QUESTION: Read the following cases with references to issues arising in Intellectual

Property Law. Summarize the key issues and decisions of the courts. Each should not be more
than a quarter of a page. If you have any opinion on the decision you are welcome to share same.
(1) CFAO V ARCHIBOLD 1964, GLR 718
In this case, the respondent had successfully sued the appellants for an infringement of his
copyright in twelve musical works. He contended that he had transcribed his musical work in a
notebook; the lyrics in English, and the tunes in solfa notation. He also taught a band how to
play the songs for the purposes of performing and recording but the appellant recorded and sold
his songs without his permission. The appellant denied these.
On appeal, the main issue was whether the respondent’s transcription in his notebook constituted
a musical work within the copyright Act 911
It was held that since the respondent’s notebook contained just words or verses but no intelligible
musical notation to indicate melody, it could not be classified as a musical work and so he had
no copyright in the musical work. I am of the view that the decision of the court amounted to a
miscarriage of justice because it was only equitable that if the respondent had toiled to use his
ability and skills to put his ideas into music in a notebook, then that ability and skill needed to
have been safeguarded by the court as it was decided in ARCHIBOLD V CFAO 1966 where the
respondent was sued for conversion.
(2) ARCHIBOLD V CFAO 1966 GLR 79
The plaintiff was the composer of twelve songs which the defendant taped, published, and sold
without his consent. He therefore sued the defendants for G£ 2500 damages for conversion. The
defendants however argued on a preliminary objection that since the plaintiff could not claim any
copyright in the songs, the action was not maintainable in law and that the plaintiff having failed
in a previous action for an infringement of a copyright, he could not maintain an action for
conversion in respect of the same songs.
The court held for the plaintiff that the categories of tortious actions are not closed and so the
court will recognize a new course of action if the justice so required. A mere novelty could not
disrupt the course of justice under section 17(4) of the interpretation Act, 1960. The court again
held for the plaintiff that his ability and skill in writing down his ideas into musical works which
was a valuable source of wealth needed to be protected.
(3) RANSOME –KUTI V PHONOGRAM Ltd (FELA’S CASE)
The plaintiff created and composed a musical work entitled “Everything Scatter” in Nigeria and
by an agreement made between the plaintiff and phonogram Ltd (Nigeria), the plaintiff assigned
to phonogram Ltd. (Nigeria) and their successors in- tittle -and assigns, sole and exclusive right
to produce musical works for three years.
The plaintiff then alleged on an infringement of the copyright in hiswork and sued, requesting an
order to restrain defendant from further publishing and selling his musical works. The question
for the court to decide was whether or not copyright in the musical work vested in the plaintiff or

1
the Nigerian company but the court decided that it was vested in the Nigerian company
exclusively for the whole of Africa for three years and that the said company had every right to
license the defendant company under section 85 s 10 to reproduce the works in any part of
Africa.
4 MUSICIANS UNION OF GHANA V ABRAHAM AND ANOTHER 1982-1983 GLR 337
In this case, the first defendant was the managing director of T. Ltd. which owned the” Sweet
Talks Band” of which he was also the manager. Both defendants and the plaintiff agreed that the
latter was engaged to play for the “Sweet Talks Band”. But the first defendant entered into an
agreement with the second defendant, a recording company granting them the exclusive right to
record the performances of the band. The plaintiff received remuneration while the first
defendant received loyalties from the second defendant. The plaintiff however, sought an order
of intern injunction to restrain the second defendant from paying loyalties to the first defendant
and that there was to be no further release of their record. They also asked that all loyalties held
by the first defendant must be deposited at court.
Held refusing the application;
By section 9 of the copyright Act 1961(act 85) where the work was made in the course of the
author’’ employment, copyright became vested in the author’s employer. The plaintiff did not
own the copyright because they were mere employers.
(5) ELLIS V DONKOR 1993-1994 2 GLR 17
The plaintiff, a pianist, sued the defendant, a music publisher and his publishing company
respectively, for inter alia, damages for copyright infringement and perpetual injunction against
infringement on his copyright. He claimed he had created some piano music by substituting the
vocals in some five songs which had been composed and recorded. This, he called, an
adaptation which was different from musical work under section 1(a), 2(4) and 55 of copyright
law 1985 (PNDCl 110) and so the copyright in the album vested in him. Dismissing the
application, it was held that although the law under PNDCL 110 allowed for derivative work to
include adaptation, plaintiff could not lead evidence to show the similarity, or difference between
the adapted work and the original work. Also, the court held that his work did not sufficiently
amount to an independent creation which was original in character under PNDCL 110. Again, in
CFAO V ARCHIBOLD, the court held that there needed to be a manuscript of a written matter
with melody or harmony, or both before one can claim copyright in a musical work and so in this
case, the action must fail. In my view this was correct because the plaintiff did not show any
such evidence.
6 COPYRIGHT SOCIETY OF GHANA V AFREH 1999-2000 1GLR 135
Following a demand made by the Copyright Society of Ghana on members of the National
Drinking Bar Operation Association of Ghana to pay loyalties in respect of the public use of
music in drinking bars, NDBOA brought action on whether the playing of recorded musical
work on a “Bandrole” cassette they had purchased amounted to performance of work of another
for gain. But the court allowing the appeal held that under section 53 of the copyright law 1985

2
(PNDCL 110) the playing of musical work on radio cassette, or any other means at bars and
restaurants fell within the public performance of musical work. It was also a communication of
musical work under article 159 the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)
Performance and Phonograms Treaty which had been adopted by Ghana. The court also directed
the respondent to negotiate with the application as how much loyalties must be paid to
applicants.
(7) CCH CANADIAN LTD V LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA
In this case, the law society of Upper Canada provided single copies of legal articles, statutes,
and decisions to those who requested them. It also allowed visitors to its library to use
photocopies to make individual copies held by the library. But the plaintiff sued requesting for a
relief in the form of declaration of subsistence of copyright in the works being photocopied and
an injunction restraining same.
The court held that the law society did not infringe any copyright when single copies of decisions
of statutes, and regulations were made by the library, or its patrons using photocopies to do
similarly as it satisfied the conditions of fair dealing as it was used for private study and research
by those who made them.
(8) THE REPUBLIC V MINISTRY OF EDUCATION YOUTH AND SPORTS; EX
PARTE GHANA BOOK PUBLISHERS ASSOCIATION.
The applicant filed an ex parte application with the High Court to challenge the decision of the
Education Ministry and the Procurement Board to award a contract for the printing of basic
school books to the foreign publisher, Macmillan on the grounds of unfairness of opportunity
and lack of open procedure.
The High Court decided in favor of the applicant that Macmillan had been given an unfair
advantage over local producers and therefore revoked the contract.