The Wave Studio v. General Hotel Management: Copyright Infringement & Hotel Photography
The Wave Studio Pte Ltd, Lee Kar Yin, and The Wave Studio, LLC (collectively, "Wave") sued General Hotel Management (Singapore) Pte Ltd and General Hotel Management, Ltd (collectively, "GHM") in the General Division of the High Court of Singapore, alleging copyright infringement of photographs taken of hotels managed by GHM. Wave claimed that GHM reproduced the photographs in their in-house magazine without permission. The court ruled in favor of Wave, finding that Wave owned the copyright to the photographs and GHM had infringed that copyright.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiffs
1.3 Case Type
Intellectual Property
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Wave Studio sued General Hotel Management for copyright infringement over hotel photographs. The court ruled in favor of The Wave Studio.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Wave Studio Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Judgment for Plaintiff | Won | Mahesh Rai s/o Vedprakash Rai, Yong Wei Jun Jonathan, Samuel Soo Kuok Heng, Llewelyn Gordon Ionwy David, Tan Lin Yin Gladys, Moh Huixian Estelle |
| Lee Kar Yin | Plaintiff | Individual | Judgment for Plaintiff | Won | Mahesh Rai s/o Vedprakash Rai, Yong Wei Jun Jonathan, Samuel Soo Kuok Heng, Llewelyn Gordon Ionwy David, Tan Lin Yin Gladys, Moh Huixian Estelle |
| The Wave Studio, LLC | Plaintiff | Limited Liability Partnership | Judgment for Plaintiff | Won | Mahesh Rai s/o Vedprakash Rai, Yong Wei Jun Jonathan, Samuel Soo Kuok Heng, Llewelyn Gordon Ionwy David, Tan Lin Yin Gladys, Moh Huixian Estelle |
| General Hotel Management (Singapore) Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Judgment Against Defendant | Lost | Narayanan Sreenivasan SC, Ang Mei-Ling Valerie Freda, Tan Xin Ya, Cheong Wei Yang Daryl |
| General Hotel Management, Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Judgment Against Defendant | Lost | Narayanan Sreenivasan SC, Ang Mei-Ling Valerie Freda, Tan Xin Ya, Cheong Wei Yang Daryl |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Mavis Chionh Sze Chyi | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Mahesh Rai s/o Vedprakash Rai | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Yong Wei Jun Jonathan | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Samuel Soo Kuok Heng | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Llewelyn Gordon Ionwy David | David Llewelyn & Co LLC |
| Tan Lin Yin Gladys | David Llewelyn & Co LLC |
| Moh Huixian Estelle | David Llewelyn & Co LLC |
| Narayanan Sreenivasan SC | K&L Gates Straits Law LLC |
| Ang Mei-Ling Valerie Freda | K&L Gates Straits Law LLC |
| Tan Xin Ya | K&L Gates Straits Law LLC |
| Cheong Wei Yang Daryl | K&L Gates Straits Law LLC |
| Tan Jing Han Alvin | Shook Lin & Bok LLP |
4. Facts
- The plaintiffs provided branding, design, and marketing services to hotels managed by the defendants from 1995 to 2008.
- The plaintiffs took and edited photographs of these hotels and resorts.
- The plaintiffs claimed copyright ownership of the photographs.
- The defendants reproduced the photographs in their in-house magazine, "The Magazine."
- The plaintiffs discovered the unauthorized use of the photographs in 2012.
- The plaintiffs commenced an action in the United States, which was dismissed on the grounds of forum non conveniens.
- The plaintiffs then commenced the present action in Singapore.
5. Formal Citations
- The Wave Studio Pte Ltd and others v General Hotel Management(Singapore) Pte Ltd and another, Suit No 175 of 2018, [2022] SGHC 142
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Ms. Lee registered Wave-S, a sole proprietorship. | |
| Wave entities began providing services to GHM-managed hotels. | |
| The Wave Pte Ltd incorporated in Singapore. | |
| The Wave Studio Pte Ltd incorporated in Singapore. | |
| The Wave Design Pte Ltd changed its name to The Wave Studio Pte Ltd. | |
| Wave-S dissolved. | |
| Wave PL's directors resolved to assign assets to Ms. Lee and dissolve Wave PL. | |
| Wave entities ceased providing services to GHM-managed hotels. | |
| Wave Studio US incorporated in the United States. | |
| Ms. Lee discovered Hotel Photographs in GHM's "The Magazine". | |
| Ms. Lee discovered Hotel Photographs in GHM's "The Magazine". | |
| Wave Studio US commenced action against GHM BVI in the United States District Court. | |
| Writ of summons filed in the present proceedings. | |
| High Court ordered bifurcation of trial as to liability and damages. | |
| Trial began. | |
| Trial concluded. | |
| Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. | |
| Further hearing held. | |
| Written grounds of decision issued. |
7. Legal Issues
- Copyright Infringement
- Outcome: The court held that the defendants infringed the plaintiffs' copyright by reproducing and communicating the Hotel Photographs without a license.
- Category: Substantive
- Copyright Ownership
- Outcome: The court held that the plaintiffs owned the copyright in the Hotel Photographs.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2015] 4 SLR 41
- Implied License
- Outcome: The court held that the defendants did not have an implied license to use the Hotel Photographs for general branding, marketing, and advertising purposes.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2013] 4 SLR 193
- [1988] ECC 488
- Laches
- Outcome: The court held that the defense of laches was not available to the defendants.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2009] 4 SLR(R) 769
- [2016] 2 SLR 464
- Acquiescence
- Outcome: The court held that the defense of acquiescence was not available to the defendants.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2011] SGHC 30
- [2000] 3 SLR(R) 530
- Estoppel by Convention
- Outcome: The court held that the defense of estoppel by convention was not available to the defendants.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2020] 2 SLR 200
8. Remedies Sought
- Declarations on copyright ownership and infringement
- Injunction against further copyright infringements
- Damages to be assessed
- Account of profits
- Statutory damages
- Additional damages
- Orders for delivery of infringing copies
- Signed statutory declaration by the defendants
- Interest
- Costs
9. Cause of Actions
- Copyright Infringement
10. Practice Areas
- Intellectual Property Litigation
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Hospitality
- Tourism
- Advertising
- Design
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| V Nithia (co-administratrix of the estate of Ponnusamy Sivapakiam, deceased) v Buthmanaban s/o Vaithilingam and another | High Court | Yes | [2015] 5 SLR 1422 | Singapore | Cited for the general rule that parties are bound by their pleadings. |
| Wang Choong Li v Wong Wan Chin | High Court | Yes | [2015] 4 SLR 41 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a direct contractual relationship is required for copyright ownership under s 30(5) of the Copyright Act. |
| Singsung Pte Ltd v LG 26 Electronics Pte Ltd (t/a L S Electrical Trading) | Court of Appeal | No | [2016] 4 SLR 86 | Singapore | Cited regarding the definition of a 'photograph' under the Copyright Act, though the court's views were provisional. |
| Sembcorp Marine Ltd v PPL Holdings Pte and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 193 | Singapore | Cited for the three-step process for implying terms into a contract. |
| Liverpool City Council v Irwin | House of Lords | Yes | [1977] AC 239 | England | Cited for the principles governing the implication of terms in a contract. |
| Robin Ray v Classic FM Plc | English High Court | Yes | [1988] ECC 488 | England | Cited for the principles governing the respective rights of the contractor and the client in the copyright in a work commissioned by the client. |
| Bintai Kindenko Pte Ltd v Samsung C&T Corp and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 2 SLR 295 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a party is bound by all the terms of a contract that it signs, even if that party did not read or understand those terms. |
| R Griggs Group Ltd and ors v Ross Evans and ors | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] EWCA Civ 11 | England | Cited regarding implied assignments of copyright in the context of circumstances justifying the implication of terms in a contract. |
| Gabrin v Universal Music Operations Ltd and another | English High Court | No | [2003] EWHC 1335 (Ch) | England | Cited as a case that could give some guidance on the subject of implied licences. |
| Cytec Industries Pte Ltd v APP Chemicals International (Mau) Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2009] 4 SLR(R) 769 | Singapore | Cited for the doctrine of laches. |
| Chng Weng Wah v Goh Bak Heng | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 2 SLR 464 | Singapore | Cited for the doctrine of laches. |
| Browne v Dunn | House of Lords | Yes | [1893] 6 R 67 | England | Cited for the rule that any matter on which it is proposed to contradict the evidence-in-chief of a witness must generally be put to her so that she has an opportunity to explain the contradiction. |
| Tan Yong San v Neo Kok Eng | High Court | Yes | [2011] SGHC 30 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of acquiescence. |
| Genelabs Pte Ltd v Institut Pasteur | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2000] 3 SLR(R) 530 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of acquiescence. |
| Independent State of Papua New Guinea v PNG Sustainable Development Program Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 200 | Singapore | Cited for the requirements for the defence of estoppel by convention. |
| Tan Eng Hong v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 476 | Singapore | Cited for the test for locus standi in an action for declaratory relief. |
| Karaha Bodas Co LLC v Pertamina Energy Trading Ltd and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] 1 SLR(R) 112 | Singapore | Cited for the test for locus standi in an action for declaratory relief. |
| Guaranty Trust of New York v Hannay & Co | England and Wales Court of Appeal | No | [1915] 2 KB 536 | England | Cited regarding whether a declaration would be made merely to enable the plaintiff to utilise it in a foreign action. |
| Cheong Ghim Fah v Murugiam s/o Rangasamy | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2004] 1 SLR(R) 628 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an adverse inference should be drawn against a party for failing to call a material witness. |
| Ram Das V N P v SIA Engineering Co Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2015] 3 SLR 267 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that offers to settle do not apply only to monetary claims. |
| Mopi Pte Ltd v Central Mercantile Corporation (S) Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2001] SGHC 328 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a non-monetary claim where an OTS was made. |
| NTUC Foodfare Co-operative Ltd v SIA Engineering Co Ltd and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 1043 | Singapore | Cited for the interpretation of the words “the disposal of the claim” in O 22A r 9. |
| CCM Industrial Pte Ltd v Uniquetech Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] 2 SLR(R) 20 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that what was “favourable” had to be determined on the terms of the offer to settle. |
| Ong & Ong Pte Ltd v Fairview Developments Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 2 SLR 470 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the OTS remained open for acceptance so long as there was an outstanding matter not disposed of which was within the scope of the OTS. |
| Man B&W Diesel S E Asia Pte Ltd and another v PT Bumi International Tankers and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2004] 3 SLR(R) 267 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the element of compromise should be present in an offer to settle. |
| Resorts World at Sentosa Pte Ltd v Goel Adesh Kumar and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 1070 | Singapore | Cited for determining whether an offer to settle is reasonable, serious or genuine. |
| Lin Jian Wei and another v Lim Eng Hock Peter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 1052 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that costs on the indemnity basis would usually be assessed on the basis of a one-third uplift on the costs which would be given on the standard basis. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, 2014 Rev Ed) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Copyright Act (Cap 63, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Hotel Photographs
- Raw Images
- Final Photographs
- Copyright Infringement
- Production Estimate
- Reservation Clause
- The Magazine
- Implied License
- Laches
- Acquiescence
- Estoppel by Convention
15.2 Keywords
- copyright infringement
- hotel photographs
- intellectual property
- Singapore High Court
- General Hotel Management
- The Wave Studio
- implied license
- laches
- acquiescence
- estoppel
16. Subjects
- Copyright
- Intellectual Property
- Photography
- Hotel Management
- Branding
- Marketing
17. Areas of Law
- Copyright Law
- Intellectual Property
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure