Copyright in Trinidad and Tobago: An Overview

*Ariana Praboocharan 

LLB LEC

The potent brew of rich cultures and the unique history of the Caribbean has, unsurprisingly, ignited a creative spark in its people. This culminated in a myriad of spectacular novels, poems, plays, films, musical compositions, paintings and photographs, brilliantly showcasing the talent of the region. Now, imagine being in the shoes of an individual whose creativity has blossomed. There exists a looming concern that their works could be copied without their authorisation. It is only fair that the authors of these artistic works have recourse to an appropriate avenue so that they can confidently preserve their association with as well ensure that they reap the economic rewards of their talent. 

Copyright protection serves as an engine for fostering innovation and engaging the artistic mind.[1] It is of utmost importance as it enables creativity to flourish by arming authors with economic and moral rights which attach to their works.[2] Copyright is the exclusive right to do, and to authorise others to do certain acts in relation to literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works, sound recordings, films, broadcasts and published editions of works.[3]

With the starkness of the uncertainty surrounding what is permitted under copyright laws, there is an overwhelming need to shed light on this confusion. Against this backdrop, this blog post is devoted to concisely tackling the regulatory framework of the Copyright Act[4] (“the Act”) of Trinidad and Tobago. The Act predominantly aims to delineate the rights of the copyright author/owner and to enable them to protect their works by invoking the Court’s jurisdiction and the balancing of this with society’s need to use these works for its overall betterment. 

Copyright protection subsists in original intellectual creations[5] and derivative works,[6] but does not extend to any ideas, discovery, political speeches.[7] This statutory prohibition sets out a well-established copyright principle: copyright protects expression, not ideas.[8] It must be emphasised, however, that it is the form of expression and not the ideas in the work that must be an original creation of the author.[9]

One must appreciate that the original owner of copyright is the author who has created the work.[10] In Trinidad and Tobago, copyright protection is automatic and effortless. This means that there is no need for compliance with any formalities nor any registration to obtain copyright protection. Additionally, copyright is protected for the duration of the author’s life and fifty years after their death.[11] There are also instances where the duration of protection may last between twenty-five to one hundred years from the making of the work.[12]

Needless to say, there are enormous benefits facilitated by copyright. The owner of copyright shall have the exclusive right to do, authorise, or prohibit the reproduction, translation, adaption/modification, public display, public performance, distribution, broadcasting and communication to the public of the work.[13] It is acknowledged that copyright affords recognition[14] and prevents individuals from exploiting the works of others without authorisation. 

The Act provides both civil[15] and criminal[16] remedies to deter any infringement[17] of an individual’s exclusive rights. When an author feverishly initiates an action for breach of copyright, the Court would look at any similarities between the alleged infringing work and the original copyright work, whether the author of the alleged infringing work had direct or indirect access[18] to the original copyright work and whether they made some unauthorised use of the original work. If unauthorised use was made of the original copyright work in producing the alleged infringing work, the Court will decipher whether it amounted to a substantial part[19] of the original work before rendering its decision.[20]

However, it would be remiss to omit to mention that there are carefully carved out limitations[21] to copyright protection.[22] This includes the concept of fair dealing, which encompasses non-commercial research,[23] private study,[24] criticism or review[25] and reporting current events.[26] These limitations provide a balancing exercise between the rights of authors and the basic innate human needs of the public. They aim to reconcile the tension between exclusive private rights on one hand and the freedom to read and express oneself as one wishes on the other hand.

Notwithstanding the benefits conferred by the legislation, there is always a considerable need for copyright reform to adapt to the ever-changing realities of society, particularly the widespread, unsanctioned dissemination of works via the Internet, and moreover, a need to address any deficiencies within the Caribbean copyright system and to offer concrete resolutions to same.[27]

It is interesting to note that once an author is aware of the protection afforded to its artistic creations through copyright and related rights, they are further incentivised and empowered to create. This, in turn, has a domino effect for Trinidad and Tobago and the Caribbean region, which can enjoy the fame amassed from the author’s protected works. The likes of VS Naipaul, Kamau Brathwaite, Earl Lovelace, Machel Montano and Kes the Band are some of the highly distinguished talents of the Caribbean region who have impressively marked their copyright domain. 

---

*Ariana can be contacted at arianaprab@gmail.com. 

[1] Full Blown Entertainment v Devon Matthews  Claim No CV 2015-01073

[2] Sean Drakes v Donald Grant Claim No CV2018-01224

[3] Halsbury’s Laws of England, Copyright (EC) Volume 23 paragraph 503 [2016]

[4] Chap 82:80

[5] Copyright Act Chap. 82:80 1997 s 5(1) 

[6] Copyright Act Chap. 82:80 1997 s 6(1) 

[7] Copyright Act Chap. 82:80 1997 s 7(1)

[8] Baker v Selden (1879) 101 US 99 

[9] Word Intellectual Property Organization, 'Understanding Copyrights and Related Rights' (2016)

[10] Copyright Act Chap. 82:80 1997 s 26(1)

[11] Copyright Act Chap. 82:80 1997 s 19(1)

[12] Copyright Act Chap. 82:80 1997 s 19(3)

[13]Copyright Act Chap. 82:80 1997 s 8(1)

[14] The Berne Convention (Article 6bis)

[15] Copyright Act Chap. 82:80 1997 s 31(1)

[16] Copyright Act Chap. 82:80 1997 s 40

[17] Copyright Act Chap. 82:80 1997 s 34

[18] Repp v Webber (1997) 132 F 3d 882, 889 

[19] Designer Guild Ltd v Russell Williams Textiles [2001] 1 All ER 700, explained the differentiation between “similarity” and “substantiality” as follows: “Whether a substantial part of the artistic work has been taken depends upon the cumulative effect of copied features and not upon whether each feature has, in isolation, been substantially copied. If similarities between two works are sufficient to raise the inference of copying, those similarities will normally satisfy the requirement of substantiality.”

[20] Baigent and another v Random House Group Ltd (2007) EWCA Civ 247

[21] Copyright Act Chap. 82:80 1997 s 25(1)

[22] Charlotte Waelde, Graeme Laurie, Abbe Brown, Contemporary Intellectual Property: Law and Policy Kheria, Jane Cornwell, (5th Edition, Oxford University Press 2019)

[23] HM Stationery Office v Green Amps Ltd [2007] EWHC 2755 (Ch) 

[24] University of London Press Ltd v University Tutorial Press Ltd [1916] 2 Ch 601

[25] Pro Sieben Media v Carlton Television [1999] 1 WLR 605

[26] Hyde Park Residence v Yelland [2000] RPC 604

[27] Daniel J Gervais, ' (Re)structuring Copyright: A Comprehensive Path to International Copyright Reform' (Edward Elgar Publishing 2017)