copying, and of the copyright holder losing some degree of control over the work. While the risk
of this occurring may be small when the recording is made by a legitimate broadcaster such as
the appellant, the copyright holder would no doubt want the security of knowing that adequate
safeguards are being taken against this possibility.It cannot be denied that ephemeral recordings are a highly useful device for broadcasters, ...[b]ut
they are also a device which is subject to abuse — abuse that the copyright holder whose
interests the Act is designed to protect has little means of detecting or controlling.EXAMPLE 2:The plaintiff owned the copyright in a musical march Colonel Bogey. The
defendants made a news film which included schoolboys parading before the
Prince of Wales to a band playing a the march. The defendants needed to
exhibit the film quickly, otherwise it would no longer be news.When the plaintiff sued the defendant for infringement for recording part of the
music, the defendants claimed they could not have obtained the copyright
owner’s prior consent in time, and that the plaintiff was not harmed by the
recording of such a small segment of the music. The British court disagreed and
found infringement.Hawkes & Son (London) Ltd v. Paramount Film Service Ltd, [1934] Ch. 593
(U.K.: Court of Appeal)LORD HANWORTH, M.R.:I do not think there is much in the plea of the defendants that the rapidity with which they have
to reproduce these new films makes it difficult, or indeed impossible, for them to obtain a
licence from the owners of the musical copyright. Some system could no doubt be arranged
whereby, if there is a possibility of some infringement of copyright, there could be a licence
applicable to the occasion, so as to avoid any damage to the plaintiffs or other owners of
copyright. ...[W]e have to consider the statute upon broad lines; to bear in mind the necessity for the
protection of authors whether of musical or of literary compositions. The [Copyright] Acts have
to be construed with reference to that purpose, and they are not to be made the instruments of
oppression and extortion. ...[T]he right of the owner of a copyright is not determined or measured by the amount of actual
damage to him by reason of the infringement; copyright is a right of property, and he is entitled
to come to the Court for the protection of that property, even though he does not show or prove
actual damage.- TAKING ONLY IDEAS IS NOT INFRINGEMENT
While admitting that the plaintiff’s work has copyright, a defendant may say that
he taken merely ideas from it. If this is true, then the plaintiff has failed to prove
infringement, because the defendant has not reproduced the work or a
substantial part of it.
142