Law Notes Intellectual Property Law Notes
IP law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge. These notes cover all the LLB Intellectual Property law cases and so are perfect for anyone doing an LLB in the UK or a great supplement for those doing LLBs abroad, whether that be in Ireland, Hong Kong or Malaysia (University of London).
These were the best IP Law notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an Oxford law graduate) could find after combing through dozens of LLB samples from outstanding law students with the highes...
The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Intellectual Property Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
COPYRIGHT 3 (INFRINGEMENT)
Restricted Acts
Restricted acts are those which only the owner of copyright is allowed to perform.
Section 16: owner of copyright has exclusive right to:
Copy the work
Issue copies of work to public
Perform or show the work in public
Communicate work to public
Make an adaptation of work, or do any of (i)-(iv) in relation to an adaptation
C does not necessarily have a positive right to do any of these
i.e. as it is possible he may infringe someone else’s copyright when doing so (e.g. joint author)
Robin Ray [2001]
Section 16(2): however C may prevent others from either:
Carrying out any of the acts;
Or authorising others to carry out any of the acts
INFRINGEMENT
For direct infringement:
D must carry out (or authorise someone to carry out) a restricted act directly or indirectly
in relation to substantial part of the work;
must be some causal connection
Directly or Indirectly
A restricted act may be done directly or indirectly.
“Indirect”: can be infringement even if author did not know of existence of original work
e.g. where D was following instructions given to him designed to reproduce substantial features of the original
Solar Thomson Engineering v Barton [1977]
Substantial Part
Section 16(3): D infringes copyright if he copies at least a substantial part of C’s work.
To be substantial, part copied must contain “elements that are the expression of the intellectual creation of the author of a work”
i.e. parts of a work are treated same as the whole
Infopaq Internationl [2009] (ECJ)
Test for substantiality has been “restated, but for present purposes not significantly altered” by Infopaq.
i.e. question is whether what is taken demonstrates stamp of individuality reflective of author’s creation
NLA v Meltwater [2010] (UK)
E.g. 11-word sample of text may constitute ‘substantial part’ depending on circumstances
NLA v Meltwater [2010]
Quality v Quantity
Whether D has copied substantial part based on quality not quantity of what he has taken
Designers Guild v Russell Williams [2001]
Part is substantial if it represents a sufficient amount of original author’s skill and labour.
Newspaper Licensing Authority v Marks and Spencer [2003]
Relevant factor is importance of copied material to original work
And NOT its importance to D’s copied work
Designers Guild v Russell Williams [2001]
Nature of Test
Relevant quality which D must appropriate to ‘copy a substantial part’ depends on purpose of type of copyright protection subsisting in C’s work
E.g. ‘literary work’, film’, ‘typographical arrangement’
NLA v Marks and Spencer [2003]
Thus e.g.:
typographical arrangement copyright: relevant quality is the overall presentation and layout of edition
in newspaper, this is a combination of: choice of typeface, number and width of columns, relationship between headlines and text, number of articles per page etc.
literary copyright: relevant quality is literary originality of what has been written
NLA v Marks and Spencer [2003]
Ideas/Expressions Divide
Can be infringement for taking of an idea expressed in C’s work where originality of work resides in manner in which ideas are combined/developed.
even if there is no literal copying by D.
Designer Guild v Russell Williams [2000]
For this to be case, what D copies must represent substantial part of author’s skill and labour.
Designers Guild v Russell Williams [2000]
Baigent v Random House Group [2006]
Whether substantial part of artistic work has been taken depends upon cumulative effect of copied features
i.e. and not whether copying of each feature individually is substantial.
e.g. if D copies plot of book, is infringement even if D does not reproduce a single sentence from original book
Designers Guild v Russell Williams [2001] (Lord Hoffmann)
Limitations
Designers Guild [2000] (Lord Hoffmann)
Expression of idea will not be protected where:
idea has no connection with expression of work
e.g. a drawing (literary work) listing the idea for an invention
copyright is literary, but not infringed if D makes the invention
idea is commonplace (i.e. not original)
here, idea does not represent a substantial part of work
E.g. Kenrick v Lawrence [1890] (pointing hand on vote form)
idea is not sufficiently detailed
Is generally case that the law:
Protects specific detailed ideas
Does not protect big general ideas
Hoffmann: “Copyright law protects foxes better than hedgehogs”
Sufficient Detail
If C’s idea taken is framed at too high a level of abstraction, no infringement.
as abstract ideas do not represent product of C’s skill and labour
fall on wrong side of ideas/expression divide
Baigent v Random House Group [2006]
Mere replication of themes, arguments and facts from C’s original work not sufficient.
Must be shown that there has been substantial copying of the original selection, arrangement and structure of such material
Baigent v Random House Group [2006]
Whether idea is sufficiently detailed to be protected against copying is question of degree.
Nova Productions v Mazooma Games [2007]
Prevents authors monopolising e.g. historical knowledge or conspiracies.
Altered v Unaltered Copying
Lord Scott: is distinction between:
Unaltered copying
for infringement, proportion of C’s work taken need not be large
Altered copying
for altered copy, similarity is determinative both for issue of copying and substantiality
i.e. if D has copied C’s work, will automatically follow that this copying is substantial.
Causal Connection
Beginning of proof of copying normally comes from:
Proof D had access to C’s work;
And sufficient similarity between D and C’s work
Hunter v Bron [1963]
Where C shows this, D has evidential burden to show copying did not take place.
i.e. is infringement unless D shows he arrived at similar result to C via process of independent creation
Designer Guild v Russell Williams [1998]
...
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Intellectual Property Law Notes.
IP law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge. These notes cover all the LLB Intellectual Property law cases and so are perfect for anyone doing an LLB in the UK or a great supplement for those doing LLBs abroad, whether that be in Ireland, Hong Kong or Malaysia (University of London).
These were the best IP Law notes the director of Oxbridge Notes (an Oxford law graduate) could find after combing through dozens of LLB samples from outstanding law students with the highes...
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get Started