Fichas
Sin título
Fichas del conjunto (16)
- 1Temple Island Collections Ltd v New English teas [2012]Claimants copyright was infringed. Copying is not limited to reproducing the same work - reproducing the work in another material form (souvenirs - teabags) constitutes as copying.
- 2Determining goods which are similar but not the same.Reproduction does not need to be in the same form to constitute an infringement. Difficulty does arise however when works is translated into an artistic or quasi-artistic form. EG. Statistics to graphs
- 3Literary work - reproductions Brigid Foley v Elliot [1982] Cuisenaire v Reed [1963]Complete
- 4Determining similarity - Casual Connection or mere chance?It is necessary to show the causal connection of copying between works, since there may be other explanations for similarity.
- 5Copying - The casual connection - Purefoy v Sykes Boxall [1955]If the copying to found to be indirect to the CR work then there cannot be a causation link. Thus there was no infring of C's catalogue, for it was not the catalogue but the products which were the starting point of the chain.
- 6Copying - Casual connection - Strikingly alike and predate - Designers Guild v Russell Williams [2001]Works are striking alike, if the claimants work predates that of the D and if the latter had access to it - court will infer that copying took place.
- 7Copying - Casual connection - Designers Guild v Russell WilliamsThe objective is to ascertain whether the similarities are 'sufficiently close, numerous or extensive' to arise as a result of copying, rather than independent creation or coincidence.
- 8Francis Day v Hunter and Bron [1963] Compare with Jones v Tower Hamlets London Borough [2012]Relevance of knowledge - Is the similarity caused by the CR owners work? Does the D have knowledge of the C's work that creates a causal chain.
- 9Francis Day v Hunter & Bron [1963]Where there is a possible defence for subconscious copying, (which can amount to infringement) there must be proof (a strong inference) of a de facto similarity with the work alleged to amount to copying.
- 10Francis Day v Hunter & Bron [1963]The trial judge reached the conclusion that there was a definite/considerable degree of similarity between the two songs. However, the judge also concluded that to succeed, P must prove not only objective similarity, but that this similarity was due to an act of copying, whether conscious or subconscious.
- 11Francis Day v Hunter & Bron [1963]It was held in this case the proof of a de facto similarity was "conspicuously lacking". Similarity was due was a result of coincidence
- 12Jones v Tower Hamlets London Borough [2001]Based on Francis case there to prove subconscious copying of the claimants work by the inference/proof that the inference was so striking. Bathroom partition was so striking that the only possible inference was copying
- 13Harman Pictures v Osborne [1967]little direct textual copying however a large number of the scene's were identical/similar (incidents/locations)
Inspiration may lead to copying - 14Ravenscroftadopting the language and selection = infringement
- 15The prince of wales v associated newspapers ltd (No 3) [2008] -issuing copies to the publicOwner has the right to be the first to produce copes and only the owner or his licensee can put a new reproduction on the market. - Confidential circulation does not amount to issuing to the public. Infringement of publishing extracts
- 16SGAE V Rafael Hotels SL [2006] - Public Communication Rightwhether a TV signal received by cable or satellite in a European hotel constituted communication to the public. Held distribution of signal = communication.
Información
- Descripción
- Fichas sobre Sin título, creado por jade-glasgow el 23/04/2015.
- Creado por
- jade-glasgow
- Visitas
- 1
- Valoración