I-Admin (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Hong Ying Ting [2020] SGCA 32 Our decision No copyright infringement 30 Copyright is the exclusive right to, among other things, “reproduce [a protected] work in a material form” or “make an adaptation of the work” (s 26(1)(a) of the Copyright Act). There are two levels to the appellant’s claim for copyright infringement. At a higher level, it is contended that the respondents substantially reproduced and/or adapted its copyrighted materials for financial gain. At a more basic level, the allegation is that the respondents downloaded, possessed and circulated unauthorised copies of the appellant’s materials. It is said that the latter, in and of itself, was material reproduction in contravention of the Copyright Act. At the hearing before us, counsel for the appellant Mr Lee Eng Beng SC (“Mr Lee”) confirmed this lower level of infringement to be the primary focus on appeal. He added that this was not a new argument; infringing reproduction by way of possession and circulation had been a part of the appellant’s pleaded case and had been advanced before the Judge. 31 With respect, the evidence does not support Mr Lee’s latter submission. The appellant contends that the references to material reproduction in paras 9 and 10 of its amended Statement of Claim, set out below, are sufficiently broad to encompass claims of substantial copying and mere possession and circulation: 9. The [first, second, third respondents], as well as the [fourth respondent] (who individually and/or through the [t]hird [respondent]), have individually and/or jointly infringed the [appellant’s] copyright in the Copyright Material by doing the following acts in Singapore without the consent or authority of the [appellant], namely: (a) Reproducing the Copyright Material in material form; (b) Adapting the Copyright Material; and/or 15