FBT Productions, LLC v Let Them Eat Vinyl Distribution Ltd

Decision date: 20 April 2021

Neutral citation: [2021] EWHC 932 (IPEC)

Overall AI summary confidence: high

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

Short overview

This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.

AI confidence in this short overview: high

FBT sued Let Them Eat Vinyl (LTEV) for copyright infringement for making/supplying vinyl copies of Eminem's Infinite. The court found LTEV had infringed but rejected FBT's claims that the infringement caused abandonment of a planned vinyl re-issue and that FBT would have granted LTEV a licence; instead damages were awarded on a notional licence of £2.50 per disc for 2,981 copies, totaling £7,452.50 plus interest.

Ratio decidendi

This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.

AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: medium

The judgment applies lost-opportunity causation principles: a claimant must prove on the balance of probabilities that the defendant’s tort caused the loss of a trading opportunity, and where planning continuity is weak or multiple unauthorised copies exist causation may fail. For quantum, where a lost-licence claim fails, damages may be assessed by reference to a notional licence using market-specific comparables and expert evidence that reflect the commercial realities of the specific format and market.

Obiter dicta

This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.

AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium

The judge observed that digital revenue splits (e.g. 90/10) are not necessarily comparable to physical vinyl licensing because of different manufacturing and distribution economics, and that authenticity markers on re-issues can affect substitutability and market impact analyses; these comments were offered as points of commercial context rather than dispositive holdings.