SCHOOL OF LAW

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW

Authorship in © Law
 Authorship

Does a monkey have copyright in its

selfie?
 Authorship
• The diversity of copyright works makes it
difficult to have an encompassing definition of
a copyright author.

• The Berne Convention for the Protection of

Literary and Artistic Works largely leaves the
issue of copyright authorship to member
states to determine.
 Authorship
Sec. 76 of Act 690:
“author” = creator.
“owner” = to whom the copyright belongs.
Presumption of authorship (sec. 40 (1)): creates a
presumption of authorship to a copyrighted work
as soon as the work comes into being. “Romantic
Author”
 Authorship

Nature of authorship may defer depending on the

copyright work in question.
Sec. 76 : “…. in the case of cinematographic (audio-
visual) work or sound recording, (author) means the
person by whom the arrangements for the making of the
work or recording is undertaken.”
 Authorship

Joint Authorship - Sec. 76 : “…. the individual

contributions are indistinguishable from each
other .”

Joseph Abio Nartey v Rev. Addo (2011) CA - that

discussing joint authorship is about collaboration, contribution,
and cooperation between authors.
 Authorship
Joseph Abio Nartey v Rev. Addo (2011) CA - the
Court of Appeal quoted David Bainbridge that to determine whether a contribution
qualifies for joint authorship or not, ‘…
it must (not just) be a significant
contribution to the creation or development of the work. It is
rather a matter of looking at the work’s creation process and
identifying the nature of the contribution. It must be a
contribution that relates to bringing about the substance of
copyright rather than the creation of the subject matter of the
copyright. In other words, the joint author must have contributed
in terms of the skills and judgment required to endow copyright
on the subject matter.’ a.k.a contributed to originality?
 Authorship
Justice Tokornoo in Paul Oliver v. Boateng gave principles to guide
determining joint authorship of copyrighted works:
‘in order to satisfy a joint author, a person claiming joint
authorship should satisfy three questions.
(1) Did each claimant contribute directly to the creation of the work?

(2) Was there a mutual intention of two (or more) parties to join author the
work?

(3) Is their individual work so woven into a whole that the work would lack the
current identity if the person’s contribution is taken out?
 Authorship
Relevance of authorship to protection: For any work to be
protected under Act 690, it must:
• have been created by a citizen or a person who is ordinarily
resident in Ghana.
• be first published in Ghana, but where a work created by a
Ghanaian is first published outside Ghana, it ought to be
subsequently published in Ghana within 30 days of its first
publication outside Ghana.
• Ghana’s copyright law protects works for which it has an
obligation under an international treaty to grant protection.
 Authorship/ownership?
Employed and Commissioned Authors:

• works created by employees = employer/commissioner

(generally) has copyright economic rights

Sec. 7, Act 690 – when is something created “in the course of

employment”?
 Authorship/ownership?

Noah v Shuba (A Guide to Hygienic Skin Piercing, written by the claimant, Dr

Noah) - when Dr. Noah wrote the guide, he was employed as a consultant
epidemiologist at the Public Health Laboratory Service. There was no clear answer to
whether Dr Noah wrote the guide during his employment. Dr. Noah discussed his work
with colleagues, used the Public Health Laboratory Service Library services, and had
the manuscript typed up by his secretary. As Dr. Noah wrote the draft at home in the
evenings and at weekends, Mummery J concluded that the guide had not been written
in the course of Dr Noah’s employment.
 Authorship/ownership?

Robin Ray V Classic FM, 1998 FSR 622 (Consultant not an employee)
Lightman J found that an expert in music engaged by a radio station to catalogue its
musical recordings had no copyright in the catalogues produced. While the terms of his
consultancy were silent as to copyright, the court held that the expert had granted an
implied license to the radio station to do certain things with catalogues.
 Authorship/ownership?

Musicians Union v Abraham 1982-83) GLR 337

The court held inter alia that where a work was done in the course of the
author’s employment, the copyright became vested in the author’s employer.
The Plaintiffs, who were mere employees of either the first defendant or Talk
of the Town Ltd, had no right assigned to them under the agreement between
the defendants; thus, they could not be owners of the copyrights of the work so
as to control its release. That is to say, there was not agreement to the contrary
that copyright will automatically vest in an employer.
 Authorship/ownership?

George Bosompim v TV3 (Barber and the Shoe Shine Boy (BNSB))
The court in the case had to decide ‘in the course of employment’ to determine
copyright authorship and ownership in works created by employees.

The court opined that the first Plaintiff though authored (together with others) was not
the copyright owner of BNSB.

The second plaintiff also claimed copyright over the soundtrack in BNSB. He asserted
that they, the defendants, have, without his consent, used his soundtrack in BNSB from
2013 and have also removed his name from authorial credits in BNSB. The court held
for 2nd Plaintiff.
 Authorship/ownership?
What to consider then:

• Is the created work a natural consequence or duty of the

author in his job description?

• Did the author substantially invest any external logistics or

support in creating the work?

• Was there any agreement between the employee and the

employer on who retains the copyright?
RIGHTS CONFERRED BY ©