Karteikarten
Copyright - Cases
Karten in diesem Stapel (15)
- 1Interlego v Tyco(Originality)
- Concerning: whether small modifications made to existing drawings of 'lego' bricks gave rise to a fresh copyright.
- For copyright to exist there must be an original work. Even though modifications are technically significant, if they are not visually significant and are in effect copies of existing works they would not give rise to new copyright. - 2Walter v LaneTangible
Concerning: The existence of copyright in an impromptu speech
- The speaker was the author of the written work for copyright purposes. The reporter, having used skilled and judgement and recording the speech using his own choice,, sequence and combination of words, adding structure and punctuation, was the author of that report of the speech, an original work in its own right.
And if the reporter had taped the speech on a tape machine he would have had copyright in sound recording. - 3Norowzian v Arks Ltd.(Dramatic Work)
- Concerning: what constitutes a dramatic work
- The content of the film can be a dramatic work if it is 'a work of action with or without words or music which is capable of being performed before an audience'. A film itself can be a work of action and be performed before an audience. - 4Hyperion records v Sawkins(Musical work)
Concerning: whether a new copyright had been created by substantial editing
Looking at the work as a whole this was not merely transcription. the notes are not the only expression that is protected by copyright. Other elements contribute to the sound of the music when performed and they can be protected if they are the product of an author's effort, skill and time. - 5George Hensher v Restawhile(Artistic Work)
- Concerning: What is needed to be a work of artistic craftsmanship
- There was no one legal principle to determine artistic craftsmanship, but solutions offered by the court were:
1. It must give pleasure and be valued for its appearance.
2. It is up to the court to decide after talking to expert witnesses.
3. The author must be consciously trying to create a work of art.
4. There must be genuine craftsmanship involved. - 6Fisher v Brooker(Joint Authorship)
Concerning: A claim to join authorship
Joint authorship may result from reworking an existing work by a person if his input can be regarded as an original contribution to the work. Mr Fisher was entitled to 40% share in the copyright but could not claim back-royalties because his silence prior to making his claim gave rise to gratuitous licence.無償許可 - 7Robin Ray v Classic FM(Joint Authorship)
- Concerning: the type of contribution needed to become a joint author
- To be a joint author there must be a significant creative contribution which was incorporated into the finished work, 'Although penmanship did not have to be exercised, a joint author had to have direct responsibility for what ended up on the paper which was the equivalent to penmanship'.
This case is also important in setting out guidelines to be applied to determine whether a beneficial assignment or implied licence is appropriate. - 8Stephenson v Macdonald(Ownership)
- Concerning: whether copyright belonged to an employee or employer
- Merely using facilities of an employer does not entitled the employer to copyright in an employee's creation if it was not made in the course of their duties as an employee. - 9Blair v Osborne(Joint Ownership)
- Concerning: an implied licence to use a commissioned work
- Although architects normally retain the copyright in their plans, there may be an implied licence so as to permit the use of the work for its intended purpose. - 10Hyperion v Dr. Lionel(Author's Right)
Concerning: form of acknowledgement specified by author (or film Director)
where a specific form of acknowledgement is required by the author (or directly), failure to use the form will infringe the author's right to be identified as such. - 11Confetti Records v Warner Music UK(Derogatory Treatment)
Concerning:Derogatory Treatment
There must be some damage other author's honour or reputation.
'I hold that the mere fact that a work has been distorted or mutilated gives rise to no claim, unless the distortion or mutilation prejudices the author's honour or reputation' - 12CBS Songs Ltd. V Amstrad Consumer Electronics Plc.(Infringement)
Concerning: whether providing machines which could be used for copyright infringement was authorising infringement.
Merely facilitating unauthorised copying was not authorisation if the machine could bused for legitimate purposes. - 13Designer Guild Ltd. v Russell Williams Textiles Ltd.(Copyright Infringement)
Concerning: Alter copying
The test is whether infringer had incorporated a substantial amount of the independent skill and labour of the author. You must look at the claimant's work and the importance and the amount of the work taken from that, not the importance of it to the work of the defendant. The cumulative effect of those similarities ought to be considered, but ideas or commonplace things will not be included. - 14LA Gear Inc. v Hi-Tec Sports plc.(Secondary Infringement)
Concerning: the meaning of 'has reason to believe' for secondary infringement
The test must be objective: whether the reasonable man, with knowledge of the facts known to the defendant, would have formed the belief that the item was an infringing copy. - 15Hyde Park Residence Ltd. v Yelland(Copyright Defences)
Concerning: if the public interest defence applied to copyright infringement
If information of interest contained within the work (the times of arrival and departures) could have been made available without infringing copyright, publication would not be necessary and the public interest defence would be unavailable.
Informationen
- Beschreibung
- MSc Copyright Karteikarten am Copyright - Cases, erstellt von Jasmine Law am 25/04/2015.
- Erstellt von
- Jasmine Law
- Aufrufe
- 0
- Bewertung