A HIP-HOP MC who claimed £800,000 damages over a music video he said had wrecked his chances of having a hit has been told by top judges his claim is "not worth the candle".
Tony "Rudey" Soloman (pictured above right)– who uses the stage name "Dappa Dred" – claimed the video did not show his "good side" and was so poor it amounted to "derogatory treatment" and "a breach of his moral rights".
He sued the company that made it, Bristol Film Studios Ltd, saying his track, P.R.O.P.E.R, would have been destined to be a smash hit had he not been humiliated online.
But Appeal Court judges said that, as only about 50 people viewed the video on YouTube before it was taken down, Mr Soloman's claim could only be worth about £150 – and was simply not worth a judge's time to consider.
He now faces having to pay the company's costs of almost £10,000.
Although his case had been assessed as having "a real prospect of success", Lord Justice Lewison told the MC that, if his claim went ahead, "the game will not merely not have been worth the candle, it will not have been worth the wick".
Mr Soloman argued the video, which he claims was uploaded onto YouTube by the studios without his consent in 2009, was not of a professional quality, did not show his "good side" and sabotaged his chance of storming the charts.
The MC, one of whose tracks was officially viewed by 35,000 people on the web, said the video had "irreparably damaged" not only his reputation but P.R.O.P.E.R's commercial potential.
Mr Soloman first tried to sue the company at Bristol High Court in September 2010 but came away empty handed when a judge ruled that the value of his claim was so "extremely modest" it was not worth pursuing.
At London's Court of Appeal yesterday Lord Justice Lewison, sitting with Lords Justice Ward and Etherton, said Mr Soloman had "put an enormous amount of effort" into presenting his appeal – but ruled that his case had rightly been struck out as "a disproportionate use of the court's resources".
Even had most of the people who viewed the video on-line gone on to buy the track, he would only have made about £50 and – although he originally claimed £800,000 – the "maximum value" of his claim had been assessed at £150, said the judge.
There was no evidence that any record company had turned Mr Soloman down as a result of the video and, given the huge legal costs of pursuing the claim, the judge ruled it was simply not worth the time and resources involved.
Mr Soloman was not in court to hear the judge dismiss his appeal.
He was ordered to pay £9,500 towards the film studio's legal costs.
The studio disputed all Mr Soloman's claims and said the video, which was taken down from YouTube after five days, was a joint venture as he did not have the cash to promote the track himself. The company insisted he agreed to have it posted on the video-sharing website.
luxury custom home builders custom home builders san antonio omaha home builders
No comments:
Post a Comment