## Facts

- In February 1984, a band recorded a version of *Young at Heart* and hired a professional fiddle player as a session musician for a one-off fee of £75.
- The session musician created the violin part used in the recording, including a distinctive repeating riff.
- The trial court found the violin part was original, significant, and integrated into a single musical work with the rest of the track rather than being a separate, severable work.
- The recording achieved commercial success in 1984; the musician did not immediately pursue an ownership claim.
- In 1993, after renewed commercial exploitation, the musician asserted a claim to joint ownership and royalties; the trial court found the claim was communicated in 1993.
- The trial court held the musician was a joint author and 50% joint owner, found an implied gratuitous licence to exploit the work had been granted in 1984, and found the licence was revoked in March 1993, entitling the musician to damages or an account of profits for infringements after a stated date.

## Issues

1. Whether the session musician qualified as a joint author of the musical work under Copyright Act 1956 § 11(3), including whether joint authorship required a common intention to create a joint work.
2. Whether an implied gratuitous licence to exploit the work arose from the session engagement and, if so, whether it could be revoked and was revoked in 1993.
3. Whether the musician was estopped, on unconscionability grounds, from asserting joint authorship and revoking the licence due to earlier acquiescence and industry practice.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s determination that the musician was a joint author and 50% joint owner of the copyright in the musical work embodied in the recorded version.
- The court rejected a legal requirement of an express or common “joint intent” as a prerequisite to joint authorship where the evidence showed collaboration producing a single, merged work.
- The court upheld the finding that an implied gratuitous licence arose in 1984 from the circumstances of the session engagement and that the licence was revocable and had been revoked in 1993.
- The court rejected estoppel, holding the evidence did not show detrimentally relied-upon conduct making it unconscionable for the musician to enforce rights after asserting the claim in 1993.

## Legal Principles

- A session musician may be a joint author where the musician contributes original musical expression that is integrated into a single work produced by collaboration.
- For joint authorship under Copyright Act 1956 § 11(3), the focus is whether the work results from collaboration and the contributions are not distinct because they are merged into one work, not whether there was an express shared intention to create joint authorship.
- An implied gratuitous licence to exploit a copyrighted work may be inferred from circumstances (e.g., a paid session engagement contemplating commercial release).
- A gratuitous implied licence is not necessarily irrevocable; it may be revoked, and continued exploitation after revocation may constitute infringement.
- Estoppel requires proof of detrimental reliance and unconscionability; delay, acquiescence, or industry custom alone is insufficient.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal affirmed that an original, integrated contribution by a session musician can confer joint authorship and equal ownership, that an implied gratuitous licence to exploit the work may arise yet remain revocable, and that estoppel will not bar enforcement absent clear detrimental reliance making enforcement unconscionable.


Beckingham v. Hodgens, [2003] EWCA Civ 143 (Eng. & Wales Ct. App. 2003)