Original essay question / assignment brief
Tyla Quick, the world’s most popular pop singer, is currently on her Hype 2026 world
tour. She will be coming to Auckland to perform at Eden Park for one night only on
Saturday, 15th August 2026. The concert is expected to attract not only a local New
Zealand crowd but also foreigners, with fans travelling from as far as the UK, Australia,
Samoa and Fiji. Eden Park has a maximum capacity of 60,000 people for concerts. The
company Pop and Soul is both the promoter of the Hype 2026 concert and the owner of
Eden Park.
The cost of a general admission ticket to attend the concert is $300 NZD. Pop and Soul
also issued 1,000 limited VIP tickets (directly in front of the stage) costing $3,000 NZD
per ticket. The day before the much-anticipated concert, Pop and Soul announced that
general admission tickets were completely sold out, but that 100 VIP tickets were still
available for sale.
Caesar, a billionaire who lives in an 8-bedroom, 3-storey mansion on the hills
overlooking Eden Park, has created a Facebook Event page inviting all his friends to view
the Tyla Quick concert at his home. On the event page, he writes:
From my very spacious balcony directly facing Eden Park we could all have a
bird’s eye view of the entire concert together. If you bring your binoculars, I
assure you that you will have an excellent view of Tyla Quick. It will be ten times
better than the VIP Experience! Let’s call it a lavish “VIP Balcony Experience!”
On the Facebook Event page, Caesar explained that he will be hiring a caterer for that
night to provide Mediterranean dishes, juices and premium drinks. He further stated
that “champagne would flow like water”.
On Saturday, 15th August, about 100 friends showed up at Caesar’s mansion, most with
binoculars in hand to view the concert. One of these friends is Slim Shady, a wealthy,
award-winning film director.
Caesar, who is intrigued by gadgets, uses his party as an opportunity to test out his
latest Sony FX3 camera. He spent most of the night filming his party and the concert for
his own private purposes. While filming, Caesar was pleasantly surprised by the quality
of the camera’s extended Zoom. He was able to film Tyla Quick performing her hit
songs, as if he were just 50 meters away from her. Thrilled by his raw footage, Caesar
LAW141 – 2026
Written assignment
downloads all his video files onto his laptop and proudly shows them to Slim Shady.
Caesar then went off to socialise with his guests and to mix drinks.
Impressed by the raw footage, Slim Shady transferred all the video files taken that night
from Caesar’s laptop to his trusty USB stick. Slim Shady did not tell Caesar this, nor did
he delete the raw digital files from Caesar’s laptop.
Two weeks later, Slim Shady submitted a 15-minute documentary called “Tyla Quick –
The VIP Balcony Experience!” which premiered at the prestigious Auckland Film
Festival. The documentary went on to win the coveted $100,000 NZD award in the “best
short film” category. Caesar is upset because he realised that the entire documentary
was made up of his raw video footage taken from his Sony FX3 camera. Pop and Soul is
also outraged as they consider themselves the owners of the Tyla Quick Hype 2026
concert experience, and they did not permit either Caesar or Slim Shady to film or
broadcast the event.
You have been asked to provide the following advice to Pop and Soul and Caesar:
a) Did Pop and Soul own the Tyla Quick Hype 2026 concert, and could they file a
successful injunction to prevent Slim Shady from further distributing his 15-
minute award-winning documentary? (20 points)
b) Could Caesar successfully sue Slim Shady for the tort of conversion? (20 points)
This assignment will provide advice to Pop and Soul and Caesar regarding their respective legal positions following the filming of the Tyla Quick concert. The advice will consider whether Pop and Soul can prevent the distribution of a documentary made from the footage, and whether Caesar can sue for the tort of conversion. This analysis is based on the law of New Zealand.
a) Pop and Soul’s Claim
Pop and Soul’s legal position involves two key questions: whether they own the spectacle of the concert and whether they can obtain an injunction against Slim Shady’s documentary.
The idea of “owning” a spectacle is not a recognised concept in law. The foundational Commonwealth authority on this point is the Australian case of *Victoria Park Racing and Recreation Grounds Co Ltd v Taylor* (1937) 58 CLR 479, which has been influential in New Zealand. This case established that a person cannot have property rights in a spectacle. An owner of a venue can take physical steps, such as building higher fences, to prevent outsiders from viewing an event, but they cannot sue a person who views or describes the event from an adjacent property. Applying this principle, Pop and Soul do not own the “Tyla Quick Hype 2026 concert experience” in a way that prevents Caesar and his friends from viewing it from his private property.
However, Pop and Soul may have a much stronger claim to prevent the distribution of the documentary based on copyright law. The New Zealand Copyright Act 1994 protects performances. Under section 171 of the Act, a performer (Tyla Quick) has the right to consent to the recording or communication to the public of her performance. A recording made without that consent is an infringing copy.
While the primary right belongs to the performer, section 199 of the Act gives rights to persons with exclusive recording contracts. As the promoter of a major world tour, it is highly probable that Pop and Soul have an exclusive contract with Tyla Quick that gives them the sole right to record and distribute the concert. Assuming such a contract exists, Pop and Soul would have standing to sue for infringement. Slim Shady’s documentary, created from Caesar’s unauthorised recording, would be an infringement of Pop and Soul’s exclusive recording rights.
Given a likely successful claim for copyright infringement, Pop and Soul could seek an injunction under section 121 of the Copyright Act 1994 to prevent any further distribution or broadcast of the documentary. Courts will grant an injunction to protect commercial interests from clear copyright infringement. Therefore, Pop and Soul are likely to be successful in obtaining an injunction.
b) Caesar’s Claim against Slim Shady for Conversion
Caesar may wish to sue Slim Shady for taking his video files. The question specifically asks whether a claim in the tort of conversion would be successful. Conversion is an intentional act of dealing with a chattel in a manner that is inconsistent with the rights of the person entitled to possession.
For a claim to succeed, the object in question must be a “chattel” or tangible personal property. The central difficulty for Caesar is that the raw video files are digital data, which is intangible. The traditional position at common law is that conversion does not apply to intangible property. This was confirmed in the influential UK House of Lords decision in *OBG Ltd v Allan* [2007] UKHL 21, where it was held that conversion is limited to chattels and does not protect intangible things like contractual rights or information.
New Zealand courts have generally followed this approach. While Slim Shady’s act of copying the files was unauthorised and dishonest, he did not take a physical object belonging to Caesar. He copied information from Caesar’s laptop onto his own USB stick, leaving the original files on the laptop intact. Caesar was not deprived of his property, only of the exclusive control over the information contained within it. As the files are intangible information, they cannot be the subject of a claim for conversion.
Furthermore, the act of copying itself is not typically seen as a conversion. Conversion requires a dealing that is a denial of the owner’s right of possession or title. Simply making a copy does not deprive the owner of the original item. Therefore, Caesar’s claim against Slim Shady for the tort of conversion is very unlikely to succeed. Caesar may have a stronger claim against Slim Shady for breach of his own copyright in the film he created, but a claim in conversion will fail.
References
- Copyright Act 1994 (NZ)
- OBG Ltd v Allan [2007] UKHL 21
- Victoria Park Racing and Recreation Grounds Co Ltd v Taylor (1937) 58 CLR 479
