Procol Harum frontman Gary Brooker is once again the sole owner of the music that you hear in 'A Whiter Shade Of Pale' after an Appeal Court ruling last week.
To recap in as few words as I can, the music to Procol Harum's biggest hit had always been credited to Brooker since its 1967 release, but in 2005 Matthew Fisher, who played the organ on the song, claimed co-ownership. He argued that Brooker's original score did not include the organ part, and that he had, in fact, composed that bit while in the studio recording the song. If true, of course, that meant Fisher had written by far the most famous part of the track, and the bit that had proved especially popular (and profitable) as a ringtone. With that in mind Fisher sued for a share of the royalties, explaining to those who questioned why it had taken nearly forty years for him to make a claim that there had been an informal understanding back in the day that Brooker would compensate Fisher by giving him a share of other Procol Harum songs.
In 2006 Fisher's claim came to court, and he succeeded, with the court awarding him 40% of the royalties generated by the song - a not insignificant reward.
But Brooker quickly appealed, the crux of his appeal being the time gap in between the song being released and Fisher making his claim. Whether or not you bought Fisher's claims about old agreements, Brooker argued that the organist's claim to ownership was made too late in the day for the courts to rule on the case, not least because several people involved in the original recording - possible witnesses as to who wrote what - were no longer alive.
And last week judges in the Court Of Appeal agreed, overturning the 2006 ruling and giving Brooker back complete ownership of the music in 'A Whiter Shade Of Pale'. The Appeal Court said that it did, in fact, believe that Fisher contributed the organ theme to the song, but added that he had left it far too long to make a claim to royalties through the courts. "Matthew Fisher is guilty of excessive and inexcusable delay in his claim to assert joint title to a joint interest in the work", one of the judges said, "he silently stood by and acquiesced in the defendant's commercial exploitation of the work for 38 years. [The delay in making a claim] made it unconscionable and inequitable for him to seek to exercise control over the commercial exploitation of the copyright in the work".
Needless to say, Brooker, who was not present at the Appeal Court ruling, welcomed the judges' decision, saying in a statement: "For nearly three years, this claim has been a great strain upon myself and my family. I believe the original trial was unfair and the results wrong. Justly, the decisions of the Court of Appeal have gone some way to putting this right and I would hope that now we can all get on with our lives".
Fisher still has the right to appeal the appeal, taking the case to the House Of Lords. Whether he does so remains to be seen. Meanwhile, there is the unresolved matter of whether Fisher will now be forced to pay Brooker's legal costs to date. The Appeal Court will rule on that issue at a later date.