[2025] EWHC 1954 (IPEC)

It was common ground that the first Venom logo (“Venom Logo 1”) was the first logo used by the band and appeared on its first album, Welcome to Hell, in 1981. There was no dispute as to the subsistence of copyright in Venom Logo 1, but both Mr Lant and Mr Bray claimed ownership of the copyright.

Mr Lant said that soon after he joined the band, he began to work on creating some artwork for it. He said that he designed Venom Logo 1 in late 1979 or early 1980, based on some stylised drawings he had done for a logo for a band he had played in before joining Venom. However, Mr Bray’s case was that he had designed Venom Logo 1. He said that in early 1979 – before Mr Lant joined the band - he painted the logo onto canvas to use as a “drum riser,” that is, to cover the supports for the platform on which the drummer sits during a performance.

The next work relied on by Mr Lant was a revamped version of Venom Logo 1, identified as “Venom Logo 2,” which he said he designed in around 1980 or 1981. Mr Bray did not claim authorship of Venom Logo 2. The Defendants pleaded that it was created by Mr Lant together with an employee of the band's record company, Neat Records, a lady called Magda. In Mr Bray's first witness statement he simply described Magda as having created the layout for the album cover, and the Defendants later sensibly accepted that Mr Lant had created the artwork. They maintained their pleaded case that Venom Logo 2 was simply a derivative work of Venom Logo 1, lacking sufficient originality to gain protection as a copyright work, but accepted that if the work merited copyright protection, it belonged to Mr Lant.

Mr Lant said that at about the same time, when working on the design of the sleeve for the album Black Metal, he decided to draw a demonic face of Lucifer. This is what became the third work in issue, “Goat Head Lucifer.” Mr Bray accepted that Mr Lant produced it but said that it was based closely upon a painting by Austin Osman Spare, so that again it did not have sufficient originality to be protected as a copyright work.

Mr Lant says that he designed the fourth work, the “Sigil of Baphomet” in late 1979. He accepted that this was an adaptation of an 1897 design by the occultist Stanislas de Guaita. He said that it had been used initially on a large drape used onstage by the band and appeared on the sleeve of the album Welcome to Hell, and the single In League with Satan in 1981. The Defendants accepted that this work was an adaptation of the Guaita design but said that it was Mr Bray who had produced it, again before Mr Lant joined the band.

The fifth work is the "Legions Logo." Both Mr Lant and Mr Bray said that they had designed it.

The last of the works claimed by Mr Lant is “At War with Satan” a design for the band's third album. Again, both Mr Land and Mr Bray claimed to have designed this.

The works which are introduced in the Counterclaim are two photographs (“the Photographs”), both of which were said in the Defence and Counterclaim to have been taken by Mr Bray. In the Defendants' response to a Part 18 request and in Mr Bray's witness statement, the claim that he was the photographer was dropped. Instead, Mr Bray said that the first Photograph was taken at his direction and on his camera, but the photographer was his flatmate Peter Moore (known as “Ferret”), and the second Photograph was taken by a photographer, Mr Richard Nichol. Mr Bray said it was his concept and that he had paid Mr Nichol to take it.

The first of the Photographs dates from 1982 and was used on the cover of a single, Bloodlust. It shows three faces, and I was told that these were Mr Lant, Mr Bray and Mr Dunn. The second Photograph shows the rather ghostly figures of two children who apparently were Mr Bray's son and Mr Nichol's daughter. It was used on the album cover of Possessed.

Mr Lant’s Defence to the Counterclaim was to deny that Mr Bray owned the copyright in either of the Photographs. He said that Neat Records had commissioned them and owned the copyright in them. He acquired and has retained the negatives of the Photographs, and claimed to have acquired the copyright from Neat Records, although no written assignment was pleaded or produced and no claim was made by him in relation to the Defendants’ use of the Photographs.

There was no real dispute that each side had produced merchandise using some of the works claimed by the other and had copied at least a substantial part of those works. Neither side claimed that such use was authorised by the other. In the circumstances, any unauthorised use of the other’s copyright works would have given rise to acts of infringement, for example by offering for sale and selling in the United Kingdom. Images of the allegedly infringing merchandise were annexed to each side’s statements of case, but were rather small and indistinct, so detailed findings as to what artwork was used on any particular item will need to await further steps in the proceedings.