Case Study: Mesuma Sports Sdn Bhd v Majlis Sukan Negara [2015] – Who Owns the Copyright?
Introduction
In the realm of intellectual property law, the question of who owns a copyright can often be more complex than it first appears. The Malaysian case of Mesuma Sports Sdn Bhd v Majlis Sukan Negara [2015] 6 MLJ 465 is a striking example of how copyright issues can collide with commercial and governmental interests—especially when the rights in question relate to national pride.
Background
Mesuma Sports Sdn Bhd (Mesuma) is a sportswear company that had been producing apparel for Malaysia’s national athletes. The “tiger stripe” logo in question had become symbolic of Malaysian sports, particularly during international competitions such as the Commonwealth Games.
However, conflict arose when Mesuma claimed exclusive copyright ownership over the logo design. In contrast, Majlis Sukan Negara (MSN), or the National Sports Council, asserted that the logo was created for them and hence, the copyright belonged to the Council.
The dispute eventually made its way to the Federal Court of Malaysia, the country’s highest judicial authority.
Legal Issues
The crux of the case revolved around:
-
Who was the rightful copyright owner of the logo under Malaysian law?
-
Whether the logo was “commissioned” under Section 26(3)(a) of the Malaysian Copyright Act 1987, and therefore belonged to the party who commissioned it.
-
Whether Mesuma had the legal standing to claim copyright or if they were merely a licensee or vendor.
Judgment Summary
The Federal Court ruled in favour of Majlis Sukan Negara, holding that:
-
The logo was created at the instance and expense of MSN, which constituted a commissioned work.
-
Under Section 26(3)(a) of the Copyright Act 1987, when a work is commissioned, the copyright belongs to the party who commissioned it unless there is an agreement to the contrary.
-
There was no evidence that Mesuma retained ownership through any contractual agreement.
-
Mesuma acted more like a manufacturer and vendor rather than the creative originator with independent copyright claims.
What happened in regards to the copyright law?
1. Commissioned Work Is Not Automatically Yours
If a party pays or commissions the creation of a work, they may own the copyright, even if they didn’t physically design it. This hinges on whether there's an agreement to the contrary.
2. Written Agreements Matter
This case reinforces the importance of having clear, written contracts when developing intellectual property, particularly in business settings.
3. Ownership ≠ Usage
Just because a company uses a logo or brand symbol extensively doesn't mean they own it. Actual copyright ownership must be traced back to the origin of the design and the contractual framework behind it.
Why This Case Matters
This case is pivotal because it sets a precedent in Malaysian IP law regarding commissioned works and governmental involvement. It clarifies the position on ownership of artistic works when created for public institutions, and it’s a lesson for businesses to ensure they protect their creative assets through solid legal documentation.
In broader terms, Mesuma v MSN illustrates the delicate balance between commercial interest and national identity—a line that intellectual property law often navigates.
Final Thoughts
For me I believe that creators, designers, and companies should not rely on assumptions. If you’re designing a logo, producing content, or creating anything with commercial or symbolic value—get it in writing. As an artist myself I believe that every work that I produce is solely mine alone and I think that my rights should be protected the same as every other artist. Therefore, as a final thoughts copyright isn't just about creation—it's about control, contracts, and clarity. We should know our rights and protect ourselves so that we do not get taken for granted.
Comments
Post a Comment