Who is it that doesn’t like Mondays?

18 March 2018 by

Moylett v Geldoff and Another (unreported)  Chancery Division (Carr J) 14 March 2018

Music nerds may remember with fondness the great copyright wrangle involving Procul Harum and Bach.   The focus of that dispute was the organ line in the 1967 hit Whiter Shade of Pale, and  Blackburne J’s judgment is imperative reading for anyone interested in the law’s dominion over music, ideas or intellectual property in general. Go to the end of this post for a reminder of that entertaining litigation and its outcome.

Less esoteric but potentially as interesting is this application brought before Carr J in the Chancery Division by the “well known music band”, the Boomtown Rats.

Mr Moylett (Johnnie Fingers), the keyboardist, claimed that in 1979 he had written the music and some of the lyrics for the band’s hit song I Don’t Like Mondays. Bob Geldof, who wrote the remaining lyrics, claimed sole writing credit. A significant issue was whether the music was more likely to have been composed on a guitar, which would support Mr Geldof’s claim to have composed it, or whether it could only have been composed on a piano, which was Mr Moylett’s case.  The keyboardist sought to rely on an expert report from a composer, who had asked two leading professional guitarists to play the music for him.

The application was made to the court to exclude those parts of the report that contained opinions from the professional guitarists. Mr Geldof (the guitarist composer) argued that the report went beyond what was permissible by expressing an opinion on the ultimate question in the proceedings.

The judge refused the application . The authority on this question was Rogers v Hoyle [2013] EWHC 1409 (QB) which said that rather than picking through an expert’s report and seeking to excise paragraphs, it was preferable to allow the trial judge to consider the report in its entirety and for the trial judge to attach such weight as he or she saw fit. Insofar as the report dealt with whether the music was more likely to have been composed on a guitar or a piano it was admissible evidence and might well be the subject of expert evidence in reply.

If the case comes to trial, the evidence will be fascinating. How might a piece of music lend itself to composition on one instrument rather than another? Now, as promised, a reminder of the Whiter Shade of Pale dispute (Fisher v Brooker and Another [2006].

The question here was whether the organist’s famous line was so imaginative a working on Bach’s Wachet Auf and Air on a G String that he could claim fresh copyright on the material.  Have fun reading that case again (particularly from paras 36), and just in case you don’t want to traverse the whole thing, here’s a reminder:

The working in of this reference to Wachet Auf led to Mr Fisher [the organist] making, he said, a small alteration to the bass line in bar 8, namely the substitution of a root position G chord for a bass C on the first beat of the eighth bar and the substitution of two first- inversion chords, F and G7, in place of a bottom G in the second half of the eighth bar.

Mr Fisher won the case, incidentally, because the judge found that his organ introduction was sufficiently different to qualify in law,  as an “original contribution to the work.”

 

2 comments


  1. Phil says:

    How might a piece of music lend itself to composition on one instrument rather than another?

    Ask any musician! One simple example: a major chord played on guitar generally consists of the three notes of the chord played on six strings, necessarily with at least some notes duplicated. It may be possible to add a note by moving a finger up a fret, but some additions (to some chords) will be considerably easier than others. On the piano (or accordion) any chord can be augmented by putting four fingers down instead of three. Looking at songs by a singer who composes on both piano and guitar, a preponderance of ‘silly chords’ is often the sign of a ‘piano song’. (Although not invariably; sometimes a bizarre-looking chord sequence is actually a simple guitar shape with different bass notes ‘underneath’ it.)

    1. Fascinating! Thank you for this insight.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: