Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
April 4, 2023
Kweku T. Ackaah-Boafo, J.A [Sitting as Additional High Court Judge] i. Introduction:
[1] The desire of the Plaintiff, a lawyer to contribute to the study of the Law of Evidence in Ghana by publishing a book based on the Evidence Act, NRCD 323, 1975, unintentionally, no doubt, is now making a contribution to the development of commercial litigation law in the field of intellectual property. What has happened is that the learned colleague he contacted (1st Defendant) to collaborate with him as co-author is now engaged in battle for
the heart and soul of the book conceived and ready to be birthed. The 1st Defendant in fact claims exclusive paternity of the book. The Plaintiff on the other hand, conceptualizes the book to be a joint effort. The manner in which their dispute is to be resolved therefore is the subject matter of this litigation, and that is what is now before this Court.
[2] Farwell, J in the old case of Donoghue v. Allied Newspaper Ltd. [1935) Ch. 106 stated that "there is no ownership in ideas, but copyright provide a property interest to the person who puts the idea into written firm". The purpose of copyright law, therefore, is not to protect the ideas or opinions expressed by the creator, but rather it is to protect the various means and firms by which the ideas are communicated. To that extent, it is my opinion that copyright law is a matter of public policy to ensure that the work and ideas of individuals are protected.
[3] The Canadian Supreme Court case of Théberge v. Galerie d'Art au retit Champlain Inc., 2002 SCC 34 held that copyright is a creature of an Act, being the Copyright Act and it is a "balance between, on the one hand, promoting the public interest in the encouragement and dissemination of works of the arts and intellect and, on the other hand, ensuring that the creator of a work obtains a just reward and preventing others from appropriating the just reward". In effect, by copyright right laws, innovation and creativity are to be protected in our competitive world.
[4] The Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant are both lawyers and are this before this Court over who has the ownership and copyright of a book titled "Annotated Evidence Law of Ghana". While it is not disputed that the Plaintiff is the one who the idea and invited the 1st Defendant to join him to actualize the dream, it is the case of the 1st Defendant that the Plaintiff lacks intellectual ability to write a as an author. According to him he "re-wrote
AI Generated Summary
This High Court judgment by Ackaah-Boafo, J.A (sitting as Additional High Court Judge) resolves a dispute between lawyers Fred Kusim Awindaogo and Martin Kpebu over authorship and copyright of a proposed text, the Annotated Evidence Act of Ghana. Awindaogo conceived the idea in 2016, engaged research assistants, and later invited Kpebu; both executed an Author Collaboration Agreement on January 18, 2018, providing for joint copyright, equal proceeds, and the order of names. Work spanned sections 1–181 of NRCD 323, with contributions merged. The court held the agreement contemplated indistinguishable joint authorship and rejected Kpebu’s claim of termination and sole authorship, finding no proof of termination and that re‑briefing/editing did not convert him to sole author. The court found Kpebu’s unilateral attempts to reverse author order and profit‑sharing, and his “shredding” of Plaintiff’s work, unfair and in bad faith. It granted declaratory and injunctive relief, ordered joint publication (or solo publication by Awindaogo if Kpebu refuses), awarded nominal damages (GHC10,000) and costs against both Defendants.