Case of the Week: George Bosompem and Nii Lante Kumu – Bruce v TV3 Network Ltd and Evans Kumi Wodewor

High Court, Suit No. IPR/11/2013 | Judgment delivered on 31 October 2016

Introduction:

Who owns the copyright in a television series created during employment – the individual who contributed creatively, or the employer who produced and financed it?

And can a television network use a musical soundtrack without the consent of its composer?

This case examined the principles of copyright ownership under Ghanaian law, particularly in relation to works created in the course of employment and commissioned works.

Facts:

The 1st Plaintiff, George Bosompim, was an employee of Gama Film Company Limited. During his employment, the television series “Barber and the Shoeshine Boy (BNS)” was conceived and produced. The series was aired on TV3 Network Limited (the 1st Defendant).

According to the 1st Plaintiff, he created the concept, characters, and overall structure of the series and was therefore the copyright owner. He claimed that after Gama was divested in 2013, TV3 terminated arrangements with him and engaged the 2nd Defendant, Evans Kumi Wadewor, to continue production without acknowledging his authorship.

The 2nd Plaintiff, Nii Lante Kumi-Bruce, claimed ownership of the musical soundtrack used as the signature tune for the series. He alleged that the Defendants removed his name from the credits and continued to use his music without his consent.

The Plaintiffs sued for:

a. A declaration that the Defendants had infringed their copyright;
b. Special damages;
c. General damages; and
d. A perpetual injunction.

TV3 denied the claims and counterclaimed that it owned the copyright in the series, either as creator or by virtue of purchasing Gama’s assets during divestiture.

Issues for Determination:

1. Who owned the copyright in the television series Barber and the Shoeshine Boy?
2. Whether the 1st Plaintiff, as an employee of Gama, could claim copyright in the series.
3. Whether the 2nd Plaintiff owned the copyright in the soundtrack.
4. Whether the Defendants infringed the 2nd Plaintiff’s copyright.

The Court’s Holding:

The High Court held as follows:

i. Copyright in the Television Series

 The Court found that the 1st Plaintiff was an employee of Gama Film Company Limited at the time the series was conceived and produced. The brainstorming session that generated the concept involved several employees of both Gama and TV3.

  Under section 7 of the Copyright Act, 2005 (Act 690), where a work is created in the course of employment, the economic rights vest in the employer unless there is an agreement to the contrary.

      The Court held that:

1. The 1st Plaintiff created and developed the series in his capacity as an employee.
2. The series was produced and financed by Gama.
3. There was no evidence of any agreement transferring copyright to him personally.

  Accordingly, the Court ruled that the 1st Plaintiff did not own the copyright and was estopped from claiming same. His claims were dismissed.

  The Court also dismissed TV3’s counterclaim, finding that it had failed to prove either original creation or valid acquisition of copyright through purchase.

ii. Copyright in the Soundtrack

The Court found that the 2nd Plaintiff was the composer of the signature tune used in the series.

Unlike the 1st Plaintiff, he was not an employee of Gama. There was no evidence that he had assigned his copyright or that he had been paid for the composition in a manner transferring ownership.

The Court held that:

1. Copyright in the soundtrack vested in the 2nd Plaintiff as its creator.

2. The Defendants used the soundtrack without his consent after removing his name from the credits.
3. This amounted to infringement and plagiarism.

The infringement lasted approximately twelve (12) episodes before the soundtrack was changed.

The Court therefore dismissed the 1st Plaintiff’s claims in their entirety, dismissed TV3’s counterclaim and entered judgment in favour of the 2nd Plaintiff for:

1. Special damages of GHS 3,600 (GHS 300 × 12 episodes);
   1. General damages of GHS 10,000 for copyright infringement;
   1. Costs of GHS 2,000;
   1. A perpetual injunction restraining further use of the soundtrack without consent.

Implication of the Decision:

This decision reinforces two key principles of copyright law in Ghana:

1. Works created in the course of employment belong to the employer, unless there is a contract to the contrary. Creative contribution alone does not confer ownership where the work is done within employment.
2. Independent creators retain copyright in their works unless there is clear evidence of assignment or commissioning transferring economic rights.

Significant Quote:

“…. unless there is an agreement between an employer and his employee to the contrary, works prepared by an employee in the course of his employment belongs to his employer and that the copyright in such works belong to the employer.” Samuel K. Asiedu J. (as he then was)

Commentary and Insight:

This case is a clear reminder to creative professionals in the media industry that authorship and ownership are not always synonymous. An employee who contributes creatively to a production does not automatically own the copyright in it.

However, where a person independently composes music or creates a work and there is no written assignment, the courts will protect that creator’s rights.

For production houses and broadcasters, the lesson is equally clear: secure written copyright assignments and properly credit contributors. Failure to do so may result in damages and injunctive relief.