The court established the respondent's copyright ownership over photographs through demonstrated originality in editing, affirming damages for unauthorized reproduction.

[1] This is an appeal from the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge ("HMS") where the HMS had allowed the claim of RASIDAH BINTI AHMAD [Menjalankan perniagaan dengan nama dan gaya LOOKitLOVE PHOTOGRAPHY] ("the respondent/plaintiff") against WEDDING GALORE SDN BHD ("the appellant/defendant"), for a declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of the copyright to the two photographs which were edited by the defendant and reproduced in the defendant's sales brochure, and ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff general damages of RM10,000-00, exemplary damages of RM20,000-00, aggravated damages of RM10,000-00, interest at the rate of 5% per annum from the date of the Writ until full settlement and costs of RM5113-00. Being dissatisfied with the order of the learned HMS, the appellant/defendant had filed an appeal to the High Court against the said decision.

[2] After hearing the submissions of the parties, the Court had on 30 March 2015 upheld the decision of the HMS in respect of liability. The awards of RM10,000-00 for general damages and RM10,000-00 for aggravated damages were maintained as was the order for a public apology in Facebook. The order for RM20,000-00 in exemplary damages was set aside. The appellant was ordered to pay to the respondent costs of RM5,000-00. The following constitutes the grounds for the Court's decision.

Background Facts

[3] The respondent is the sole proprietor of a business known as LOOKitLOVE Photography which carries on a business of providing photography services for various functions such as weddings, engagements, birthdays and also personal photography. The appellant is a wedding planner and a wedding outfit supplier.

[4] In August 2013, the respondent was engaged by Puan Nurashikin binti Jamal to provide photography services for a "majlis pra-perkahwinan, pernikahan, persandingan, majlis bertandang dan penggambaran luar dan pasca majlis" on 17 August 2013, 24 August 2013 and 25 August 2013.

[5] On or about 7 November 2013, the appellant had taken two photographs of the respondent's clients wearing wedding outfits (P15 & P16) from the respondent's Facebook without approval and consent, removed the respondent's watermark on the said photographs and printed them in sales brochures for use at a Wedding Carnival at Bangi Gateway without any reference or credit being given to the respondent.

[6] Thus the respondent filed an action against the appellant for declaratory and other reliefs alleging that the appellant had infringed their copyright in the said photographs or photographic works for the appellant's business. The respondent claims that she had suffered hardship, losses and difficulties as a result of the infringement. Her relationship with her client was also affected as she was, at the material time of the infringement, in the process of completing the client's wedding album.

[7] The appellant states that it had found two edited photos of the wedding couple in Facebook where the wedding couple was wearing the outfit supplied to them by the appellant on hire. The appellant recites as a fact that it had downloaded the two photos and included them in a sales brochure that it had printed. There is an admission that 300 copies of the brochure were printed.

Whether The Two Edited Photographs Are Eligible For Copyright?

[8] The first issue to consider is whether the two edited photographs are eligible for copyright protection and if so, whether the respondent is the owner of the copyright.

[9] The respondent takes the positi