Vanuatu / Casos nacionales
John v Reserve Bank of Vanuatu, Civil Appeal No. 3209 of 2021
Casos nacionales. La inclusión en esta ficha no convierte una referencia extranjera en una decisión nacional. Se conserva el estado y el alcance de la fuente.
Expediente y fuentes
- Nombre
- John v Reserve Bank of Vanuatu, Civil Appeal No. 3209 of 2021
- Cita
- Court of Appeal of Vanuatu, Civil Appeal 3209 of 2021
- Tribunal
- Court of Appeal of Vanuatu
- Instancia
- apelación
- Fechas
- Decisión
- 2021-11-19
- Estado
- resuelto-firmeza-no-verificada
- Resultado
- Appeal dismissed; appellant ordered to pay respondent's costs fixed at VT40,000.
- Resumen
- The painting was an artistic work, John its author/owner and the coin an infringing copy. Actual economic loss, Bank profit and actual prejudice to honour/reputation were unproved; a nominal/presumed injury could exist for unattributed rearrangement, but the broad-brush VT500,000 award disclosed no error and was generous.
- Antecedentes
- The Court described John's 2000 painting of a paramount chief addressing about fifty villagers. The twenty-vatu coin copied six human figures, reduced them and reversed the woman-and-child image without mutilating them; no author name appeared. The Bank circulated 4,633,105 coins in 2015-2021.
- Historia procesal
- The Bank filed no defence below, default judgment entered and the trial proceeded on damages, producing a VT500,000 award. John appealed as too low, alleging failure to assess economic and moral harm; the Bank resisted. The Court of Appeal reviewed the evidence and s. 34 assessment.
- Cuestión jurídica
- Did the trial judge err by awarding only VT500,000 and failing properly to value economic and moral-right prejudice?
- Criterio
- The painting was an artistic work, John its author/owner and the coin an infringing copy. Actual economic loss, Bank profit and actual prejudice to honour/reputation were unproved; a nominal/presumed injury could exist for unattributed rearrangement, but the broad-brush VT500,000 award disclosed no error and was generous.
- Fundamento decisivo
- Sections 8, 9 and 34 distinguish economic and moral rights/remedies. Respectful use did not prove actual reputational prejudice, yet unattributed use and rearrangement could presumptively cause some harm and distress. The evidentiary record did not justify appellate interference.
- Límites
- The court assumed an undisputed human-created painting and did not test originality, registration, AI or autonomous creation. UK cases Carton Illustrators v Coleman and Clarke v Associated Newspapers were used only as persuasive analogies on presumed moral/reputational injury, not authorship.
- Relevancia
- doctrina-general
- Referencias relacionadas
- Peso del precedente
- National final appellate judgment and strongest located national application of Act No. 42; binding/appellate weight on the issues decided, but only general-doctrine context for AI authorship. Integración/votación: Unanimous institutional judgment; Chief Justice Vincent Lunabek and Justices John von Doussa, Raynor Asher, Oliver Saksak, Gustaaf Andrée Wiltens and Viran Molisa Trief. The judgment does not publish separate votes or dissents.
- Fuente
- Referencia
- John v Reserve Bank of Vanuatu, Civil Appeal No. 3209 of 2021
- Enlace
- Consultar fuente
- Autoridad
- Court of Appeal of Vanuatu
- Tipo
- national_appellate_doctrine_general_ordinary_human_authorship_not_genai
- Fecha de comprobación
- 2026-08-30
- Localizador
- metadata; paras. 1-5 (facts/posture), 6-8 (Act), 9-11 (decision below), 12-15 (analysis), 16-17 (orders)
- Verificación documentada
- Sí