Read the full judgment text of HCCT 45/2012 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 6 January 2017 before Hon L Chan J in Chambers.
Copyright licensing scheme – Reference to Copyright Tribunal under s.156 of Copyright Ordinance – Interpretation of s.156(2) as permitting but not mandating continuation of scheme during proceedings – Licensee’s dispute on termination of scheme due to withdrawal of authorization by record companies – Plaintiff’s application to discharge court order compelling licence fee payments during pendency of CT2/2010 – Defendant’s contention that scheme must remain in operation until Tribunal decision – Third party U’s denial that plaintiff is its agent; plaintiff acts as exclusive licensee – Court holds that s.156(2) does not compel continuation of scheme where operator no longer authorized – Exclusive licence agreement excludes agency; plaintiff licenses in own right – Defendant not entitled to licence beyond termination date of 30 June 2015 – Interim payment orders discharged prospectively; funds retained in court – Costs ordered nisi against defendant. The judgment clarifies the proper statutory construction of s.156(2) balancing monopoly control concerns and contractual rights of copyright owners.
Legal issues: Interpretation of s.156(2) of the Copyright Ordinance · Whether plaintiff is agent of U · Defendant’s entitlement to licence of back catalogue KMVs up to 30 June 2016
Outcome: The amended order requiring defendant's annual payment into court was discharged effective from 30 June 2015 onwards; the money paid into court remains in court. The defendant’s entitlement to licences beyond 30 June 2015 was rejected. The plaintiff is not agent of U. Costs ordered nisi against defendant.
Cites 2 cases