Sergio Mendes Costa v DissociaDID Ltd & Anor.
Decision date: 22 July 2022
Neutral citation: [2022] EWHC 1934 (IPEC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
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
This case concerned ownership and licences in YouTube videos created by Mr Costa and DissociaDID (Ms Wilkinson), whether a contract was formed on 16 June 2020, and whether Mr Costa unlawfully caused loss by submitting takedown requests. The court held the "Disclaimer" was authored solely by Ms Wilkinson, no binding contract arose on 16 June 2020, the parties had a revocable bare licence terminated by notice (fixed as eight months ending 23 July 2021), Mr Costa caused unlawful takedowns after 13 March 2021 and the defendants infringed the Joint Works after 23 July 2021. Quantification of loss was adjourned.
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
From the judgment: (1) joint authorship requires genuine collaborative authorship with non-trivial, authorial contributions; mere suggestions or minor edits do not suffice; (2) a gratuitous offer to assist does not constitute a binding contract absent contemporaneous consideration and commitment; (3) a bare licence created by conduct is revocable, can be terminated by clear notice, and a reasonable notice period is to be inferred by reference to what a hypothetical reasonable agreement would have been on notification; and (4) the tort of causing loss by unlawful means requires unlawful acts against a third party that are actionable by that third party, interference with that third party's freedom to deal with the claimant, and intention to cause loss.
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 court suggested (obiter) that assessing a reasonable licence-notice period should look to a hypothetical reasonable agreement at the date of notice and consider practical factors (time to replace/remove material, likely harm, and parties' reasonable conduct). There are also remarks touching on pleading rules and cautioning against retrofitting implied terms to later developments.