Copyright: Full Revision

Copyright: Full Revision

1. 1. Subject Matter

   • Ladbroke v William Hill Norowzian v Arks (No. 2) [2000] Nova v Mazooma [2006] Nova Productions v Mazooma Games [2007] Lucasfilm v Ainsworth [2008] Newspaper Licensing Agency v Meltwater [2010] Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd v Meltwater [2011] Lucasfilm & Star Wars Productions v Ainsworth & Shepperton Design Studios [2011] SAS Institute v World Programming [2013]
   • Infopaq 2009 BSA 2010 FAPL 2011 Nintendo v PC 2014 Levola Hengelo (pending)
   • Griggs Group v Raben Footwear 2004 Noah v Shuba 1991
   • Literary Work s3 CDPA
     • Aethetic criteria irrelevant - s179. University of London Press v University Tutorial Press 1916: copyright will not pass judgment on the standard of the work. (Boundaries: Hollinrake v Truswell 1894: book must afford 'either information and instruction, or pleasure in the form of literary enjoyment'). Exxon: invented company name fails to convey information.
     • Names, trademarks, titles: copyright does not exist! Francis Day and Hunter v 20th C fox 1940: copyright in the song 'the man who broke the bank at monte carlo' not infringed by performing motion picture with same title. JUSTIFICATION: not literary because they fail to provide information or literary pleasure (Exxon). - Names and titles lack originality: title is not the result of SUFFICIENT LABOUR, SKILL AND JUDGMENT OR IN ITSELF NOT SUBSTANTIAL ENOUGH (Francis Day and Hunter) - Creative titles may possibly be protected in the future, where lengthy and the product of SUBSTANTIAL SKILL, LABOUR AND JUDGMENT (Lambe v Evans: headings in trade directory protected: designedly put together for purpose of imparting information).
     • Tables and Compilations (other than databases): Ladbroke v William Hill 1964: Lord Evershed - football pool coupons constitute 'a COMPILATION in the sense that it is made up by PUTTING TOGETHER IN WRITING A NUMBER OF INDIVIDUAL ITEMS OR COMPONENTS' - the work as a WHOLE attracted copyright protection, but INDIVIDUAL components did not. Now, databases have sui generis protection.
     • Computer Programmes - now covered as literary works entrenched by the European Software directive: includes source code, assembly code, object code. GO STRGAIGHT TO THE EUROPEAN TEST: about being expression of 'own intellectual work'
     • Preparatory design material for computer programmes: Brought British law into conformity with EC Software Directive - but Chalton 1993 criticises as inappropriate way of implementing Directive; preparatory design material should be treated as part of a computer program.
     • Databases (3(1)(d) CDPA: now a distinct class of literary works. Broad enough to cover most things previously seen as tables or compilations, including paper databases. 1. Copyright protection (passing threshold for originality) or 2. Sui generis database right of 15 years if maker shows 'qualitatively and/or quantitatively a substantial investment in either obtaining, verifying or presenting contents' of database. NB - ISSUE: they may simply be the product of financial investment and not original authorial work.
   • Dramatic Work (s3(1) CDPA: work of dance or mime)
     • Norowzian v Arks No 2 (2000): Lessening the issue of moral/economic arguments for protecting TV formats (as requiring creative input similar to other copyright protected works). Nourse LJ: *work of action* with or without words or music which is *capable of being performed* before an audience. Needs not be capable of PHYSICAL performance (Joy: shot in fixed position with heavy use of 'jump cutting' technique -- Ds produced advert for Guiness using this technique and same style dancing). Provided there is SUFFICIENT UNITY for performance. The film was capable of being a dramatic work under s1 CDPA but the dance itself didn't constitute a 'dramatic work' - incapable of performance. BUT on the facts, no infringement.
     • Green v Broadcasting Corp of NZ 1989 - TV formats aren't dramatic works because evidence of scripts and general ideas or concepts for a talent contest cannot attract copyright. Dramatic format (subject matter) of 'Opportunity Knocks' conspicuously lacked in certainty. Insufficient 'unity' for performance - restrictive interpretation of 'work of action'.
     • Video games are NOT dramatic works: Nova v Mazooma 2006: Kitchin J: computer game simulating billiards INVOLVED literary and artistic works, but NOT DRAMATIC works because there is NO UNITY IN A SEQUENCE of images - not the same from one play to another.
     • Nova v Mazooma 2007 - on idea/expression dichotomy: There were similar features of the game but there wasn't SUBSTANTIAL copying: IDEAS are not protectable. TRIPS Art 9(2) laid down the positive rule that copyright protection did not extend to ideas. Nova was merely INSPIRED and emulated, but didn't copy, programme codes. Legitimate reproduction of computer game.
   • Artistic Work s4 CDPA
     • S4 CDPA covers a range of creations from pure aesthetic to functional and protects 'irrespective of artistic quality' - courts shouldn't engage in subjective evaluations of merits. Industrial protection facilitated.
     • Graphic works, photos, sculptures and collages Merchandising Corp of America v Harpbond 1983: painting on someones face cannot be protected - lacking in permanence, and majeup cannot be original. Less strict re: engravings. More strict re: sculptures: Lucasfilm v Ainsworth 2008: - Mann J: guidelines assist identification of 'sculptures' and Jacobs J approved of this 'multifactoral' approach in CA. Whether the helmet and armour worn by stormtroopers in the first Star Wars film were copyright sculptures - NO: their primary function was ultilitarian - to be worn as items of costume identifying and portraying characters in films. Creation Records: scene set up wasn't artistic - lacking in craftsmanship unlike on a film set. Collection of series of objects around a pool cannot be a sculpture (nothing in common, no element had been carved or modelled and no permanent existance as an object of art, unlike famous people's works such as Carl Andre's bricks.
     • Works of achitecture (buildings or models for buildings) BUT DOES THIS INCLUDE GREENHOUSES ETC? - No single test - consider factors such as size, use, fixed, permanence.
     • Works of artistic craftsmanship 1. Artistic: Hensher v Restawile Upholstry: mass-market upholstered chair - NOT ARTISTIC - looking nice falls short of artistic appeal and authors intention cannot be necessary or conclusive. Lucasfilm v Ainsworth: Mann J focused on intention with which subject matter is created - rejection of helmet as work of artistic craftsmanship because it wasn't the creator's purpose for the helmet to have aesthetic appeal in any way - merely to give particular impression in a film. 2. Craftsmanship: - Hensher: presupposes 'special training, skill and knowledge for its production'. Unclear if it needs to be handmade - shouldn't really be limited to handicrafts. Do requirements have to emanate from the same person: no...
   • Musical Work s3(1) CDPA: consisting of music, exclusive of any words or action intended to be sung, spoken or performed with music.
     • Hyperion Records v Sawkins 2015: contributions to sound of music are included, provided produced by C's effort and skill. modern performing editions of Lalande's pieces required considerable expertise. No reasons to regard actual notes as only matters covered. NB Cage: 4 mins 33s of silence was left as a moot point as to coverage.
   • Sound Recordings s5A(1): from which sounds may be reproduced (recording of sounds, or recording of whole/part of LDM work regardless of medium on which recording is made or method by which sounds are produced/reproduced)
     • Existence irrespective of medium on which they are recorded - definition requires 'sounds' so are single sounds excluded (Theberge thinks so). Soundtracks of films are treated as PART of the film insofar as the soundtrack accompanies the film. Public showing require ONLY consent of the owner of copyright in the FILM.
   • Films s5B(1) and (2): recording on any medium from which a moving image may be produced/sound track accompanying film (part of)
     • No originality requirement under UK law.
   • Broadcasts s6(1) CDPA electronic transmissions for simultaneous reception and not internet transmission unless akin to broadcasting.
     • Intangible and tangeant - Info Soc Directive updated this so there is a general 'communication' right to define the right in a technologically neutral way. If broadcasts contain copyright content that is covered in the usual ways. Repeats are only protected as long as the original broadcast is.
   • Typological arrangements s8 CDPA: published editions of the whole.part of LDA
     • Protecting publisher's skill and investment + process of design and selection reflected in appearance of the text. No requirement that published edition must be previously unpublished work. 25 years (shorter than most copyright).

2. 2. Originality

   • Requisite intellectual qualities exercised. UK: 'labour, skill, effort' EU: 'own intellectual creation' (Infopaq) Expression and not idea. Ladbroke v William Hill:
   • Is there a universal test of originality, applicable to every type of work? Interlego v Tyco 1989
   • Can a work be original where there is considerable skill, judgment and labour directed towards a faithful copy of pre-existing materials? Hyperion Records v Sawkins 2005:
   • Recent European Developments: Infopaq 2009 BSA 2010
   • Impact of European Developments on UK: FAPL 2011 NLA v Meltwater 2010:

3. 3. Authorship and Ownership

4. 4. Term of Protection

5. 5. Exclusive Economic Rights

6. 6. Infringement

7. 7. Defences

8. 8. Moral Rights

9. 9. Remedies