Nichols
v Amalgamated Press (1908) Macg Cop Cas (1905-10) 2 166 (“Nichols”). The Court of Appeal held that the assignment by a composer to a music publisher of the copyright in songs involved no implied obligation on the publisher to publish the songs. In that case, the only payment to the composer would arise from publishing royalties if the compositions were published. The Court held (at page 168) that “The defendant company had the right to determine whether the songs should be published or not, and if published, in what form and how advertised.”58.
- Introduction
- Procedural history
- The applications
- The SJ Application
- Jameel v Dow Jones and Co
- The Amendment Application
- Conduct of the hearing
- Relevant factual background
- Term
- RELEASE COMMITMENT
- The legal test for permission to amend
- Quah Su-Ling v Goldman Sachs International
- The proposed amendments for which permission is sought
- Express or implied duty to exploit/duty of good faith
- Proposed reliance on clauses 4.3 and 4.4 of 2001 Agreement
- Submissions / assessment
- Express or implied duty to exploit/duty of good faith – inconsistency of pleadings – submissions
- Express or implied duty to exploit/duty of good faith – inconsistency of pleadings – assessment
- Express or implied duty to exploit/duty of good faith – substance – submissions
- Panayiotou
- Nichols
- Schroeder
- John v James
- Yam Seng Pte Ltd v International Trade Corp Ltd
- Express or implied duty to exploit/duty of good faith – assessment
- Express or implied duty to exploit/duty of good faith – consequences of breach – submissions
- Copinger and Skone-James on Copyright
- Crosstown Music Co LLC v Rive Droite Music Ltd & ors
- Crosstown
- Express or implied duty to exploit/duty of good faith – consequences of breach – assessment
- Sullivan