produced on 15th
April — all that the defendant ever produced was the four-note theme and that he, the plaintiff, did the rest
and that he collaborated on the harmony. The spacings involved, of course, had to do with the timings of the
visuals; and, as far as he could remember, the four notes of the theme were four equal value notes. That of
course agrees with what one sees on the short score on page 24, save that the last note is prolonged, but
they were otherwise of equal value. He says that he was really unable to remember who produced the
rhythm part. I think at that time that was a reference to the repeated quaver figure — the sort of pulse — which
is represented in the middle stave of the short score on page 24. I have said already (but I will repeat it) that
he did say that the defendant at the piano had suggested the harmonic structure. I pause for a moment to
say that I take that to mean the pedal F and the counter-melody forming the chords to the four-note theme.
He remembers the defendant playing the theme with such harmony; and I have aalready referred to his suggestion, with which the defendant agrees, that he leant over and suggested an alternative harmony for one of those notes, and it is the one that one sees in the short score on page 24; the second note of the
counter-melody is an F instead of an E.
Reverting for a moment to exhibits P 1 and P 2, the track sheets, I have already explained that in his
evidence the plaintff agreed that the list which one finds on the outside of exhibit P 1 had been put on at a
considerably later time, and I referred to it as referring to the Channel 4 logo as No 1, although the original, if
the lists were kept up to date and marked up either when the recording was made or shortly afterwards,
cannot have been referring to No 1, so that that must have been added at some time later. I have also
pointed out that there are no track sheets available for exhibit P 1.
So far as exhibit P 2 is concerned, track sheets were producd and are available in respect P 2. The track
sheets are records, as I understand it, of what is on the 24 tapes from which a 24-track machine such as the
plaintiff is able to use, merely recording what he has got on the tape at a particular place, what sounds they
are, and so on; in other words, it is rather like a score in a mechanical form.
Page 22 of the bundle has got three items on it, one referring to “Budjen”, which is presumably referring to a
jingle, and “40 in”. The second one refers to “Budjen 20 in”, and then there is a space, which apparently is
simply occupied by something which is designated as the “Budjen sign”. Up to now those two items
correspond with the first two items on the list on the outside of exhibit B 2, the box. Then there is a third one,
with a reference to a Persil jingle or demo, and the details of that are given. That, too, is on the box and is
the third one there. The fourth item on the box is down as “Channel 4”, and simply records it as “David
Dundas and DL”, which is no doubt David Lawson, the plaintiff. That is not on the track sheet at page 22, but
is recorded on a separate track sheet which is to be found on page 23. I should say that there is a fourth item
following the Channel 4 entry in the list on exhibit P 2, but there is no track sheet produced in respect of that
fourth item.
I think that it is common ground that the track sheet which one finds at page 23, in the shorthand form, which
is used for these track sheets, does record in effect what is shown musically on page 24 in the top three
staves in short score; but of course, as I have explained, repeated to an eight-bar length; and it gives details
of the various sounds which one sees there set out. I think it is important from the plaintiff’s point of view that
that track sheet, which I think it is common ground does describe what is to be found on the Channel 4
demo, which I have called the “four-note theme demo” and which is to be found on exhibit P 2, is recorded in
this track sheet in that particular form of recording, and that the date on that track sheet is 25th April.
But I do have to point out that there is no date on the track sheet on the previous page, page 22; so that
there is no date recording when the previous three items on the list of exhibit P 2 were recorded at all.
I must point out that in cross-examination he said in respect of the track sheet at page 22, having had it
pointed out to him in cross-examination that there was no date there, that it was not always the case that he
put the date in. It was specifically put to him that on the track sheet at page 23, just as on the sheet at page
22, he did not put the date in at the time; but his answer was that, if the date is on it — and of course there is
a date on page 23 — then he put it on at the time, and that it was not true, he said, that he put the date on
well after the event.
I should at this stage refer to the evidence of Mrs Janet Lawson, the plaintiff’s wife, who gave evidence in
support of what her husband said, certainly as to the order in which the two demos were produced. She said
that at about the time of the recordings in April 1982 her son, then about five to six months old, was
occupying some of her time, but that she used to help her husband in his studio. I gather that the flat was
either next door to or round about the studio, and that she used to do the paperwork for her husband. She said that on both occasions — that is, the 2nd and 15th April — with which we are concerned, he was doing the Channel 4 logo and that the defendant had come to him to try to do the music for the Channel 4 logo;
there is no dispute about that. She said that she used to come into the studio occasionally with coffee and
something to eat and to take or transmit any telephone messages. She said that she could hear the music all
the time in their flat, even when she was not in the room; and, indeed, that she could hear everything that
went on. Her evidence was that she was quite certain that the piece of music which I have called the space
demo was that which she first heard on the occasion of 2nd April. She says that she remembers it because
she did not like the space effect. As regards the music that she remembers hearing on 15th April, she said
that, having heard in court the other demo, the four-note theme demo, she remembers having first heard that
on 15th April. In cross-examination she agreed that she had talked about the case with her husband, which
was very natural, and she was quite certain that she had a clear recollection of the order of events.
As to what happened after 15th April, apparently the plaintiff did nothing further until some time in August;
but before I come to that I should go to the defendant’s version of events concerning the production of the
two demos, leading to what was the eventual Channel 4 logo music as accepted and used by the Channel.
Mr Dundas’s evidence was that, after his meeting with Mr Lambie-Nairn, to which I referred at an earlier
stage, and after the receipt of the letter of 25th March from Channel 4, which he regarded as very vague, he
attempted in his office to formulate his idea as he wanted it to go; and then he says that he really came up
basically with the use of the four-note theme A G C A. He had an idea that this would be suitable; it would
not last long; and he thought that, with at least half an hour’s work, he had formulated and settled upon those
four-notes as the basic theme. He says that he also then worked on and devised a series of chords to play
with the notes. Those are the chords which one sees in the short score on page 24, except, as I have
already indicated, that in his version of the original harmony the second note of the counter melody under the
G was an E instead of the F which you see in the score. He apparently experimented with extensions of that
short theme with a view to seeing whether it was capable of extension in time, since of course the letter of
25th March required eventually that there should be a 12-second theme composed, it will be remembered, in
three separate sections, each of four seconds. He said that he fixed on that basic harmony by humming and
put it on the tape, using a small tape recorder rather like, he said, a newspaper.
The defendant then says that he rang the plaintiff, and this is the telephone call about the end of March. He
says that what he said was: “I have a chance to do a demo for the Channel 4 theme, and I have a line test,
so that I know what the times are”, and that he said to the plaintiff: “It would be really exciting if we could do a
totally synthesised demo tape”, and asked if they could do it together. I asked him if he had any time”, and he
got the response “Yes”; it was fixed up that they should meet on 2nd April. He says that he went to see the
plaintiff on the 2nd April; he took with him, he says — this is where the stories diverge — the letter of 25th
March from Channel 4, together with the animation illustration which is to be found on page 20 of the bundle;
he took with him the VHF video of the line test that he had been given by Mr Lambie-Nairn, and he thinks
probably a little tape recorder rather than a Sony Walkman recorder, as the plaintiff, Mr Lawson, thought that
it was.
Then the defendant agrees that he sat at the acoustic piano — the grand piano — and played something
which related to what he had just worked out and demonstrated by playing the tape that he had brought, so
indicating, he said, the basic chord structure, the melodic structure, and the quaver beat, all of which he had
decided previously. He mentioned Mr Lawson, the plaintiff’s, suggestion about leaning over the piano for the
modification of the basic harmony, substituting the F for the E in the second chord on page 24 in the short
score. He points out and agrees that the automatic arpeggiator was used to produce what one sees in the
middle stave — the pulsating effect with the quavers moving up in octaves on the F note, and the basic pedal
note F for the piece which he had devised was put on one of the plaintiff’s pieces of apparatus.
Eventually he came to a point where, after a lot of work — it took several hours — they arrived, so the
defendant says, at that piece of music which is what I have called the four-note theme demo. He was quite
firm in his evidence that that piece, which was the second one played in the demonstration in court, was the one which was produced on 2nd April — the one with the notation of the theme in it. He then said — and this is important I think — that they then discussed the working arrangement between them; and his version is
that he said, “We must make this something really good, because it would be simply fantastic if we could
make a completely synthesised ident for Channel 4, because a lot more work would come with other idents
that they would need for the station for different timings.” He then said: “I envisaged doing the whole package
with the plaintiff, Mr Lawson, in his studio and I said to him: ‘If we do that, naturally we would be co-owners;
we would split’.” Subsequent cross examination made it perfectly plain that he had in mind that the PRS
royalties would be split 50/50. He went on in his own evidence to say “I think he thought it was a good idea;
he was enthusiastic about it”.
What happened after that, according to the defendant, was that he took the tape or cassette back. I should
say that what had been recorded on the various tracks had all been reduced, as indeed Mr Lawson, the
plaintiff had explained, although he said that it occurred on a different date, and reduced to a quarter inch
tape or cassette. The defendant took that back and, within two days, he had taken it, he thought, to Pam
Masters of Channel Four, of course, to present it to her.
He says that he then met Pam Masters, played that tape, and had a talk to her about it, but she was not
entirely enthusiastic about the use of electronics, which I took to mean synthesised sound. He says that she
suggested the use of a piece which was more of an atmospheric piece rather than a piece of notation to go
with the space symbols of Mr Lambie-Nairn, who the defendant thought was present at that meeting. As a
result of that intimation, the defendant says that he rang Mr Lawson — this is the second telephone call,
about the time and date of which there is no dispute — and told him what had happened, explained that Pam
Masters wanted an atmospheric rather than a notation piece. They fixed a date to get together again on 15th
April; and on that day, so he says, he decided that they would use some “spacey” sounds, and the tape was
produced with the space noise, as he put it, which he says was that demo which I have called the “space
demo”.
The defendant’s account was that he then returned to Channel Four to meet Pam Masters and played that
tape, not being very enthusiastic about it himself apparently; and he said that she had a quite distinct
reaction that it was not what Channel Four were looking for. He was quite certain in his evidence that the
order of the two demos was the four-note theme demo on 2nd April and the space demo on 15th April.
Apparently at that meeting with Pam Masters it was left that they would take a couple of days and have a
think about things. He was telephoned by Pam Masters of Channel Four, who wanted to interview him again
about his ideas. To cut a long story short, there was a long discussion which lasted some one and a half to
two hours, with a number of personnel from Channel Four present, as well as the defendant including Pam
Masters and her assistant, Mr Tim Simmonds.
A few days later she rang the defendant to tell him that they were offering him the commission or the job to
produce the Channel Four music. She said that they were going to require something of the order of at least
just over 3 1/2 minutes. In fact the final piece, I should interpolate, was 3 minutes 40 seconds; and that the
thoughts of Channel Four were moving towards not having an electronic piece, but to have their music
played by a big orchestra. That apparently was the preference that had gradually developed by that time in
Channel Four.
There were further meetings discussing what they wanted and it seems that thereafter Mr Dundas, the
defendant, more or less started afresh in his thoughts, but again starting off with a four-note theme which
had not been unacceptable, as it seems, to Channel Four, and with his simple harmony for it, having in mind,
too, the quaver pulsation. His evidence was that he went to a second studio where they had synthesisers,
trying to sketch out simple ideas for an orchestral treatment; and he eventually ended up with something like
eleven possible ways of dealing with the matter on what I shall call the Aquarium tape; that is to say, a tape made at Sounds Aquarium. He thought that that working at the Sounds Aquarium was about the first week of May or a little bit later perhaps.
The defendant says that he took that tape, with all those suggestions or ideas, to Channel Four and
discussed it with Pam Masters and her assistant Mr Simmonds; and, as a result of the meetings and
discussions, a conclusion was reached that the music for the Channel Four logo theme would be an
orchestral piece, which was orchestrated and which would be some 3 1/2 minutes in length, and would have
to be such as to have light and shade in it and to be able to have taken out of it at intervals the short idents;
that is to say the basic theme with an ident every 30 seconds, the reason for that being that other stations in
the country might not have finished when they commenced playing the whole thing and they would be able to
tune in at an appropriate point where the ident came in, the music being spaced out at a number of places in
the 3 1/2 minutes or 3 minutes 40 seconds, to be specific. Those were the decisions that were made.
That having been arrived at, the defendant says that he contacted an orchestrator that he knew, a Mr Rick
Wentworth, who gave evidence before me; they had several meetings together, in which he put to Mr Rick
Wentworth the requirements and discussed with him what was wanted and whether or not the commission
as it ultimately had emerged could be satisfactorily dealt with as an orchestral piece.
Mr Wentworth, apparently after some consideration, was of the opinion that it could be. The defendant
reported back to Pam Masters that it could be done orchestrally, and yet meet the requirements that they
had so far as timing of idents every 30 seconds was concerned, but she required that there should be, first of
all, the synthesised effort showing that the proposed orchestration really could work.
At this point, I think I should refer to the evidence of Mr Wentworth. He is a freelance composer and
arranger, of considerable experience in the field of music, having started off as being the head of music
production for the well-known music publishers Schott & Company. He explained that at about, he thought,
the end of July, early August 1982 he became involved with the defendant, Mr Dundas, in the Channel Four
theme work. Having arranged to meet Mr Dundas, Mr Dundas played a cassette of the various demos that
he had made, and that, as emerged in the evidence, was the eleven demos which I have referred to as being
recorded on the Aquarium tape; so Mr Wentworth says that he became very familiar with the four-note
theme, and that was subsequently developed into a much longer piece. The demos, he said, on the
Aquarium tape were various synthesised versions of the basic theme, and he had heard those demonstrated
in the court on the day before. He was very emphatic that he was not played any other tapes by Mr Dundas,
the defendant, in this way. He had heard the two demos, the “space” one and what I have called the
“four-note” demo, played in court the previous day. He was emphatic that he did not hear either of those
pieces of music when he had dealings with the defendant in 1982 — not at all — hearing them in court, as I
understood, for the first time; but anyhow he had not heard them played to him in 1982, when he was
working with Mr Dundas, the defendant; all that he had had played to him were the eleven versions on what I
have called the Aquarium tapes.
I will not go through the details of his evidence, but there were long discussions with Mr Dundas to meet the
requirements of Channel Four and the specific nature of the piece — which had to be, as Mr Wentworth put it,
rather mathematical in conception — to meet the specific requirements of timing and the points at which the
idents came and so on. He went away after the first discussions, having listened to the ideas that Mr Dundas
had — alternative or second melodies or themes, as to the harmony, and I think also as to the quaver pulse.
Mr Wentworth came back later and said that such an orchestrated piece could be done. He produced a basis
for the proposed orchestration on a synthesiser. Eventually, they roughed it out sufficiently for it to be
presented to Channel Four, who were quite happy with it. As a result, Mr Wentworth then did the proper
orchestration; he spent altogether some three days, I think, with Mr Dundas, and they were long days,
certainly of 10 hours. Then he produced the score itself, as I call it — he called it “the sketch” — which became the piece of music which was eventually recorded with an orchestra of some 48 musicians on 3rd September 1982; and it is that piece of music which is used by Channel Four as the music which
accompanies the figure 4 logo.
The defendant was cross-examined at some length, but his evidence as to what had happened and as to
what was the agreement made with the plaintiff on 2nd April was not qualified in any material respect.
I should now refer also to the evidence of other witnesses called on behalf of the defendant, and in particular
Mrs Inger Best, who is really his personal assistant in his business, and a Miss London, who was a friend of
Mrs Inger Best and also knows the defendant, or did at that time, and who I think I should point out is now
employed as a secretary by Mr Dundas, the defendant’s, company.
Mrs Inger Best is the person who does the administrative side — I suppose really she is a manager, but she
did not use that term — of David Dundas Music, and until 1st June of this year she and Mr Dundas were the
only persons in the company; certainly that was the position in 1982, when the company had not been going
for more than about a year. She could well remember, she says, the time when Mr Dundas, the defendant,
was involved in his work on the Channel Four jingle. She pointed out that a jingle for Channel 4 had been
talked about very much in the business and in the advertising world, as one might expect, and that Mr
Dundas had hoped for, and wondered who to approach to get the chance of doing the music. She
remembered the introduction that he got through Mr Lambie-Nairn and to who to write to, Pam Masters, of
Channel Four.
Mrs Best said that over a period of some weeks at about that time the defendant had been anxious to try and
work out something which would be suitable for the Channel Four theme — and no doubt the four notes
reflect that — and that he, the defendant was constantly playing around with four notes, but not necessarily I
think at that time the A G C A, to see what he could arrive at. She remembered the letter of 25th March,
inviting the defendant to tender, and she remembered the defendant coming back from the making of the first
demo with Mr Lawson, the plaintiff, on what we know was 2nd April. She was certain — I do not think that
there is any dispute about this — that he brought back a tape with him. She says that she can remember the
first demonstration or demo tape; it was what she called the “fanfare demo” on that first tape; and, as I
understood it, she meant the demo which I have called the “four-note” theme demo”.
Then Mrs Best remembers that later — this no doubt refers to the second meeting on 15th April — Mr Dundas
and the plaintiff had another demo session and she remembers the demo tape which she heard again
because she was responsible for taking the tapes and making copies where necessary, retaining copies
where necessary and sending tapes on to various clients of the company when tbey were required. She
remembers the second demo tape, as she put it, as being rather abstract — as trying out a new idea — and
she had no doubt at all that what I have called the “space” demo was the second demo tape, which was
brought after the second meeting or session with the plaintiff. She was emphatic that she heard both demo
tapes; she says that she hears everything that is recorded on tapes as part of her work; and she had no
doubt that what she called the “fanfare demo was the first and that the abstract one was the second”.
Her evidence was clear, too, that Mr Dundas, the defendant, was playing four note themes and trying to work
out a four-note theme before and after he went to see Mr Lambie-Nairn, the designer of the logo.
It was specifically put to her in cross-examination that the two events — that is to say, the first demo of 2nd
April and the second demo of 15th April — had been transposed in her mind, and that the abstract music was
produced first and that then Mr Dundas, her employer, played on the piano and the other piece of music —
that is to say the four-note theme was produced; but she was emphatic in her answer to that suggestion and
said that it was the other way round.
The other witness that I should refer to was Miss Deborah London, who now works at the defendant’s
company as an assistant to Mrs Inger Best, who in the early part of 1982 was still working, as she had been
for some time, as a school secretary. She knew Mr Dundas, the defendant, then; she knew him through Mrs
Inger Best, who was a friend even from the time when Inger Best and Mr Dundas, the defendant, were
working at Mothers and Masters before Mr Dundas, the defendant, set up his own company. She apparently
used to call every day at the defendant’s offices because the school that she was working at at that time as a
school secretary finished at 3.30, and she used to stop off at the defendant’s office and wait for Mrs Best, her
friend Inger, because they both went home on the train together and, from their home station, Mrs Best used
to give her a lift home in her car. That is how she came to be present in the late afternoon for a time at the
offices where the defendant worked, waiting for Mrs Inger Best to go home and to go with her.
Miss London remembered that early in 1982 she had heard talk about Channel Four and remembered that
the defendant was busy working on jingles, as apparently he always was. He had a piano there, she says,
and used to work out his jingles on that piano; and she knew from discussions that one of the things that he
was trying to work out was a jingle for Channel Four. She remembered having heard both of the demo tapes
played; she used to hear tapes every day when Mrs Best was playing and checking tapes; and she
remembered the first demo that was brought back as a demo for the Channel Four theme, and she
remembered the second one. In the first one she said she clearly heard the four-notes and she was, then,
referring to the A G C A. She hummed it to me and it was certainly that sequence of notes, though whether it
was rightly pitched is another matter. She said that that sequence of notes was the notes that she heard the
defendant, Mr Dundas, working on some time earlier when he was trying at the piano to produce a jingle for
Channel Four. She said that she then heard another demo tape, not very long after — she thought that it
might have been a week, but she could not say definitely — and that, she thought, was another treatment of
the four notes, but it was a spacey synthesised version. She did not like it very much; she liked the first one
much better; she just did not like the spacey bits, and she said that she could not hear the four notes clearly.
It so happens that in the spacey demo it is common ground that the four-note theme does not appear; but I
do not find that her evidence in that respect has to be disregarded in view of that last answer. She had quite
plainly heard the four-note theme on the first occasion; the second one was the one with the spacey
treatment, which she did not like, and she thought — and this may be a slight flaw in her recollection — that it
had the four notes in it, but she said that she did not hear the four notes clearly, which I think tells its own
story.
I think that the importance of the evidence of Mrs Best and Miss London lies in this: it confirmed that the
defendant had devised his four note A G C A sequence theme before he ever contacted the plaintiff. Also he
had in mind the quaver beat. I should have said something about that with regard to Miss London’s evidence,
because I have missed that out. She did say that, as well as having the four notes he was going to use, as
well as the four notes, when he had this theme — meaning the four notes — going, he would play it, and she
indicated to me what was quite plainly meant to be and as I understood the quaver beat — the pulse going on
all the time.
As I have said, the importance of the evidence of Mrs Best and Miss London lies in this: it confirmed that the
defendant had devised this four-note A G C A theme before he contacted the plaintiff, and also that he had in
mind the quaver beat to go with it. It seems to me, on the balance of probabilities, most improbable — really
inconceivable — that with all the preliminary thinking that he had done and the material that he had devised in
the way of the four-note theme and the idea of the simple harmony that would go with it, particularly based
on a base pedal F, and the idea of having a quaver pulsation going right through, and having all that before
he went to his first session, they would not have started off on a first attempt basing it on that material; but, of
course, if the plaintiff’s version is correct, he did not do any such thing; but the defendant says that he did. It
seems to me that the defendant’s version is the more probable and likely course.
I am satisfied that the defendant’s account of the order of the events is the right one, and that the plaintiff’s
recollection and that of his wife as to the order of the demonstration tapes is not correct and has got transposed in their recollection.
As to the track sheet at page 23, which it will be remembered is dated 15th April, I am in fact satisfied that
that would have been added afterwards. That is not necessarily to say that the addition of it was meant to
deceive, but it would be in accord with what I think was their faulty recollection of the order of things. Mr
Lawson, the plaintiff, did not always put the date on the track sheets; there was no date on the track sheet at
page 22; and it is clear that the list on the outside of exhibit P 1 had been changed at a considerably later
date. Again, as I have pointed out, the insertion of the wording “Channel Logo No 1” on that list sheet cannot
have been the original way it was done, if the listing on the outside of the 24 track 2 in master tape was done
either simultaneously or shortly after the recording.
In the result, I prefer and accept the evidence of the defendant and his witnesses as to what happened.
As to what happened later, apparently at I think, some time in August it came to the knowledge of the
plaintiff, by some sort of rumour — I think the said through his wife — that the music for the Channel 4 logo
had been decided, and that the defendant had been successful in obtaining the commission and had
composed that music. The plaintiff thinking that it must have been “another job”, meaning thereby something
different from what they had done when they were working together. Not having heard from the defendant for
four or five months, he decided to contact him and he telephoned him; he told him what he had heard — he
thinks that this was probably in August — and he asked the defendant if what had been accepted and was to
be used as the Channel 4 music was the theme that they had written together; and the plaintiff says that the
defendant’s words were: “No, it is completely different.” He was reasonably satisfied with that answer, but
apparently his wife was not so happy, and I think contacted Mrs Best and asked if she could have a cassette
recording or the finished Channel 4 logo — that is to say, the orchestrated piece — and such a cassette
recording or tape was sent at once to the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s wife. That was produced as exhibit P4.
Having listened to that, the plaintiff’s reaction was that it bore a strong resemblance to what they had
produced together, as he says, on 15th April and, as I have held, on 2nd April. It was not completely
different, he said, as the defendant had said to him on the telephone.
As a result, he telephoned the defendant and confronted him with the fact that he thought the two pieces —
that is to say, what I have called the four-note theme demo which they had produced together and the actual
music of the final piece as orchestrated and as a demonstrated on the cassette which he had been sent,
exhibit P4, at Mrs Lawson’s request by Mrs Best — bore, as he thought, a striking resemblance; but the
defendant’s reaction was that it was completely different, pointing out amongst other things, that an orchestra
was used. The conversation concluded without any sort of agreement; and very soon thereafter the action
was commenced.
At this stage I should refer to the evidence of the expert, Dr Epps, who was called on behalf of the plaintiff.
He is a distinguishd musician, with a number of degrees, including a Doctorate in Music of Edinburgh
University, as well as being a Licentiate of the Royal Academy and Royal Colleges of Music. He is at present
a professor at the Guildhall School of Music and Drama. As a composer however, he has written and
arranged music for radio, television, films, the theatre, records and the concert hall and, indeed, was for ten
years a music producer for BBC Radio and Television. He points out, speaking generally, that the four
principal components of traditional western music are melody, rhythm, harmony and timbre, and that the
importance of these varies depending on the style of the music; and he then in his report deals with each of
those generally in turn.
Coming specifically to the comparison between the final orchestral version of the actual Channel 4 logo
theme music, of which incidentally the score is to be found in short score form in the bundle at pages 25 to
32, he points out that, comparing that piece of music with the piece which was the four-note demo — in other
words, that which one sees in short form in the top three staves on page 24 — melodically the material is identical — the four notes A G C A. He says that there are some differences, perhaps difficult to convey; he
particularly points out that, in the repetition on the demo tape of the four bars which one sees in the short
score, in the repetition the four notes are so placed that the accent is slightly different; and that is set out in
his report. I do not pay a great deal of attention to that for present purposes. He points out that in both pieces
there is an underlying characteristic repeated quaver pulse on the synthesiser. That is true, and I have
already pointed out the quaver figure which is repeated on page 24 in the four-note theme demo; one can
see it repeated there. If one goes to the score of the actual orchestral piece, one can see the quaver beat
produced synthetically repeated, not all the time but fairly continuously; but it is not a figure such as you see
on the page 24 score; it is a single repeated bass F. That as well as the melody was part of the material
which I have held the defendant was in possession of before he went to the first meeting with the plaintiff on
2nd April.
The expert points out that harmonically the two versions have an identical harmonic background, based on
the tonic pedal F; and that is very true. He points out that the details of the harmony are not identical in all
respects. He draws particular attention to the different in the second chord of the four-note theme; that is to
say, the chord which includes the G, the second note of the theme. It will be remembered that I mentioned
earlier that the defendant in his original version of that four-note theme had used an E with the G to form a
chord, but at the suggestion of the plaintiff, when they were working together at the piano, that E had been
altered to the F, retaining the F of the previous chord, as can be seen in the top line on page 24; whereas in
the final score on page 25 one sees there has been a reversion to the original scoring of the defendant in
respect of that chord, using the E.
There is also this difference: that the third chord in the demo on page 24 uses, as the note below the C, a G,
whereas in the final version, the orchestral version, under the C there is used with the C an A, so that the
chord is A C. The expert draws attention to that, too.
There is one other matter to which I should draw attention, and I think that the expert probably does too. It is
that in the demo as depicted in the short score on page 24, as I think I have mentioned earlier, all the notes
are of equal length, except for the last one, which of course is a prolonged one held over two bars. If one
looks at the finished score — I am looking particularly at page 25 — one sees that, instead of notes of a minim
length, they have been extended to be semi-breves — there is nothing in that — but the third note of the
theme, the one in C, together with the accompanying chord note A, has been very much reduced in length to
just a crochet, that is to say, a quarter of the length of the two previous notes; so that the theme, instead of
sounding notes of equal length, with its third note has a very short sharp effect coming in, as one sees in the
score at the start of the second bar.
Although Professor Epps said in his report that the timbre of the two pieces that he was comparing “are not
greatly significant in this comparison, except that the synthesised sound is the important part of each theme,”
in cross-examination he agreed that the most important aspect of timbre in each of the two cases was the
pulsating quaver effect — something which it will be remembered had been settled upon by the defendant at
an early stage before he went to work on 2nd April with the plaintiff.
At the end of that analysis, I quite accept all that is said to me by the expert. What emerges from that, I think,
is that the simple four-note melody A G C A, the simple harmony in F based on a bass F, and the quaver
pulsation are the chief points of similarity, and they all owe themselves to the work which Mr Dundas, the
defendant, did and had in his mind before he came to do any work at all with the plaintiff on the first occasion
on 2nd April. I think that the position is that, when a synthetic or synthesised treatment was finally ruled out
by Channel 4 in the way that I have indicated during the negotiations, he went back, as it were, to the start
and, using those original ideas, tried out a number of possible variations, having in mind how they might be
treated orchestrally, since an orchestral treatment was in view. It will be remembered that he carried out that
work in a series of sessions at the Sounds Aquarium Studios, which resulted in the eleven versions to be
found on what I call the Aquarium tape. That was the start of the collaboration with the orchestrator, Mr Wentworth, which resulted in the final piece of music accepted and now used by Channel 4.
Finally, I should point out that Mr Platts-Mills, counsel for the plaintiff, suggested that the agreement between
the parties was that they should collaborate together to produce a demo, with a view to obtaining the
commission for the Channel 4 identification music; but that was certainly not the evidience of the plaintiff
himself; all that he said about the agreement really was to deny the defendant’s version of the agreement,
which version I accept to be what was actually agreed between the parties.
To show that I have not overlooked it, I should mention one matter, which I think might have been thought at
one stage to reflect a certain extent on the defendant and upon Mrs Best, and I should therefore deal with it.
In the bundle at page 33 there is a letter dated 12th October 1982, which was addressed back to the plaintiff
— it was in fact addressed to “Dear David” — in which Mrs Best enclosed photostat copies of some
notifications to the PRS as to who were the composers of certain works and to whom the royalties should be
paid when those works were performed. The sheets in question are reproduced on pages 34, 35 and 36 of
the bundle, and they show a number of works in which, as amended, apparently the composer is put down
jointly as the defendant and the plaintiff, each entitled to 50%. Although I did not see the originals apparently
four of those items there are asterisked as those which should be altered, originally being registered on the
1st April 1982, when the three sheets which had originally been submitted to the Performing Right Society
had been registered only in the name of the defendant.
Mrs Best had been telephoned, as I understand it, by the plaintiff’s wife to enquire about these works, and
then Mrs Best realised, as again I understand it, that there had been some error and that this was a
correction of the error, and so she was sending copies to the plaintiff correcting that error where they had
been wrongly registered. As I understood it, it was a misunderstanding, an error or a mistake on her part.
I mention that in case anything should be sought to be made of that particular incident. I quite accept that it
was a case of innocent over-looking of the exact position. In the result, in my judgment, the action fails and
falls to be dismissed; and I dismiss it with costs.
Case dismissed with costs