The Eastern Caribbean Collective Organization for Music Rights (ECCO) Inc. emerged victorious in its case against a cinema company, Mega Plex Entertainment Corporation, which played films and simultaneously publicly performed musical works from the films’ sound tracks at its cinemas in St. Lucia. ECCO argued that the cinema company was obliged by law to seek and receive its licence and authority for the public performance of music of any sort within the repertoire it represented in St. Lucia and the rest of the OECS. The failure of Mega Plex Entertainment Corporation to receive a licence from ECCO for the public performance of music synchronized with the films infringed ECCO’s right of public performance in these pieces of music, whether or not the authors of the music were members of ECCO.
ECCO based its claim for the right to sue for infringement of foreign authors’ works on the reciprocal and/or unilateral representation contracts which it has with foreign societies. Within the terms of the non-exclusive licences or assignments which ECCO has with the foreign societies it is explicitly agreed that ECCO could, at its own discretion and peril, take action in court for the infringement of any work within the repertoire of these foreign societies that occurred within its territory of operation – the OECS.
The defendant company put forward a number of defences. The defendant claimed that it had obtained the necessary authorization of the film distributor to screen the films and since the music was on the same medium as the pictures no further licence was needed from a third party for the music performed while films were being shown. They also put forward an argument that since ECCO was not the owner or the exclusive licensee for the right of public performance in the foreign works associated with the film, ECCO had no locus standi and as such the case should be dismissed.
The judge disagreed with the defendant company on every point and rendered judgement in ECCO’s favour. The judgement has made it clear that any music which accompanies a film or other audiovisual production is a separate property which remains the property of the copyright owner and cannot be licensed by anyone except those whom he had so authorized. Therefore, the licence of the film distributor does not, and cannot, include a licence to publicly perform the music in the cinema and ECCO’s licence ought to have been sought and relevant royalties paid to ECCO. Secondly, it reaffirms ECCO’s claim to be the only body in the OECS clothed with the authority, by virtue of its agreements with foreign societies, to issue licences for any copyright protected music from anywhere in the world that is performed or communicated to the public in any manner or form.
The case was originally filed in 2010 and came to trial in February of 2017. Mr. Thaddeus Antoine appeared for ECCO while Mr Gregory Delzin SC and Ms Cleopatra McDonald appeared for the defendants. Justice Godfrey Smith presided. The judgement was given on 25th July 2017. Damages and costs are to be determined at a later date.
Oh so artists should be paid in love and admiration? Not money? Smh…
Slippery2 slave owners also thought slaves were greedy for wanting to be paid for their labour.
That is all what Marie is all about $$$ and more $
But you must admit that artists do have to be paid for their work, right? Gone are those days when artists don’t get paid, small as the payment may be.
The artists do get paid because their music is part of the movie’s sound track. ECCO is independent of the movie and sound track rights and would take to task anyone playing movies with a sound track or even you playing music or movies in a public place even if the artist is your guest or gave permission. This is total madness but how does it stop if the OECS passed legislation that the ECCO wrote!
When Marie makes money, musicians make money so i have absolutely no problem with that!