LAW 035

INTRODUCTION TO LEGAL LEARNING SKILLS

FOUNDATION IN LAW, UITM CAWANGAN SELANGOR KAMPUS
DENGKIL

CASE SUMMARY ASSIGNMENT

ANIS AFRINA BINTI AZRUL ( 2022845702)

MOHAMMAD IZWAN BIN ABDUL RAZIK (2022453766)
MUHAMMAD HAZWAN BIN MOHD HAKIMI (2022618626)
GROUP MEMBERS
SAFIDATUL HASANAH BINTI MOHAMMAD RAFI
(2022605592)
WARDAH KAMILAH BINTI AHMAD (2022880608)
NURIN BATRISYIA BINTI SHAHALAN ARIFF (2022840042)

GROUP PI007K13
LECTURER’S NAME MADAM AINUL MARDHIYYAH BINTI TAJUDIN
CASE STUDY QUESTION NO. 2
 Table of Contents
Background facts of the case : ...................................................................................................................... 2
The decision of the case :.............................................................................................................................. 2
LEGAL ISSUES ................................................................................................................................................ 3
AREA OF LAW ................................................................................................................................................ 3
RATIO DECIDENDI.......................................................................................................................................... 4

1
LAW 035 CASE SUMMARY
 WEDDING GALORE SDN BHD v. RASIDAH AHMAD [2016] 6 CLJ 621

Background facts of the case :

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.

The decision of the case :

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.

2
LAW 035 CASE SUMMARY
 LEGAL ISSUES
Legal issues is a legal question that arises form the facts of the case as presented by the parties to the
suit. A case is brought to the court to resolve legal disputes that happened between the concerned
parties. A legal issue can be any question of law that arises form a particular set of facts.

There are four (4) legal issues highlighted in this case which are :

1. Whether the two edited photographs were eligible for copyright.

2. Whether the appellant had infringed the respondent’s copyright by printing and distributing the
two photographs without the permission or approval of the respondent.

3. Whether the order for a public apology on Facebook was within the jurisdiction of the Sessions
Court.

4. Whether the damages awarded were exorbitant which are unreasonably high.

AREA OF LAW
Areas of law covered in this case are as followed :

1. Copyright Law

Copyright law is a body of law that governs the protection of ownership and usage rights for creative
works including works of art and written books, among other types of media. This law protects the
intellectual property rights of authorship for a certain number of years, legally protecting works of
creative expression set in a fixed, tangible form such as the work of art, books or audio recording.

In this case, the plaintiff/respondent brought this case to the court for an infringement of right done by
the defendant/appellant. The plaintiff seeks for its copyright and to protect his form of work.

3
LAW 035 CASE SUMMARY
 RATIO DECIDENDI
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.

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.

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.

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.

4
LAW 035 CASE SUMMARY