LAW 035

CASE
SUMMARY
GROUP MEMBERS (GROUP 5) :
ANIS AFRINA BINTI AZRUL ( 2022845702)
MOHAMMAD IZWAN BIN ABDUL RAZIK (2022453766)
MUHAMMAD HAZWAN BIN MOHD HAKIMI (2022618626)
SAFIDATUL HASANAH BINTI MOHAMMAD RAFI (2022605592)
WARDAH KAMILAH BINTI AHMAD (2022880608)
NURIN BATRISYIA BINTI SHAHALAN ARIFF (2022840042)

PI007K13
MADAM AINUL MARDHIYYAH BINTI TAJUDIN
 ESENTATION OUTLIN
PR E
CASE SUMMARY +
AREA OF LAW
COURT'S DECISION

RATIO
LEGAL ISSUE
DECIDENDI
CASE SUMMARY &
COURT'S DECISION
WEDDING GALORE SDN BHD V. RASIDAH AHMAD [2016] 6 CLJ 621

 CASE SUMMARY
WEDDING GALORE SDN BHD v. RASIDAH AHMAD [2016] 6 CLJ 621

The respondent ran a company called LOOKitLOVE, which offers photography services for any occasions such as weddings,
engagements, birthdays, and also provides a service for personal photography. The appellant was a wedding planner and a supplier of
wedding attire.
A client by the name of Puan Nurashikin binti Jamal hired the respondent in August 2013 to perform photography for a pre-wedding
photo. The client hired the respondent for a photography service on 17 August 2013, 24 August 2013 and 25 August 2013.
The Pre-wedding photos of her client were posted on the respondent's Facebook page. Without the respondent's knowledge or
permission, the appellant took two pictures of the respondent's client on November 7, 2013, wearing her wedding dress. In addition,
they removed the respondent's watermark, which reads as "LIL," in sales brochures to be used at a wedding carnival at Bangi Gateway
without mentioning or giving the respondent any credit.
Since the photographs used in the brochures were originally owned by the respondent and due to the appellant’s action which had
removed the watermark without the respondent's permission, the respondent launched a lawsuit against the appellant. The respondent
alleged that the appellant had violated the copyright. The respondent asserted that she had experienced damages and problems
because of this infringement. Additionally, the respondent asserted that because she was working on her client's wedding book when
the infringement took place, it had a negative impact on her relationship with Puan Nurashikin.
However, the appellant claimed that she downloaded the two images from the respondent's Facebook page, cropped, modified, and
utilized them in the wedding carnival's sales brochure because they provided the attire for those two images that they have
downloaded.
 COURT'S DECISION
WEDDING GALORE SDN BHD v. RASIDAH AHMAD [2016] 6 CLJ 621

For this case, due to the infringement done by the appellant,

the court decided that the appellant needs to pay for general
damages of RM 10,000 and aggravated damages of RM
10,000 with the interest rate of 5% per annum from the date
of judgement up to the date of judgement until full settlement
and also a cost of RM 5,113. Moreover, the court also ordered
for the appellant to do a public apology on Facebook as the
result of the infringement done by the appellant.
LEGAL ISSUE
 LEGAL ISSUES
LEGAL ISSUE #1 LEGAL ISSUE #2

Whether the appellant had

Whether the two edited infringed the respondent’s
photographs were eligible for copyright by printing and
distributing the two photographs
copyright.
without the permission or approval
of the respondent.

 LEGAL ISSUES
LEGAL ISSUE #3
Whether the order for a
public apology on Facebook
was within the jurisdiction of
the Sessions Court.
LEGAL ISSUE #4
Whether the damages awarded
were exorbitant which are
unreasonably high.
AREA OF LAW
 COPYRIGHT RELEVANCE
LAW
Copyright law is a body of law that governs the In this case, the plaintiff/respondent
protection of ownership and usage rights for brought this case to the court for an
creative works including works of art and written infringement of right done by the
books, among other types of media. This law defendant/appellant. The plaintiff
protects the intellectual property rights of
authorship for a certain number of years, legally
seeks for its copyright and to
protecting works of creative expression set in a protect his form of work.
fixed, tangible form such as the work of art, books
or audio recording.
RATIO
DECIDENDI
 RATIO DECIDENDI #1
The first issue which regarding the copyright for the two edited
photographs. As the original photographer of the two modified
photos, the court decided that the respondent had a right to
copyright for them. Applying section 26(2) of the Copyright Act
1978, the copyright shall be deemed to be transferred to the client
subject to any agreement between parties, excluding or limiting
such transfer.
The condition makes it apparent that the respondent would
consider the captured photos to be her intellectual property. The
client and respondent agreed that the copyright to the photos
would only be granted if the client paid the respondent RM1,000.
The client did not, however, pay for the photographer's copyright.
Thus, the respondent is the rightful owner of the copyright.
 RATIO DECIDENDI #2
The second issue is regarding the infringement of copyright by
printing and distributing the two photographs without the
permission or approval of the respondent. The court decides that by
including the respondent's photos in the wedding carnival brochure
without her permission and not giving credits to the respondent, the
appellant had violated the respondent's copyright. Since the
respondent's photos were used in the appellant's brochure without the
respondent's watermark, no one who looked at the photographs would
be able to tell that they belonged to the respondent.

Therefore, the appellant had violated the respondent's copyright by

using her photographs without her consent or without properly
attributing her as the author and owner of the copyright and publishing
them in the wedding carnival brochure.
 RATIO DECIDENDI #3
The third issue is regarding the order of court for the appellant to do a
public apology on Facebook. The court determines that in these days of
the internet and social media, publishing a public apology in the social
media is an effective method to make up for the loss of harm the
respondent experienced as a result of the infringement of her
intellectual work.

The court would have the right and authority to make such an order and
to award any remedies it deems just and reasonable.
 RATIO DECIDENDI #4

The last issue is regarding whether the damages awarded by the court
are exorbitant or unreasonably high. When he awarded RM10,000 in
general damages and an extra RM10,000 in aggravated damages,
taking into account all of the relevant circumstances, including the
appellant's actions, the Session Court Judge (SCJ) did nothing
improper.

As a result, the court accepted both awards.

THANK YOU FOR
LISTENING!
Don't hesitate to ask any questions!