1 Cur Adv Vult

2 The plaintiff is an artist and is the author of 12 pieces of artistic metal sculpture known as `metalsculp`.

3 The defendant is a company dealing in envelopes. They received 350 pieces of table calendars for the year 1986 which contained reproductions of the plaintiff`s said works. The calendars were distributed free by the defendant to its customers.

4 When the unauthorized reproductions came to the knowledge of the plaintiff, the plaintiff commenced proceedings on 27 March 1986 claiming damages and loss. For loss of licence fee, the plaintiff claimed a sum of $124,180 being twice the price at which the metalin question were offered for sale (but none was sold) at an exhibition in Australia. Interlocutory judgment was entered against the defendant by the registrar on 9 January 1987. The defendant`s appeal against the said interlocutory judgment was dismissed by Mr Justice Lai Kew Chai in chambers on 6 August 1987. The learned judge ordered, inter alia, `that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff damages to be assessed by the registrar for infringement of the plaintiff`s copyrights in all the 12 artistic works`. The claim then came before the registrar for assessment. On 11 March 1989, the learned registrar assessed damages in respect of licence fee at $62,385 and interest at 6% pa from 27 March 1986. The defendant thereupon appealed on 13 March 1989 against the said assessment. The plaintiff cross-appealed against the assessment of the value of the works at $41,590 and also contended that the award based on one and a half times thereof was low. He further appealed against the refusal of the learned registrar to make any award for injury to the reputation of the plaintiff.

5 In the statement of claim, the respective prices of the artistic works infringed are listed as follows:

6 These prices were based on the prices offered for the sale of these artworks (except for Nirvana and Moonlight) at an exhibition in Australia converted at an exchange rate of A$1 to S$1.50. As stated earlier none of these artworks, the subject matter of the infringement, was sold at the exhibition in Perth, Australia in November 1985. Many were however sold in Singapore at prices well below that of the prices posted at the exhibition. I append below the actual prices at which a number of these works were sold by the plaintiff by way of replicas and prints at or close to the time of the infringement.

7 For replicas:

8 For prints:

9 On the `Moonlight` for which no price had been posted at the Australian exhibition as the same was stated to be `not for sale`, the plaintiff values it at $25,000. Up to the time of the appeal before me, there is no evidence that it had been sold. This was the plaintiff`s first piece of work in 1978 (see p 4 of the notes of evidence). In my view this valuation at $25,000 reflects more the sentimental value attached to it by the plaintiff rather than its intrinsic value to a buyer. On `Horizon` there is also no evidence of actual sale. On `Chinese Heritage II (Geomancy)` there is no evidence of sale. It was valued by the plaintiff at $5,250, that is at the same price as `Chinese Heritage I` which was sold for only $1,190.

10 Based on the actual sales of some of the artworks in Singapore listed above and on the plaintiff`s own comparative pricing, I assess the value of the 12 artworks at $15,000.

11 The plaintiff is claiming for loss of licence fee at twice the value of the artworks infringed. The plaintiff has offered to grant licences to use his artworks at one and a half times the price of the works. See PB21 at which he agreed to a licence for $1,275 for a painting priced at $850. The same rate of one and a half times also appeared in PB22 in which he offered a licence fee of $12,900 for six pieces of water colour paintings priced for a total of $8,600. The reason for the plaintiff`s claim for licence fee at twice the price appears at pp 4-5 of the notes of evidence:

12 Bearing in mind that only 350 copies of calendars are involved, a licence fee of one and a half times the value is more than reasonable. I see no reason why the rate should be any different due to the different art form. I therefore allow the defendant`s appeal and award the plaintiff the sum of $22,500 by way of loss of licence fee. This sum is to carry interest at 6% pa from the date of filing of the writ.

13 I dismiss the plaintiff`s cross-appeals. The defendant is awarded costs of the appeal.

14 Appeal allowed; cross-appeals dismissed .