Landmark Case on Artist Rights: Caruth v. THA Clarifies Copyright Law in T&T

Lessons from Sean Caruth v. The Tobago House of Assembly

By Nigel Trancoso - Attorney-at-Law

Introduction

On July 22, 2025, the Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago handed down a landmark decision in Sean Caruth v. The Tobago House of Assembly, clarifying the rights of creators under the Copyright Act, Chap. 82:80. The case focused on two key areas:

• Neighbouring rights, which protect performers of sound recordings, and

• Moral rights, which include the right to be named and the right to object to distortion or misuse.

This ruling is important not just for artists and musicians, but also for public bodies, event promoters, and media producers who use copyrighted works.

What Happened

In 2012, the THA used part of Sean Caruth’s popular soca song “Coal Pot” in advertisements for the Blue Food Festival—without asking permission, paying a fee, or crediting the performer. Mr. Caruth took legal action, claiming:

• Infringement of his neighbouring rights (as the performer of the recording), and

• Violation of his moral rights, because the ad included pork dishes—contrary to his beliefs—and failed to name him as the performer.

The High Court dismissed his claim, stating he had assigned his rights to COTT (Copyright Music Organisation of Trinidad and Tobago). Mr. Caruth appealed.

The Court of Appeal's Key Findings

✅ 1. Neighbouring Rights Were Not Assigned

The Court ruled that the Deed of Assignment signed by Mr. Caruth in 1997 transferred only copyright, not neighbouring rights. Under section 20 of the Copyright Act, neighbouring rights—such as those held by performers—are separate and must be explicitly assigned in writing.

Lesson: If a performer does not clearly assign their neighbouring rights, they still hold them—even if they’ve signed with a collecting agency like COTT.

✅ 2. Moral Rights Were Breached

According to section 18(1)(a) of the Copyright Act, authors have the right to be credited when their work is used publicly. The THA did not identify Sean Caruth as the performer of “Coal Pot” in its ad. The Court found this to be a clear breach of his moral rights. No waiver of those rights was in place.

Lesson: Moral rights, especially the right to attribution, cannot be ignored—they remain with the creator unless formally waived in writing.

Damages Awarded

The Court awarded Mr. Caruth:

• $100,000 in pecuniary damages, reflecting the commercial value of the unauthorised use, and

• $100,000 in non-pecuniary damages, to address distress, loss of credit, and breach of integrity.

The Court did not award exemplary damages, as the Copyright Act does not provide for them.

Lesson: Under Trinidad and Tobago law, courts will grant compensation for real loss and harm, not punitive amounts.

Why This Case Matters

This judgment sends a strong message:

• Neighbouring rights and moral rights are enforceable under Trinidad and Tobago law.

• Public bodies and private organisations must get explicit permission before using someone’s performance.

• Failing to credit a creator is a legal violation—not just a bad habit.

• Creators maintain personal rights even when commercial rights are assigned.

Final Thoughts

The Caruth v. THA case is a milestone in the enforcement of intellectual property rights in Trinidad and Tobago. It shows that the law recognises the dignity, labour, and identity of artists—not just their commercial value.

As more creatives look to protect their work and image, and more entities use music and media in promotions, this ruling should be studied carefully—and respected.

📄 Want to read the full judgment? Click here to download.

📩 For legal commentary, interviews, or speaking engagements, contact Nigel Trancoso at zcaal@outlook.com or leave a voice note via whatsapp on (868) 722-3320

Nigel Trancoso