Jimi Hendrix Rights (CPDA)
Retrospectively, rights in performance is given by the CPDA [ ] so a challenge arises when a performance takes place in a country which does not provide reciprocal protection before the commencement of the Act.[ ]
In the case for this week’s assignment, a number of performances were performed in Stockholm in 1969 by Jimi Hendrix and the Swedish broadcasting association made a recording of it and made a public broadcast of the event. In 1970 Hendrix died intestate and the later his entire estate was transferred to Experience Hendrix several years later There was no private law rights and remedies for exploitation at the time of these performance in Sweden relating to live performance, [ ] Retrospective rights are conferred by the CPDA and does also confer such rights to countries that may have qualified for it and at that time Sweden was not as it only became a member in 1985. Purple Haze Record Ltd being defendants in this case[ ] had recoded the performance and sold copies of them in the UK. Their (claimant’s) arguments in this case relied on section 182A and 182B of the CPDA[ ]and they claim that the performances could qualify and their rights had been infringed. The defendants disagreed on their claim that the claimants were depending of the court’s interpretation of the CPDA which approach backs the fact that Sweden was not a qualifying country at the time the performance took place.[ ] …show more content…
The Court of appeal dismissed this line of argument by carefully deliberated the directive, TRIPS, the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works and the Rome Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of and Broadcasting Organisations and painstakingly, thoroughly made attempts to reach and give an interpretation in line with the responsibilities and duties under the treaty which the United Kingdom had entered into.[
In the case for this week’s assignment, a number of performances were performed in Stockholm in 1969 by Jimi Hendrix and the Swedish broadcasting association made a recording of it and made a public broadcast of the event. In 1970 Hendrix died intestate and the later his entire estate was transferred to Experience Hendrix several years later There was no private law rights and remedies for exploitation at the time of these performance in Sweden relating to live performance, [ ] Retrospective rights are conferred by the CPDA and does also confer such rights to countries that may have qualified for it and at that time Sweden was not as it only became a member in 1985. Purple Haze Record Ltd being defendants in this case[ ] had recoded the performance and sold copies of them in the UK. Their (claimant’s) arguments in this case relied on section 182A and 182B of the CPDA[ ]and they claim that the performances could qualify and their rights had been infringed. The defendants disagreed on their claim that the claimants were depending of the court’s interpretation of the CPDA which approach backs the fact that Sweden was not a qualifying country at the time the performance took place.[ ] …show more content…
The Court of appeal dismissed this line of argument by carefully deliberated the directive, TRIPS, the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works and the Rome Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of and Broadcasting Organisations and painstakingly, thoroughly made attempts to reach and give an interpretation in line with the responsibilities and duties under the treaty which the United Kingdom had entered into.[