General Hotel Management v The Wave Studio: Copyright Ownership & Offer to Settle

General Hotel Management (Singapore) Pte Ltd and General Hotel Management, Ltd appealed against the decision of the High Court in favor of The Wave Studio Pte Ltd, Lee Kar Yin, and The Wave Studio, LLC, regarding copyright ownership of hotel photographs and costs awarded on an indemnity basis. The Appellate Division of the High Court, comprising Steven Chong JCA, Woo Bih Li JAD, and Aedit Abdullah J, dismissed the appeal concerning copyright ownership, finding that the copyright belonged to Wave Studio due to a validly incorporated provision in their agreement. However, the court allowed the appeal regarding costs, determining that the judgment obtained was less favorable than the offer to settle made by Wave Studio. The court revised the costs order accordingly.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Appellate Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal dismissed in part and allowed in part.

1.3 Case Type

Intellectual Property

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Copyright dispute over hotel photographs. Court determined copyright belonged to Wave Studio, but allowed appeal on costs regarding offer to settle.

1.7 Decision Date

3 April 2023

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
General Hotel Management (Singapore) Pte Ltd	Appellant	Corporation	Appeal dismissed in part and allowed in part	Partial	Lai Tze Chang Stanley of Allen & Gledhill LLP Edmond Lim Tian Zhong of Allen & Gledhill LLP Ramesh Kumar s/o Ramasamy of Allen & Gledhill LLP
General Hotel Management, Ltd	Appellant	Corporation	Appeal dismissed in part and allowed in part	Partial	Lai Tze Chang Stanley of Allen & Gledhill LLP Edmond Lim Tian Zhong of Allen & Gledhill LLP Ramesh Kumar s/o Ramasamy of Allen & Gledhill LLP
The Wave Studio Pte Ltd	Respondent	Corporation	Judgment for Respondent	Won	Mahesh Rai s/o Vedprakash Rai of Drew & Napier LLC Yong Wei Jun Jonathan of Drew & Napier LLC Samuel Soo Kuok Heng of Drew & Napier LLC Llewelyn Gordon Ionwy David of David Llewelyn & Co LLC Tan Lin Yin Gladys of David Llewelyn & Co LLC Moh Huixian Estelle of David Llewelyn & Co LLC
Lee Kar Yin	Respondent	Individual	Judgment for Respondent	Won	Mahesh Rai s/o Vedprakash Rai of Drew & Napier LLC Yong Wei Jun Jonathan of Drew & Napier LLC Samuel Soo Kuok Heng of Drew & Napier LLC Llewelyn Gordon Ionwy David of David Llewelyn & Co LLC Tan Lin Yin Gladys of David Llewelyn & Co LLC Moh Huixian Estelle of David Llewelyn & Co LLC
The Wave Studio, LLC	Respondent	Corporation	Judgment for Respondent	Won	Mahesh Rai s/o Vedprakash Rai of Drew & Napier LLC Yong Wei Jun Jonathan of Drew & Napier LLC Samuel Soo Kuok Heng of Drew & Napier LLC Llewelyn Gordon Ionwy David of David Llewelyn & Co LLC Tan Lin Yin Gladys of David Llewelyn & Co LLC Moh Huixian Estelle of David Llewelyn & Co LLC

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Steven Chong	Judge of the Court of Appeal	Yes
Woo Bih Li	Judge of the Appellate Division	No
Aedit Abdullah	Judge	No

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Lai Tze Chang Stanley	Allen & Gledhill LLP
Edmond Lim Tian Zhong	Allen & Gledhill LLP
Ramesh Kumar s/o Ramasamy	Allen & Gledhill LLP
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

4. Facts

Wave provided design, branding, and marketing services to hotels managed by GHM.
Production Estimates issued by Wave contained a Reservation Clause asserting Wave's ownership of intellectual property copyright.
Hotel photoshoots were included as part of the services Wave provided to the Hotels.
Ms. Lee engaged Mr. Kawana and Mr. Lim as photographers for the photoshoots.
Hotel Photographs were featured in GHM's in-house magazine, "The Magazine."
The Wave Studio commenced an action against General Hotel Management for copyright infringement.
The Wave Studio served an offer to settle on General Hotel Management.

5. Formal Citations

General Hotel Management (Singapore) Pte Ltd and another v The Wave Studio Pte Ltd and others, Civil Appeal Nos 12 of 2022 and 46 of 2022, [2023] SGHC(A) 11

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2005-07-01	The Wave Studio Pte Ltd incorporated in Singapore.
2008-01-01	Assignments of intellectual property rights from 2008 to 2013.
2013-01-18	Hotel Photographs appeared in The Magazine.
2013-06-30	Hotel Photographs appeared in The Magazine.
2013-12-31	The Wave Studio, LLC commenced action against General Hotel Management in the United States District Court.
2018-02-19	The Wave Studio commenced action against General Hotel Management in Singapore.
2021-01-05	The Wave Studio served an offer to settle on General Hotel Management.
2021-09-01	Trial of the action took place.
2022-03-01	Trial of the action took place.
2022-06-16	Judge rendered her decision.
2023-02-13	Appeals heard.
2023-04-04	Grounds of Decision issued.

7. Legal Issues

Copyright Ownership
- Outcome: The court held that the Reservation Clause excluded the operation of s 30(5) of the Copyright Act, such that the respondents own the copyright in the Hotel Photographs.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Exclusion of Copyright Act Section 30(5) by Agreement
  - Interpretation of Reservation Clause
- Related Cases:
  - [2022] SGHC 142
Implied Licence
- Outcome: The court held that there was no implied licence or consent permitting the appellants to use the Hotel Photographs to market the GHM brand or the Hotels.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [2013] 4 SLR 193
Offer to Settle
- Outcome: The court held that the judgment obtained was less favorable than the offer to settle, and thus costs should have been ordered on a standard basis.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Indemnity Basis Costs
  - Genuine Offer
- Related Cases:
  - [2004] 3 SLR(R) 267
  - [2007] 2 SLR(R) 230
  - [2018] 2 SLR 1043

8. Remedies Sought

Declaratory Relief
Injunction
Delivery Up of Infringing Copies
Forfeiture or Destruction of Infringing Copies

9. Cause of Actions

10. Practice Areas

Copyright Infringement
Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

Hospitality
Creative Industry
Marketing

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
The Wave Studio Pte Ltd and others v General Hotel Management (Singapore) Pte Ltd and another	High Court	Yes	[2022] SGHC 142	Singapore	Appeal against the decision of a judge in the General Division of the High Court.
JWR Pte Ltd v Edmond Pereira Law Corp and another	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2020] 2 SLR 744	Singapore	Cited regarding abuse of the appeal process when advancing a new case on appeal.
Wei Ho-Hung v Lyu Jun	High Court	Yes	[2022] 2 SLR 1066	Singapore	Cited regarding the need to provide a good explanation for omitting the intention to apply for leave in a written case.
Grace Electrical Engineering Pte Ltd v Te Deum Engineering Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2018] 1 SLR 76	Singapore	Cited regarding when leave will be granted if new arguments pertain to a question of law where no fresh evidence or amendment to the pleadings on either side is required.
Feoso (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Faith Maritime Co Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2003] 3 SLR(R) 556	Singapore	Cited regarding when leave will be granted if new arguments pertain to a question of law where no fresh evidence or amendment to the pleadings on either side is required.
Lee Wei Ling and another v Attorney-General	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2017] 2 SLR 786	Singapore	Cited regarding the effect of a clause retaining copyright.
LTT Global Consultants v BMC Academy Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2011] 3 SLR 903	Singapore	Cited regarding the contra proferentem rule.
R Griggs Groups Ltd and others v Evans and others	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[2005] EWCA Civ 11	England and Wales	Cited regarding a clause in an invoice that was found not to be incorporated.
Tan Cheng Bock v Attorney-General	High Court	Yes	[2017] 2 SLR 850	Singapore	Cited regarding Parliament shunning tautology and not legislating in vain.
JD Ltd v Comptroller of Income Tax	High Court	Yes	[2006] 1 SLR 484	Singapore	Cited regarding Parliament shunning tautology and not legislating in vain.
Wang Choong Li v Wong Wan Chin	High Court	Yes	[2015] 4 SLR 41	Singapore	Cited regarding the need for a direct contractual relationship between the commissioning party and the photographer for the former to acquire copyright in the photographs under s 30(5) of the Copyright Act.
Tan Ng Kuang Nicky (the duly appointed joint and several liquidator of Sembawang Engineers and Constructors Pte Ltd (in compulsory liquidation)) and others v Metax Eco Solutions Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2021] 1 SLR 1135	Singapore	Cited regarding counsel breaching their duties to the court and disapproving of their conduct in proceeding with the appeal without disclosing the settlement.
Sembcorp Marine Ltd v PPL Holdings Pte Ltd and another and another appeal	High Court	Yes	[2013] 4 SLR 193	Singapore	Cited regarding the three-step test for implying a term in a contract.
Ong & Ong Pte Ltd v Fairview Developments Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2015] 2 SLR 470	Singapore	Cited regarding the conditions for the general rule on costs under O 22A r 9(1) of the ROC to apply.
Man B&W Diesel S E Asia Pte Ltd and another v PT Bumi International Tankers and another appeal	High Court	Yes	[2004] 3 SLR(R) 267	Singapore	Cited regarding the principles on offers to settle.
Tickell v Trifleska Pty Ltd	Supreme Court of New South Wales	Yes	(1991) 25 NSWLR 353	Australia	Cited regarding the principles on offers to settle.
Colliers International (Singapore) v Senkee Logistics Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2007] 2 SLR(R) 230	Singapore	Cited regarding the principles on offers to settle.
Singapore Airlines Ltd v Fujitsu Microelectronics (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd and others	High Court	Yes	[2001] 1 SLR(R) 38	Singapore	Cited regarding the principles on offers to settle.
NTUC Foodfare Co-operative Ltd v SIA Engineering Co Ltd and another	High Court	Yes	[2018] 2 SLR 1043	Singapore	Cited regarding the principles on offers to settle.
CCM Industrial Pte Ltd v Uniquetech Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2009] 2 SLR(R) 20	Singapore	Cited regarding the principles on offers to settle.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed) O 22A r 9(1)
Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed) O 57 r 9A(4)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Copyright Act (Cap 63, 2006 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Copyright Act (Cap 63, 2006 Rev Ed) s 7	Singapore
Copyright Act (Cap 63, 2006 Rev Ed) s 30(2)	Singapore
Copyright Act (Cap 63, 2006 Rev Ed) s 30(3)	Singapore
Copyright Act (Cap 63, 2006 Rev Ed) s 30(4)	Singapore
Copyright Act (Cap 63, 2006 Rev Ed) s 30(5)	Singapore
Copyright Act (Cap 63, 2006 Rev Ed) s 30(6)	Singapore
Copyright Act (Cap 63, 2006 Rev Ed) s 119(2)(a)	Singapore
Copyright Act (Cap 63, 2006 Rev Ed) s 120	Singapore
Copyright Act (Cap 63, 2006 Rev Ed) s 120A	Singapore
Copyright Act 1911 (Cap 46) s 18	Singapore
Copyright Act 1911 (Cap 46) ss 197(1)	Singapore
Copyright Act 1911 (Cap 46) ss 197(5)	Singapore
Copyright Act 1911 (Cap 46) ss 197(6)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Hotel Photographs
Production Estimate
Reservation Clause
Copyright Act
Offer to Settle
Implied Licence
The Magazine

15.2 Keywords

copyright
hotel photographs
offer to settle
intellectual property
General Hotel Management
The Wave Studio
Singapore
copyright infringement

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Copyrights	85
Intellectual Property Law	75
Civil Procedure	65
Contract Law	60
Civil Practice	50
Evidence	40

16. Subjects

Copyright
Intellectual Property
Civil Procedure
Offers to Settle