Beckingham v. Hodgens
England and Wales Court of Appeal
[2003] EWCA Civ 143 (2003)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Robert Hodgens (defendant) was the leader of the Bluebells, a musical group. Hodgens hired professional fiddler Robert Beckingham (plaintiff), known professionally as Bobby Valentino, as a session musician for a recording session at which the Bluebells recorded their own version of the classic song “Young at Heart” (the song). Hodgens composed most of the music for the Bluebells’ version of the song, but Valentino wrote the violin part, including a memorable and catchy violin riff that was used multiple times throughout the Bluebells’ version of the song. Valentino subsequently claimed a share of royalties for the song, arguing that he was a joint author. Hodgens countered, arguing that Valentino could not be classified as joint author because Hodgens and Valentino did not have a joint intent to create a joint work at the time they composed and recorded the Bluebells’ version of the song. The trial court ruled for Valentino, holding that Valentino’s contribution, namely the violin part, was significant and original, and that Valentino’s contribution was not separate from Hodgens’s. As used in English copyright law, the phrase “not separate” means that two or more joint authors collaborated on a common design. The trial court also specifically rejected Hodgens’s argument that a joint intent to create a joint work was a requirement for a finding of joint authorship. Hodgens appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Parker, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.