Copyright Hell: Sketchy evidence is better than no evidence

The recent case of Lant v Bray in [2025] EWHC 1954 (IPEC) is a cautionary tale, as if more were needed, of how bands break up over brands. Hazy memories of halcyon days, crystalise into contradictory evidence, leading to courtroom catastrophe. IP collaborators and those commissioning artwork or photography can also fall victim to faulty assumptions in this area.

Background

The late seventies and early eighties were something of a golden era for heavy metal. For some reason, the preferred aesthetic was dark and diabolical. This case involved a dispute between members of the black metal band “VENOM”, over copyright images referred to as “Venom Logo 1”, “Venom Logo 2”, “Goat Head Lucifer”, “Sigil of Baphomet”, “Legions Logo”, “At War with Satan”, “The Bloodlust Photograph” and “The Possessed Photograph”. The band members were teenagers when they rose to fame and by one account “hadn’t a clue”. They were focussed on the band’s success and by the time the party ended, so to speak, the legal niceties had been neglected and there was not much paperwork around to prove who owned what.

The band had fallen out with one another before the eighties were over and they pursued separate interests in the decades that followed. The various groupings of band members during this time would make fertile ground for a band name dispute but this case involved only copyright. The dispute centred around claimant Conrad Lant (stage name “Cronos”; lead vocalist) and second defendant Anthony Bray (stage name “Abaddon”; drummer).  Mr Bray’s licensee was co-defendant. During their wilderness years in the 1990s, an attempt was made, around 1997, to settle the intellectual property in a company: “CMA Inc”. This would have been a highly prudent step but unfortunately the band members could not reach agreement.

The Copyright in Question

Venom Logo 1

It was common ground that this was the first logo of the band. Mr Lant claimed to be the author of this logo but his account was contradicted by Mr Bray, assisted by 3rd bandmate Mr Dunn (“Mantas”; guitarist) and Mr Ash, a friend.  Bray claimed that he had painted the logo onto a drum riser in 1979, a part of the set well familiar to him. Recorder Amanda Michaels found in his favour.

Venom Logo 2, Goat Head Lucifer”, “Sigil of Baphomet”, “Legions Logo”, “At War with Satan”

Bray’s victory in relation to Venom Logo 1 proved to be the only one and Lant had a clean sweep on the others. Lant’s sketches came in handy (in supporting his claim to copyright ownership), despite being undated.  Lant’s copyright in Venom Logo 2 may well have infringed Venom Logo 1 but no counterclaim for infringement was made by Bray in this regard.  Even Goat Head Lucifer and Sigil of Baphomet may have infringed much older works by Austin Osman Spare and Anton LaVey respectively but as their estates were not party to the dispute, it did not hurt the Claimant. Neither party proved authorship in relation to “At War with Satan”.

The Photographs (Bloodlust and Possessed)

Authorship of these works had to be judged under the Copyright Act 1956, which applied at the time. The position as to photography and commissioned works was quite different back then. Rather than the photographer, the owner of the film or camera would own the copyright. If a work was commissioned, the commissioner would own the copyright.  Under the current act, the photographer would own the copyright, even if commissioned, unless there is a specific agreement to the contrary.

Bray alleged that the Bloodlust photograph was taken by a roadie nicknamed “Ferret” but on Bray’s camera and “on the commission” by him; duly paid for. Unfortunately this claim “not only smacked of an attempt to bring in the necessary elements to satisfy s 4(3) and s 48 but contradicted the Counterclaim” and his evidence was found to be unreliable.

Lant had a different account, namely that the photograph was commissioned by the record label. This version was considered plausible and given that Bray could not corroborate his claim of a roadie being the photographer, his copyright ownership claim failed.

In relation to the Possessed photograph, Bray had a slightly different case, claiming that a professional photographer had taken the photograph but with Bray’s camera and under his commission. This claim was unconvincing for many reasons, including the oddity of a professional photographer using Bray’s camera and the fact that the photographer in question was the same one that Lant had said worked for the record label.

The ownership claim in Possessed was rejected.

Evidence and Pleadings

There was little evidence to assist Recorder Michaels in this case but Lant’s sketches and drawings, although undated, seem to have tipped the scales in his favour. The lack of a challenge as to authenticity of these is surprising, as is the failure to plead copyright infringement of Venom Logo 1 by Venom Logo 2.

Despite all witnesses “giving what they honestly believed they remembered”, the changing accounts and pleadings on the Defendant’s side seem to have left a bad impression on Recorder Michaels and ultimately hurt their case.  Recorder Michaels’ judgement gives helpful guidance on how to handle oral evidence from events long past, with little contemporaneous documentation (“mostly undated, and the photographs are blurry”) and refers to lan Williams Entertainments Ltd v Clarke [2022] EWHC 1798 (IPEC); [2022] E.T.M.R. 50.

Giving an account that ticks the boxes of a statutory provision, while warping commonsense reality, proved to be a bad approach.

The guitarist, Dunn (“Mantas”) expressed the view that all the artworks in question were produced by the band and could be used by any member of the band. One imagines this might have been the unspoken agreement during happier times and the wording of the copyright notice (“© Venom) supports this view. However, neither side pleaded this case and the failure to reach agreement around shared ownership in “CMA Inc”, circa 1997, points in the other direction.

Conclusion 

Both sides infringed each other’s copyright but the Claimant proved ownership in the majority of works in question by having better (although not great) documentary evidence, and a more consistent case. 

How Charles Russell Speechlys Can Help

We can help at every stage of a band’s journey, from breakthrough to breakup and beyond. However, if you want to stay together and be rocking into retirement, it’s better to contact us sooner rather than later.

An agreement as to ownership of intellectual property is crucial. Bands that address this at an early stage, tend to last. Agreement on this point can not only avoid disputes and breakup but also secure revenue streams well into the future.

If, sadly, the breakup has already happened, we can defend and enforce your interests, wherever you featured in the original lineup.

In summary:

• Anyone collaborating on IP (not just bands) should document ownership and usage
• In order to prove authorship in unregistered IP like Copyright, you need to document the creation of the work
• When commissioning 3rd parties to create artwork or take photographs, make sure that the IP rights are assigned to the commissioning entity
• Consider other types of IP protection beyond Copyright, like Trade Marks and Registered Designs