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:
Important concept
Determines who holds the rights
Can affect whether a work qualifies for copyright protection
Affects the term of protection (70 years after death)
No definition in Berne Convention
But can infer that authors of literary and artistic works must be natural persons
Since the works must be intellectual creations of the author and the author must have a lifespan else the term could not be calculated
CDPA s9(1): Author is the person who creates the work
i.e. contributes the originality
Walter v Lane (1900): Since the reporter expended skill and effort in transposing Lord Rosebery’s speech into writing, he was an author of a copyright work
CDPA s9(2)
Author of Sound recording is producer (s9(2)(aa))
Film: producer AND principal director (s9(2)(ab))
Principal director added in because of a EU Harmonising Directive
Broadcast: person making the broadcast (s9(2)(b))
Typographical arrangement: publisher (s9(2)(d))
Definition of producer: “person by whom the arrangements necessary for the making of the sound recording or film are undertaken” (s178)
Bamgboye v Reed (2004): Producer is determined by who provided the financial arrangements or instigated the process
S104-105: Evidential Presumptions
Any name listed as author on (or in) the work is presumed to be correct unless the contrary is proved
CDPA s10(1): Works of joint authorship are produced by collaboration where “the contribution of each is not distinct from that of the other author or authors”
Results in joint authorship and joint ownership (affects the rights of each owner)
C was hired by D as consultant to advice on repertoire and catalogue its library
C’s catalogue (using his own factors, including a “tingle” factor) was later used in D’s automatic database which D licenced to foreign stations
D claimed that they could exploit the work, C disagreed
Lightman J: D didn’t have the right to licence the database
Even if D had been a joint author, it was a tenant in common and therefore could not do any restricted acts without consent of ALL the co-owners
C brought a claim of joint authorship of the musical work due to his organ part
UKHL: C’s organ part and the solo qualified as an “original contribution” to the work so C was given 40% copyright over the work
Not estopped from asserting copyright even though it was already 40 years after the work was created
NOTE: Unlike Godfrey v Lees (1995) where C was estopped from revoking the implied licence of a work created 14 years ago (because it was a harsher claim?)
D had written the script of the play and C had directed the first production
C claimed joint authorship from contributions and suggestions made during rehearsals regarding changes to plot and dialogue
Park J: C was not a joint author, identified 3 requirements
Contribution of a joint author need not be equal but must be significant
The contribution must be “towards the creation of the work”
Any other contribution, even if significant, is insufficient
Joint author need not “put pen to paper” himself
In this case, burden of proof was on C since D was listed as sole author on the script itself (s104 presumption)
C contributed to the “interpretation and theatrical presentation” and not the creation of the dramatic work which D had already written beforehand
Beckingham v Hodgens [2003] EWCA Civ 143
C contributed the violin part of a song
CA: Joint authorship does not require “the existence of a common intention as to joint authorship”, as long as there is a “common design to produce the work”
Example of separate contributions: each author contributes a different chapter to a book
US requires that the contribution be “merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole”
NEW introduction (Nov 2013, based on EU Directive)
Different from joint authorship
Covers a collaboration of musical and literary works that are “created in order to be used together”
CDPA s11(1): General rule is that the first owner of copyright is the author
But 3 EXCEPTIONS:
EXCEPTION: Works of Crown of Parliamentary copyright, which are owned by Her Majesty s163
EXCEPTION: For works made by an employee in the course of employment, copyright is owned by the employer (s11(2))
Applies to literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works and films
EXCEPTION: Copyright vests in designated international organisation (s11(3)) NOT IMPT
In France, there is no general rule of automatic transfer of ownership to employers
Employers have to negotiate for a transfer of copyright
Employees can have a contract of service or apprenticeship
Beloff v Pressdram (1973): Control and skill required are factors in determining a contract of service, as well as regular salary and provision of resources
The work must have been created in the course of employment
C was a consultant epidemiologist at the Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS) and wrote a guide in his own time using PHLS library and secretarial assistance, which was first published by PHLS
D wrote an article reproducing substantial extracts from C’s guide
Mummery J: C owned the copyright
He could not have been ordered to create the work nor was it part of his duty to do so
In any case there was an implied term of the contract (in line with long practice) for employees to retain copyright in articles they wrote in the course of their employment
A management engineer wrote a book using information he gained while working for his firm, first as an employee, and then an executive officer. Some was from the text of lectures that he wrote and delivered, and some was material he...
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