Copyright in Ghana case law.

Copyright law endeavours to strike a balance between protecting the economic rights of owners of copyright and the need to encourage the free exchange and dissemination of ideas which is vital for the development and progress of any society.

PEARSON EDUCATION LIMITED vs. MORGAN ADZEI Suit No. CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/17/2010 [2026] SLR (SC) 32 · Supreme Court · 2011 · DATE-BAH JSC

Thus, if a novel were couched in different vocabulary, reproducing all its ideas, thoughts, plots and action, but without replicating any of its original language or style, I do not consider that this would come within the ambit of the exclusion in section 2, although there would have been a copying of only its ideas and not its expression. In other words, the copying of the detailed substance of a literary work, without its particular linguistic or other form of expression, can constitute an infringement of copyright. In my view, what is intended to be included in section 2 are general ideas, concepts, procedures, and methods only, and not a detailed pattern of ideas. This is because of the reason earlier stated, namely that that detailed pattern can be regarded as constituting expression. The distinction between a general idea and a detailed sequence of ideas is therefore highly significant in this context.

PEARSON EDUCATION LIMITED vs. MORGAN ADZEI Suit No. CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/17/2010 [2026] SLR (SC) 32 · Supreme Court · 2011 · DATE-BAH JSC

I do not think it accords with propriety for a person to copy the tune of another’s song and then set it to slightly different lyrics and claim that there has not been any violation of that other person’s work.

REX OWUSU MARFO V. JOY INDUSTRIES LTD HI/ 34/ 2020 [2021] SLR (CA) 1 · Court of Appeal · 2021 · ANTHONY OPPONG JA

It therefore bears emphasis that once a case of infringement of copyright is established, the right owner is entitled to damages per se, without proof of damages. That is not to say that if the right owner has suffered any particular special damage, he cannot sue for special damages in which case the law, both substantive and procedural, would require him to particularize and prove same specifically. The emphasis is that proof of damages in the case of infringement of copyright is not a requirement.

REX OWUSU MARFO V. JOY INDUSTRIES LTD HI/ 34/ 2020 [2021] SLR (CA) 1 · Court of Appeal · 2021 · ANTHONY OPPONG JA

It has been considered an axiom of copyright law, as applied in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and many other jurisdictions, that copyright protects the expression of an idea, rather than the idea itself.

PEARSON EDUCATION LIMITED vs. MORGAN ADZEI Suit No. CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/17/2010 [2026] SLR (SC) 32 · Supreme Court · 2011 · DATE-BAH JSC

What is clear from section 2 of the Copyright Act 2005 is that “ideas, concepts, procedures, methods or other things of a similar nature” cannot be the subject of copyright protection. This section needs to be interpreted for the purposes of this case.

PEARSON EDUCATION LIMITED vs. MORGAN ADZEI Suit No. CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/17/2010 [2026] SLR (SC) 32 · Supreme Court · 2011 · DATE-BAH JSC

If one takes a detached look at this issue from the point of view of policy, it cannot be desirable or practical that, each time a novel is being subjected to literary criticism or discussion and the general idea it embodies is summarised, the author of the criticism has to seek the leave of the author of the novel before he or she can undertake such summary. That would stultify literary criticism and the study of literature. Accordingly, it is important that the concept of “general idea” outlined above is not defined or calibrated too narrowly. To this end, it is legitimate to interpret purposively section 2 of the Copyright Act 2005 to take account of the policy consideration identified above.

PEARSON EDUCATION LIMITED vs. MORGAN ADZEI Suit No. CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/17/2010 [2026] SLR (SC) 32 · Supreme Court · 2011 · DATE-BAH JSC

I must say right from the onset that it is not relevant in a copyright claim to show how much money a right owner had earned from his work. The fact that a right owner had not made money from a particular work does not mean anyone can violate his copyright in that work. In fact, whether or not the Respondent was ever paid any royalties any time his song or the songs on his album were played cannot be a determining factor to consider as far as the infringement of his copyright was concerned. Similarly, whether or not the Respondent made sales from the song or the album cannot be a factor to consider in determining the violation of his copyright.

REX OWUSU MARFO V. JOY INDUSTRIES LTD HI/ 34/ 2020 [2021] SLR (CA) 1 · Court of Appeal · 2021 · ANTHONY OPPONG JA

From the principle of the cases above-referred to, and indeed the clear terms of the two English Copyright Acts (supra) it seems plain beyond argument, doubt or dispute, that copyright implies the subsistence of a manuscript of written matter, and in the case of a musical composition or musical work, the subsistence of a manuscript of an air, tune, harmony, melody, or music; or, to borrow the definition of “musical work” from section 3 the Musical (Summary Proceedings) Copyright Act, 1902,20 which was partially repealed by the Copyright Act, 1911 (supra) without the said definition being affected, “Musical work means any combination of melody and harmony, or either of them, printed, reduced to writing, or otherwise graphically produced or reproduced.

C.F.A.O. v. ARCHIBOLD [1964] GLR 718 [1964] SLR (SC) 5 · Supreme Court · 1964 · ADUMUA-BOSSMAN JSC

In my considered view, the brief summary of the novel of 106 pages represents only the essence or the general idea underlying the novel. It does not constitute such a detailed pattern of its ideas that that pattern is in itself an expression of the ideas embodied in the novel. To my mind, therefore, the general idea summarised in Gateway comes within the exclusion in section 2 of the Copyright Act 2005 and is outside the zone of protection. Therefore the reproduction of that general idea in Gateway cannot constitute an infringement of copyright.

PEARSON EDUCATION LIMITED vs. MORGAN ADZEI Suit No. CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/17/2010 [2026] SLR (SC) 32 · Supreme Court · 2011 · DATE-BAH JSC