The case was fought
between programmer Stephen Landamore and the man who commissioned
the software, Laurence Wrenn. The High Court ruled that though
there was an implied licence for Wrenn to use Landamore's material,
it stopped short of a full assignment of copyright to Wrenn.
Wrenn ran a business in which he produced interfaces for cars
and audio equipment, and hired Landamore to produce interfaces
which he sold. There was no agreement at the time regarding the
ownership of copyright in the works.
In the absence of agreement, the law in the UK says that
copyright rests with the author, although when material is
commissioned there is an implied licence or even, in some cases, an
implied transfer of copyright to the commissioner.
As their business progressed, Landamore and Wrenn fell out over
the rights to the software. They formed a company in which they
each held a 50% stake, but they still ended up in a court dispute
about rights to the software that was created before the company
was formed.
Wrenn argued that his hiring of Landamore should have implied an
assignment of the copyright in the works from him to Wrenn.
Landamore said that only a non-exclusive licence should have been
implied, though his lawyers later accepted that it should be an
exclusive licence.
Robert Englehart QC, sitting as a deputy judge of the Chancery
Division of the High Court, said that an implied exclusive licence
did exist, but that Wrenn was not entitled to an assignment of
copyright to him.
He used as his basis a previous judgment in a case involving
Robin Ray and Classic FM in which the trial judge said that the
lightest remedy in such cases should be used, meaning that if the
need to imply licence terms could involve either a licence or a
transfer of copyright, courts should opt for a licence.
The two parties also clashed over royalty payments. Landamore
claimed that he had been promised a royalty payment for every unit
sold by Wrenn which used his technology. Wrenn admitted in court
that he promised a results-based payment but said that he was
"uncomfortable" with the word royalty.
Englehart said that "when giving evidence Mr Wrenn came across
as a short tempered person very dismissive of anyone who did not
say or do as he wished".
"Where there was a disagreement in evidence between Mr Wrenn and
Mr Landamore and the documents did not shed much light on a matter,
I should say that I formed the view that in general Mr Landamore
was a more reliable witness than Mr Wrenn," said Englehart.
He awarded the royalties that Landamore claimed of £45,324.24,
plus interest.
Disclaimer: We hope you find OUT-LAW’s content useful. It’s prepared by the lawyers at Pinsent Masons. Please remember, though, that it’s intended as general information only. It’s not legal advice. If that’s what you’re seeking, please
contact us. See also: our
full disclaimer
