Interlego AG v Tyco Industries Inc [1989] AC 217

• Lego had expired patent and design rights on its bricks. In 1972, Lego redrew the design drawings for its bricks – with substantial features of the previous design kept, and the only main changes being to the written information on the drawing which were of technical importance for manufacturing purposes.

• Defendant made and sold bricks in Hong Kong which were compatible with those of Lego, by copying principal features of Lego’s design.

• Issue was whether post-1972 drawings had copyright.

Lord Oliver

• Skill, labour or judgment merely in process of copying does not confer originality.

• Thus an exact copy is not original, even if making it required skill or labour.

  • Copy must contain some alteration or addition to the earlier work.

• Whether addition is sufficient is question of degree having regard to quality of addition, and not the quantity.

• Thus even relatively small addition may suffice.

  • is no universal test of originality.

  • i.e. test in William Hill cannot be applied to all copyright cases.

• On facts, graphical drawings were not original.

Obiter

• A photo of an existing painting (or painting of an existing photo) does not have copyright.

• Despite skill required in making the copy of the original photo/painting, the copy painting or photo are unoriginal.

RELATED CASES

• Ladbroke v William Hill