The result of the well-publicised 'Whiter Shade of Pale' case was not one which will make either side 'turn cartwheels across the floor'. In essence, the claim was that Matthew Fisher, a former organist with Procol Harum, should be treated as a co-writer of the 1967 million-selling smash hit featuring his distinctive organ work.
The legal arguments were lengthy and the defence rested chiefly on two points. The first was that Mr Fisher's contribution was not such that warranted him being given co-writer status. The second rested on the fact that Mr Fisher had failed to assert his claim for nearly 40 years and that it would be unjust for rights which had been left unclaimed for such a long period to be asserted after such a long delay. Interestingly, Mr Fisher left the band (which he subsequently rejoined and left again) in 1969 in exchange for being released from his share of the band's tour debts.
In the view of the judge, Mr Justice Blackburne, Mr Fisher's contribution to the recording was sufficient to warrant his being credited as one of the composers of the music. This, ruled the judge, entitled him to a 40 per cent share in the musical copyright. However, the judge ruled that there was 'no injustice to Mr Fisher in the fact that the defendants have received all of the royalties prior to receiving the letters before action'. Since his claim was issued on 31 May 2005, Mr Fisher is entitled to a share in the royalties from 'Whiter Shade of Pale' only from that date.
In many ways, this case has raised more interesting points than it has settled. Firstly, to allow a claim brought so long after the event is in itself somewhat surprising. However, the recording still generates substantial royalties, so Mr Fisher should receive a reasonable sum until the copyright expires in 2017 or thereabouts. It was stated in evidence that an offer was made to Mr Fisher to settle his claim without going to court. If the offer made by the defendants to settle Mr Fisher's claim was more than the value of the royalties he will receive, he could yet find that his victory has little value.
It is also not clear how the legal costs are to be met. As the trial lasted more than five days, these will be very substantial indeed. Lastly, it seems unlikely that either side will appeal against the judgment as the risk of incurring additional costs is likely to outweigh the extra benefit that may be gained.
What is most obvious, however, is that Mr Fisher would have been in a better position had he made his claim earlier. In similar circumstances, always take advice as soon as possible and commence action sooner rather than later.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
