Singapore: Who Owns the Copyright?
31 May 2023
Singapore: Who Owns the Copyright?
When a client secures the services of a photography studio for a photo-taking session, who owns the copyright to the photographs taken during that session? The Appellate Division of the Singapore High Court considered this question in the present appeal.
GHM was a hotel management company who secured the services of Wave, a photography studio, to photograph GHM’s hotels. This appeal was brought by GHM against the finding of the lower court that A) it had infringed Wave’s copyright by circulating photographs without Wave’s permission; and B) award of costs on indemnity basis.
High Court’s decision in respect of A
Despite there being no formal written contract of service between the parties, Wave had expressly stipulated in its production estimates that Wave held the copyright in the photographs. Wave commenced the proceedings in the lower court when it found out that the photographs were circulating online and in GHM’s publications. The lower court held that GHM accepted Wave’s reservation of the copyright in the hotel photographs, and that GHM infringed upon Wave’s copyright by circulating the photographs.
The High Court held that under the Copyright Act in force at the time – which has since been repealed – the starting position for commissioned works that the “author” owned the copyright, could be displaced if a client entered into a legally binding contract. However, the High Court Judge held that the parties here had expressly contractually stipulated for the copyright over the photographs to vest in Wave through a “reservation clause” in Wave’s production estimates. Given that there was no formal contract as between the parties, the production estimates constituted an offer which would become a binding agreement once accepted. The reservation clause thus had a binding effect upon acceptance.
The High Court rejected GHM’s attempts to make new submissions interpreting the reservation clause, and deemed them an abuse of process. The High Court held that, based on GHM’s earlier evidence, GHM only took issue with how it was not made aware of the reservation clause. GHM never once disputed the reservation clause’s meaning throughout the parties’ working relationship.
The High Court thus rejected GHM’s arguments that, as the commissioner of the photographs, it had an implied license to place the photographs in its publications and dismissed the appeal accordingly.
High Court’s decision in respect of B
Wave had earlier made an offer to settle, subject to parties agreeing to terms of a draft Consent Judgment, including GHM agreeing to pay standard costs of proceedings to Wave as at the date of acceptance of the offer to settle. When the lower court awarded costs to Wave on indemnity basis, GHM appealed.
The High Court held that the offer to settle was a serious and genuine offer and remained valid as it had neither an expiry date, nor had been withdrawn. Further, the lower court judgment was indeed less favourable than the terms of the offer to settle. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal and awarded costs on a standard basis instead.
About the author
Law firms
