Obtaining Effective Remedies for Copyright Infringement in Cameroon: Identifying Contemporary Legal Challenges
Keywords:
Cameroon,Law,Remedies,Infringed,CommercialAbstract
This paper is based on the assumption that copyright infringement the world over and in Cameroon particularly is alarming and there is a need for the violators of copyrighted works to be sanctioned. With this, the paper set to determine the readily available remedies the copyright owner can seek following the infringement of a copyrighted work. The paper established that, the underlying idea behind copyright protection is to award fruits of labour to the person who has work and produced the copyrighted works based on originality and to prevent economic exploitation of the work of a creator by third parties. In keeping with this objective, the 2000 Copyright and Neighboring Rights law of Cameroon provides more specifically for penal sanction for the offence of infringement of copyright. However, some remedies are available under case law and the application of case law. It is recommended that, a cursory look of the sanctioned provided by the Cameroonian law of copyright should be given as it contained only criminal sanctions.
References
1. Trunko TD. Remedies for Copyright Infringement: Respecting the First Amendment . Columbia Law Review. 1989, Vol. 89, No. 8, pp. 1940-1965.
2. Article 2 of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works on September 21, 1964.
3. Praful D. Copyright Infringement: Effectiveness of Injunction as a Remedy . Journal of Intellectual Property Rights Law, 2019, Volume, 2, Issue 1, pp. 13-23.
4. Nah Tetinwe A. Copying for Privat e Use as a Safety Valve for Copyright Infringement under the Cameroon Copyright Law. Journal of Intellectual Property Rights Law. 2018, Volume, 1, Issue 2, pp. 13-25.
5. Joseph P. Liu. Copyright Law’s Theory of the Consumer, 44 B.C. L. Rev. 397, 398–99 (2003)
6. Conversion damages were available under the copyright Act 1956 but appear to be no longer available on the basis that they are not specifically mentioned in the 1988 Act though the use of the phrase or otherwise after listing the civil remedies available for copyright infringement in s 96(2) may have preserved this remedy. Even so, it is unlikely that a court would award conversion damages given the availability of additional damages.
7. See White -Smith Music Publishing Co. v. Apollo Co., 2 09 U.S. 1, 19 (1908) (Holmes, J., concurring).
8. Thus, the 2000 Copyright and Neighboring Rights law of Cameroon provides more specifically for penal sanction for the offence of infringement of copyright.
9. Section 80 of the 2000 Copyright and Neighbouring Right Law of Cameroon.
10. Ibid, section 81.
11. Ibid, section 82.
12. Ibid, article 85.
13. (1987) I Ch 38.
14. Apart from the criminal offences, infringement of copyrights is in the nature of a tort.
15. [1994] FSR 475.
16. Per Lord Wright in Sunderland Publishing Co Ltd v Caxion Publishing Co Ltd [1936] 1 All ER 177 at 180.
17. This was the decision arrived at by the court in the case of Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994] 2 AC 224.
18. See, for example, Redwood Music v Chappell [1982] RPC 109.
19. See the case of USP plc v London General Holding Ltd [2006] FSR 63 per L8 73 LJ at para 43.
20. [2002] FSR 868.
21. See the case of Jones v London Borough of Tower Hamlets [2001] RPC 407. Damages in that case were assessed on that basis, by consent of the parties, at £1,000.
22. It is wrong to take account of non-infringing uses such as where mere ideas are taken.
23. Injunctions are classified as prohibitory injunctions and mandatory injunctions: the latter orders the person to whom is addressed to carry out some act, such as demolishing a dangerous wall.
24. The doctrine of laches, delay defeats equity is relevant here.
25. Bainbridge, David I. (2007) Intellectual Property, 6 th Edition, Edinburg Gate, England, Longman, P.171.
26. E. P. Skone James et al., Copyright 11-35
27. [1975] AC 396.
28. See the case of Potton Ltd v Yorkclose Ltd [1990] FSR 11 per Millett J.
29. See the case of Welnerworld Ltd v Vision Video Ltd [1998| FSR 832. Although section 97(1) states that damages are not available if the defendant did not know and had no reason to believe that copyright subsisted in the work infringed, this is without prejudice to any other remedy.
30. They may be so described though technically they are not punitive although they may have a punitive clement about them.
31. Section 97(2) of the English Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
32. [1995] PSR 818.
33. [1996] FSR 36.
34. [1997] FSR 828, Affirmed, House of Lords; [1998] FSR 345.
35. Bainbridge, David I. (2007) Intellectual Property, 6 th Edition, Edinburg Gate, England, Longman, P.175.
36. [1979] RPC 127. In Ravenscroft v Herbert [1980| RPC 193, Brightman J described flagrancy; thus, ‘…. in my view Implies the existence of scandalous conduct, deceit and such like; it includes deliberate and calculate] copyright infringements’.
37. [1988] RPC71. The Court of Appeal reduced the interest rate from 15 per cent to 10 per cent over seven years.
38. See the case of Cantor Filzgerald International v Tradition (UK) Ltd [2000] RPC 95.
39. See the case of Fraser Woodward Ltd V British Broadcasting Corp. (2005) FSR 762.
40. [2005) FSR 891.
41. [1960) 1 WLR 1072.
42. The order ii not based upon any notion that the property in tile copies has passed to, the claimants: see Clappall 6 Co Ltd. v Columbia Graphophone Co [1914] 2 Ch 745 at 756 per Swiufcn Bad/ LJ.
43. See section 38 of the Limitations Act 1980. In Scotland, disability means legal disability within the meaning of the prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 and, in Northern Ireland, it has the same meaning as in the Statute of Limitations (Northern Ireland) 1958.
44. Section 114(5) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
45. Conversion damages were specifically provided for by section 18 of the Copyright Act 1956. Section 18 did not apply after commencement of the 1988 Act unless the proceedings began before Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988 Sch 1, para 31(2). Conservation damages could result in a windfall for the claimant, for example if the subject matter of the claimant ’s right was incorporated in some large materials or item
46. A judge would sure ly point to the fact that if Parliament intended to retain conversion damages for copyright infringement it would have mention them expressly. The use of or otherwise might point to other remedies such as interim remedies or for example, a declaration.
47. Nah Tetinwe A. Copying for Private Use as a Safety Valve for Copyright Infringement under the Cameroon Copyright Law. Journal of Intellectual Property Rights Law, 2018;1(2):13-25.
48. Sections 13 -17 of Decree No. 2001/956/PM of November 1, 2001 implementing Law No. 2000/11 of December 19, 2000 on Copyright and Neighboring Rights.
49. Peter K. Yu, Intellectual Property and Information Wealth: Copyright and related rights, Greenwood Publishing Group, ISBN 978-0-275-98883-8, 2007, P. 346.
50. Section 5 and 6 of the 2000 Copyright and Neighboring Rights Law.
51. Chapdelaine P. The Ambiguous Nature of Copyright Users ’ Rights. Intellectual Property Journal, 2013, 26: 1., pp. 28-30.
52. Nah Tetinwe A. (2018), op. cit.
