Broadchurch, Kudos Productions Dispute
I have asked Kudos Productions, the producers of
Broadchurch for £3.800 for using my painting in episode 6 of the latest
series without my permission. This is a breach of copyright law. They make
the claim that it was incidental use and allowed under section 31 of the
copyright act. I disagree and will show how this is not incidental
use but I believe is a subliminal message as part of the story line
They did offer me £1,500 the majority of which my
solicitor managed to scoop up, with letters and emails.. In return Kudos
wanted confidentiality. I objected to this for such a small amount of
money from a production that was going world wide, video's box sets and
more. I offered confidentiality for £3.800 knowing that my solicitor would
try and claim a good chunk of that or I would go public. They turned me
down so I went public.
I thought it right that other artists were made
aware of the practise of abusing section 31 of the copyright act. Also I
was incensed that Kudos accused me of being opportunistic. When indeed it
was they who were being opportunistic in using my art work to subliminally
make implications to their story line.
Kudos Productions and Endemol Shine Group did not
respond to my final offer of £3,800 and so after 4 weeks I sent the story
to The press.
It was published in the Mail on Sunday, and was on
Breakfast TV. The Times and the Mirror on the Monday, The Sun on the
Tuesday, Progressive Greetings, an online IP publication.
The Mail on Sunday claimed that most artist would be
grateful if their work was seen in a major production.
Unfortunately there are some new and or struggling
artists that are grateful. I have been there - when I started out 25 yrs
ago I was also foolishly grateful - and I can say it does not bring in
business. It's a con of an argument. I don't need my art to be seen on TV.
I have sold over 65,000 originals and have a successful greeting card
After to press stories I
suggested to Kudos that they may like to make a generous donation to my
charity "Naturezones Willife Education Trust". THUS FAR THEY HAVE DECLINED
Chain of original emails prior to
solicitors letters - these can be found under the pictures
Really good to finally chat in person just now Angela. Thanks greatly
for your time. I appreciate you giving consideration to our proposal of
a £500 buyout. I appreciate how it might have appeared, but your
painting was genuinely not the intended focus of the shot in which it
appeared. I very much hope we can find a way through. Please do call me
on my mobile if easier to discuss, when you're ready: 07812363213
All my very best,
hello Dan, There is no rush. I am not the easiest person to get
hold of via phone. My land line is 01983 296110 early am or
evenings. Mobile 078877 83222 (don’t use voice mail I never
respond and don’t always carry it with me anyway). Thursday
might be best day to get hold of me. Tomorrow I am all tied up.
best wishes Angela
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2017 1:26 PM
Subject: Re: Broadchurch - Painting
Would it be possible for me to call you perhaps? Sincerest
apologies for my delayed reply - just back from holiday!
I too would very much like to try and avoid things
becoming too legal & complicated. Really hoping I can help
All my very best,
Hello Dan, thank you for your response.
I am happy to discuss a retrospective agreement but
first I need to know the following:-
1) I assume the programme will go to other channels
UK and worldwide, possible already agreed via
license, syndicate, DVD etc. Can you give me an idea
2) I understand UK viewers amounted to approx
7+million. Please confirm
3) In confidence how much will remuneration be for
the episode – this may be public knowledge?
4) Roughly for how many years
will the episode be released and viewed
5) Your legal department will cover all costs and
paperwork – please confirm this
I do have an IP solicitor however, as little is in
dispute apart from perhaps the fee we may be able to
come to some agreement independently.
Once you have responded to my requests we can
discuss a fee. I would like to say now that I would
prefer to settle for a one off payment rather than
the rigmarole of royalties.
I have to say that in the
light of the subject matter of the drama the image
was rather symbolic!
Many thanks for your co-operation
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 6:30 PM
Subject: Broadchurch - Painting
Please forgive me for my delayed reply with
getting back to you.
I was forwarded your email regarding the
Cockerel painting (image attached below).
Our art dept had received confirmation from
the owner of the painting at the time of
checking clearance, that no further
clearance/approval was required. On receiving
this confirmation they proceeded with leaving
the painting in place as set decoration.
Please accept my apologies on behalf of all
involved for the misunderstanding here. I
assure you we hadn't deliberately intended to
avoid your copyright approval.
Could I ask your retrospective approval if
possible Angela? We will of course agree a fee
with you for this.
Thanks ever so much indeed for your
There will be paperwork I need to follow up
with, but I'll loop in our lawyers at Kudos
once I've hear back from you & we've hopefully
established your agreement.
All my very best wishes,
Dan Winch | Producer | Broadchurch III
The original setting before being staged
My painting adjacent to suspected rapist
Shot travels past my painting
My painting centre stage
Actress Coleman in the background. This scene was totally unnecessary.
She had the phone in her hand to make the calls as she was leaving the
Initially I sent cease and desist letter to
Kudos Productions and to ITV the broadcasters of the drama.
Cockerel - original painting (the Work) by Angela E Hewitt (the Artist)
On April 4th
April 2017 Kudos Productions were made aware that I am the owner of all
copyright subsisting in the Work which is an original artisitic work by
myself the Artist and which is protected as a copyright under the
provisons of the UK copyright, designs and patent act.
broadcast the Work which shall be refered to as the “Infringing Work” in
episode 6 of Series 3 of Broadchurch broadcast on ITV on 3rd
Accordingly you are hereby directed to cease and desist all copyright
consent to use the work was neither sought nor granted I must inform you
that you are in breach of copyright. In terms of Copyright Statutes I am
entitled to an injunction against your continued infringement. In the
circumstances I hereby demand that you immediately pay a license fee of
£20,000 (Twenty thousand pounds) in consideration of your exploitation of
your acknowledgement of this letter and your response to my request by 27th
April 2017. Failure to respond by this date will result in my seekeing
further legal remedies.
evidence of the copyright infringed Work.
My solicitors letter of allegations
and their response below...
Endemol Shine Group Limited T/A Kudos
12-14 Amwell Street, London, EC1R 1UQ
By post and email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Our Client: Angela Hewitt
Copyright and Moral Rights Infringement
We act for Angela Hewitt, an artist based on the Isle
of Wight. Ms Hewitt creates very particular and recognisable paintings,
particularly of farm animals and wild birds. These paintings are all
created by Ms Hewitt employing her skill and labour.
Our Client’s Rights
Our client is the owner of the copyright in a painting
of a Cockerel, (‘the Work’) representations of which are attached at
Schedule 1. The Work incorporates our client’s iconic use of colour and
brushstrokes to create a vivid image of a cockerel contrasted against a
The Work was created by Angela Hewitt using her skill
and labour. The Work is one of many simlar original paintings first
created in 1996 and first made available to the public at a craft fair at
Sandringham the same year. Ms Hewitt is a British citizen ordinarily
resident in the United Kingdom.
Copyright arises as the Work is an original artistic
work within the meaning of s.4(1)(a) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents
Act 1988 (‘CDPA’). The facts set out above qualify the Work for copyright
protection pursuant to the requirements of Part I Chapter I of the CDPA.
Our client also has the moral right to be attributed as the author of the
Work and to object to derogatory treatment of the Work further to s.80 of
Infringement by you
It has been brought to our attention that you are
displaying, without the permission of our client, the Work on your
Broadchurch TV programme as shown on ITV contrary to s.20 of the CDPA. The
Work was displayed in what was purported to be the house of the character
portrayed by Lenny Henry, who at the time was under arrest on suspicion of
rape. The Work was shown during episode 6 of the third series of
Broadchurch. This episode was watched by approximately 7.58 million people
in the United Kingdom alone within the first 7 days of broadcast. This
does not take into account later viewings and so the actual figure is
likely to be higher.
The Work features very prominently in some particularly
troubling scenes (examples of how the Work is featured are included at
Schedule 2) and the symbolism of displaying a cockerel so prominently
within the context of those scenes, and indeed an entire television show,
centred on the investigation of a rape cannot be overlooked and is surely
deliberate. The cockerel is clearly depicted as connotative of the
character whose home it is in, this being someone who is a stalker and
In all of the circumstances this use cannot be
considered incidental. As previously mentioned the symbolism of a cockerel
painting in a scene where the house of a rape suspect (who is also
revealed to be ‘stalking’ the victim) is searched by police is
unmistakeable. It is also the case that the Work is featured in a
gratuitous manner. In the scene the camera pans slowly past the Work to
focus through a window on a female detective speaking on the telephone.
This scene was unnecessary, adding nothing to the narrative arc and can
only have been included in order to convey a symbolic, subliminal message.
You have taken the deliberate decision to associate the Work amongst a
wide audience with the themes of rape and stalking. This is undoubtedly a
derogatory treatment of the Work and is therefore a breach of our client’s
moral rights in the Work. This also constitutes an act of primary
infringement of our client’s copyright.
As stated above, no permission was sought for use of
the Work, and if permission had been sought our client would not have
allowed it. Our client strenuously objects to the Work being used in this
context and feels that her creativity has been abused.
Your knowledge that the Work was protected by copyright
is beyond doubt, as you have previously acknowledged in correspondence
with our client, and you have failed to take any or any reasonable steps
to ascertain the owner of the copyright in the Work. You have confirmed to
our client that as it was not immediately apparent who had created the
Work you decided to simply use the Work without permission. This is
despite the fact that our client is a very well-known artist and a
reasonably quick search of the internet would have confirmed our client
as, at least, a potential author of the Work. This confirms that your use
of the Work was a flagrant breach of copyright and our client reserves the
right to pursue you for flagrancy damages.
The explanation provided by your representative that
they simply decided to leave the Work in situ, even though they were aware
that they did not have permission from the copyright owner to use the Work
is also not accepted and confirms the flagrant nature of the breach in
this matter. Our client has also been deeply troubled by the abuse of her
We repeat that our client is a very well-known artist.
Since 1996 she has sold in excess of 50,000 original watercolours all have
been signed and labled. She sells her work through County shows such as
the Devon County Show and the Royal Cornwall county show. Paintings very
similar to the Work have always been available. She has sold her paintings
at Darts Farm in Devon, adjacent to Dorset, for over 10 years and still
does. Her website has been promoting and selling original cockerel
paintings since 2002. Her art work is also sold through Beauliue Fine
Arts, Hampshire, Holroyd Gallery, Scotland, Le Strange Barns, Norfolk. In
the past she has sold her art work with a similar cockerel always
available (it is a best seller) at a wide range of shows including Hampton
Court Flower Show (5 times), Tatton Park Flower Show(5 times), Windsor
Horse trails (3 times), Badminton (8 times), Blenheim(8 times) and
Burleigh Horse shows (10 times), Devon (6 times), Royal Cornwall (8
times), Harrogate (3 times), Royal Highland Agriculture show (12 times),
Scone Game Fair (5 times), The Game Fair (15 times), Country Living
Magazines shows (15 times) and many others not icluded in this list. It
would not have been a difficult task for you to ascertain that she was the
creator of the Work. In 2002 she set up a greeting card company and has
sold greeting cards depicting her art work to retail outlets all over
Britain. She has also sold a range of merchandise depicting her art work
inlcuding teatowels, aprons, placemats, coasters and ceramics. Her work
ahd been wiidely publicised in NEC Trade show magazines and Greetings
Today. You made a conscious decision not to seek out this information and
not to seek our client’s permission for use of the Work.
Our Client’s Remedy
Our client is entitled to a final injunction to prevent
you from continuing to display the Work within the Broadchurch TV
programme. In addition our client is entitled to be compensated for your
activity and reimbursed its legal costs accrued to date. Our client is of
course aware of the massive expense that you will be put to should you be
required to remove the Work from all future DVD releases, repeats etc of
Broadchurch which will no doubt have a huge commercial value. Our client
is also acutely aware that the infringement and derogatory treatment of
the Work has already been viewed by many millions of people both in the
United Kingdom, and indeed worldwide.
In light of the above our client is prepared to make a
one time offer to yourselves to resolve this dispute at this early stage.
You will pay our client the sum of [£10,000 Ten Thousand Pounds].
Though this is necessarily a broad brush figure we can advise that it
comprises of; a retrospective license fee for use of the Work, damages for
infringement of the Work, flagrancy damages for infringement of the Work
as you were well aware that our client’s permission was required to use
the Work and damages for breach of our client’s moral rights in the Work.
This offer is made on an open basis so as to be express as to our client’s
desire to resolve this issue now before further damage is done to her work
In return our client will allow the Work to continue to
be used on the Broadchurch TV programme. Should this not be acceptable our
client shall pursue this matter and, as well as damages, shall seek an
injunction against further use of the Work which will require you to
remove the Work from all future showings of the Broadchurch TV programme.
We hope that this is not necessary but we must stress that our client is
incredibly concerned by the associations which will now be made with her
We therefore require that you enter into the attached
undertaking within 14 days of the date of this letter failing which our
client will have no alternative but to commence proceedings against you
without further expense.
All of our client’s rights are expressly reserved
especially in relation to costs, damages and interim relief.
Response form Kudos Productions -
click to enlarge
My response and rejection of their offer
Our Client: Angela Hewitt
Your Client: Kudos (Broadchurch) Limited
We write further to our letter of 23 June 2017 and your
letter of 29 June 2017.
Our letter of 23 June 2017 was quite clear in that our
client was willing in principle to accept £1,500 in settlement of this
matter but that your purported offer was not in fact an offer capable of
acceptance due to the fact that it did not expand upon the terms of
settlement your client would seek to impose. Our letter made it clear that
the purported offer could not be accepted until our client had considered
the terms of settlement your client wished to impose. There was therefore
no agreement concluded at that stage.
Our client does not accept your client’s proposed terms
of settlement, namely the requirement for confidentiality, contained at
paragraph 5 of your letter of 29 June 2017 and at clause 4 of the
‘Standard Terms of Agreement’.
Our client denies your assertion that she was being
opportunistic, indeed this is an accusation that is best levelled at your
client who in a storyline revolving around rape saw an opportunity to use
the Work to relay a subliminal message. Subliminal messages are in this
day and age a common instrument used in marketing and your client used the
Work to represent the theme of their story. The sublimal message conveyed
by the use of the Work in this context is supported by the use of similar
pictures in other mediums. Another
example is in the play ‘Ghost Train’ where the word cockerel was used to
convey the virility of two male characters.
It is further denied that your client’s use of the Work
was incidental. The Work did not feature as a background picture, rather
it was the only image that featured prominently on the screen for a period
of 3-4 seconds. The Work was deliberately placed in a scene showing the
lead female character through a window where the only images on screen
were the lead female character and the Work. As we have previously stated,
the scene in which the Work was placed added nothing to the narrative arc
of the story.
Our client remains extremely upset by the use of the
Work in this context and also by your claim that she is simply being
opportunistic in this matter. For this reason our client cannot accept the
£1,500 you have offered alongside a duty of confidentiality being imposed
upon her. If your client wishes for the confidentiality clauses to remain
within the agreement our client will require payment of £3,800. This
amount more accurately (though by no means adequately) reflects our
client’s loss in this matter and for payment of this sum our client will
agree to be bound by the confidentiality provisions your client seeks to
impose. Should this not be acceptable our client shall instead seek to
publicise this matter.
In anticipation of your agreement to the above our
client has amended and signed your letter of 29 June 2017 and the attached
‘Deal Terms’. Please confirm if these are acceptable and forward the
settlement monies by return. Should these not be acceptable our client
will be entering into no further correspondence in this matter.