Jeilah Y. Chan

The appellant, a photographer, appealed a trial judgment dismissing his copyright infringement action against a golf club and its CEO.

The appellant had provided the club with an album of photographs and later took additional photos for a wedding and the club's website.

The trial judge found the appellant had gifted the initial album unconditionally, creating an oral, non-exclusive license to use the photos.

The Divisional Court upheld this finding, confirming that non-exclusive licenses do not require writing under s. 13(4) of the Copyright Act.

However, the Court reversed the trial judge's finding that the club owned the copyright in the 'July to October photographs', as a handwritten note was insufficient to grant an exclusive license.

The appeal was otherwise dismissed.

The appellant, a photographer, appealed a trial judgment dismissing his copyright infringement action against a golf club and its CEO.

The appellant had taken photographs of the club and provided them to the CEO, who later used them in promotional materials.

The trial judge found the appellant had gifted the photos and granted an oral license for their use.

The Divisional Court upheld the finding that the oral license constituted a valid defence to infringement, as non-exclusive licenses do not need to be in writing under the Copyright Act.

However, the court reversed the trial judge's finding that the respondents owned the copyright in the 'July to October photographs', as an exclusive license requires a written grant.

The appeal was otherwise dismissed.