Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.

X

Copyright Infringement Moral Rights Defences Notes

Law Notes > Intellectual Property Law Notes

Updates Available  

A more recent version of these Copyright Infringement Moral Rights Defences notes – written by Oxford students – is available here.

The following is a more accessble 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:

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PRIMARY AND SECONDARY INFRINGEMENT There are two important differences between primary and secondary infringement.?

The first relates to the scope of protection: o primary infringement is concerned with people who are directly involved in the reproduction, performance, etc. of the copyright work; o in contrast, secondary infringement is concerned with people in a commercial context who either deal with infringing copies, facilitate such copying, or facilitate public performance. The second difference between the two forms of infringement relates to the mental element that the defendant must exhibit in order to infringe. o As we explain below, the state of mind of the defendant is not formally taken into account when deciding whether an act of primary infringement has occurred. In the case of secondary infringement, however, liability is dependent on the defendant knowing, or having reason to believe, that the activities in question are wrongful

PRIMARY INFRINGEMENT Where a person does or authorizes another to do one of the exclusive acts (CDPA s16)?

Without (express or implied) licence of the copyright owner The infringing act must occur in the UK o Although authorisation can occur outside the UK

1) SUBSTANTIAL PART Where only a part of the work has been copied, it must be shown to amount to a substantial part

PCR V DOW JONES TELERATE [1998] FSR 170?C produced reports about cocoa crops Journalist from D obtained information about these reports and published an article based on it, also publishing quotes from the report Lloyd J: There had been substantial copying of C's reports o "quality is at least as important, if not more so, as quantity in determining the question of substantiality" o Since the "most important and interesting parts were taken" and extensive direct quotes were used, there was substantial copying

*DESIGNER GUILD V RUSSELL WILLIAMS [2000] 1 WLR 2416UKHL: Restored the 1st instance decision that there had been substantial copying o Lord Bingham: CA hadn't paid enough attention to the 1 st instance findings that the similarities were so marked that there must have been copying
? Although copying "did not in theory conclude the issue of substantiality", here there was clearly a substantial taking o Lord Millett: Substantiality "must be determined by its quality rather than its quantity"

Depends on the "importance to the copyright work", not the defendant's work
? "the issues of copying and substantiality are treated as separate"
? BUT "if the similarities are sufficiently numerous or extensive to justify an inference of copying they are likely to be sufficiently substantial to satisfy this requirement also" Lord Scott: Suggested a different test for cases involving altered copying, which was not adopted by the majority o Where "an identifiable part of the whole, but not the whole, has been copied", the question is about quality of the part taken o In a case of "altered copying", the test should be if "the infringer incorporated a substantial part of the independent skill, labour etc contributed by the original author in creating the copyright work"
? Even if there is copying, there may be sufficient differences to make it "permissible borrowing of an idea" instead of piracy?

TEST AFFIRMED BY UKHL IN NLA V MARKS & SPENCER [2003] 1 AC 551?

D had made copies of press cuttings for circulation to its employees UKHL (Lord Hoffmann): The test is mainly qualitative o Substantiality must be determined "by reference to the reason why the work is given copyright protection" o There is a quantitative aspect in relation to typographical arrangements which can only be copied via facsimile, so must be determined if enough of the original has been copied

THE CJEU HAS PLACED GREATER EMPHASIS ON ORIGINALITY INFOPAQ [2009] C-5/08?

CJEU: Copying of 11 words from an extract can be substantial enough to infringe o Copying of short extracts can be infringement if it "contains an element of the work which, as such, expresses the author's own intellectual creation; it is for the national court to make this determination" IMPLICATION: Originality is used to determine substantiality

NLA V MELTWATER [2010] EWHC 3099 o

o

D's online news monitoring service sent reports of news articles to customers based on search terms
? Included headline, opening words and short extract Proudman J: There was infringement
? "originality rather than substantiality is the test to be applied to the part extracted. As a matter of principle this is now the only real test."
? Although it is a test of quality, a single word "is too short a term to convey sufficient quality of originality"
? Effect of Infopaq is that "even a very small part of the original may be protected by copyright if it demonstrates the stamp of individuality reflective of the creation of the author"

CA: Affirmed the 1st instance decision
? Infopaq was compatible with English law Originality test also applied in SAS Institute v World Programming [2011] RPC 1 o Determining substantiality is based on whether the reproduced part "expresses the author's own intellectual creation"
? Can look at the "cumulative effect of what has been reproduced" IMPLICATION: The current substantiality test appears to be based on originality o?

RELATIONSHIP TO THE IDEA/EXPRESSION DISTINCTION BAIGENT V RANDOM HOUSE [2007] EWCA CIV 247??

C claimed that Dan Brown's 'Da Vinci Code' infringed the copyright in their book o Alleged copying of 15 elements of the "central theme" of their book Smith J: Cs had worked backwards from D's book to determine the elements of their "central theme", the claim failed CA (Mummery LJ): Dismissed the appeal o The elements "are not of a sufficiently developed character to constitute a substantial part", they are too generalised o Original expression doesn't include pure "information, facts, ideas, theories and themes" o The substantial part must be in relation to the "original composition and expression of the work or as to the particular collection, selection and arrangement of material and its treatment" ISSUE: Is this still applicable given the sole focus on individuality in Infopaq?

NOVA V MAZOOMA [2007] RPC 25?C produced a computer video game based on pool D's games allegedly infringed copyright in C's CA (Jacob LJ): No copyright infringement as only mere ideas had been copied o There is no protection of mere ideas even in computer software o "what was found to have inspired some aspects of the defendants' game is just too general to amount to a substantial part of the claimants' game" o "If protection for such general ideas ... were conferred by the law, copyright would become an instrument of oppression rather than the incentive"

HODGSON V ISAAC [2012] ECC 4?C was disabled, wrote an autobiography with C2's help D communicated with C intending to make a film about C's life, was given a copy of the book o C later withdrew permission to use an adaptation of the book, by D argued that the script was based on his own creative ideas, not an adaptiation Birss QC: A substantial part of C's book had been copied o Rejected D's claim that he had not read the book
? He had access to it and the use of a football chant at the start of both the book and script indicated that he used it as a source
? "the similarities in terms of detail are too close to be explicable in any way"

Just because it was copied doesn't make the script an adaptation: what was copied must have been a "substantial part of the original work"
? Designers Guild: "the test for substantiality is a matter of quality and not quantity", based on the importance to the original work
? Doesn't matter that there was much more in the book than the script; key incidents and characters were the same
? Infopaq: "A substantial part must be one in which the elements thus reproduced are the expression of the intellectual creation of their author" IMPLICATION: Infopaq can be applied together with the traditional test from Designers Guild o2)CAUSAL CONNECTION There must have been copying?

Can be direct or indirect o King Features v Kleeman [1941] AC 417
? D made toys and brochures based on Popeye but copied off C's licensee's works instead of the original works
? Court: D had indirectly copied C's original cartoons themselves Usually this requirement is not disputed o Most cases turn on the substantiality point or exceptions

DESIGNER GUILD V RUSSELL WILLIAMS [1998] FSR 803?NOTE: This case later went on appeal up to UKHL on the issue of substantiality C owned copyright in a fabric design consisting of vertical stripes and flowers o D's design used thicker lines but a similar motif Collins QC: The similarities were so marked that D must have copied o Causal connection is necessary, "no infringement if a person arrives by independent work at a substantially similar result" o Copying usually proved by "establishment of similarity combined with proof of access to the plaintiff's productions"
? This shifts the burden of proof to the defendant to show that it was independent creation o There were too many obvious similarities, "any one of which could of itself be coincidental, but the combination of which could not"

COPYING CAN BE SUBCONSCIOUS FRANCIS DAY & HUNTER V BRON [1963] 1 CH 587 For Reproduction: 'a sufficient degree of objective similarity between the two works':C alleged that D's work 'Why' infringed copyright in their song 'In a Little Spanish Town', published 33 years earlier o Claimed that it reproduced the 1st 8 bars of C's work, albeit in different time signature o D gave evidence that he had not consciously copied it nor listened to it

?

CA (Willmer LJ): There was similarity but no copying o To show subconscious copying "there must be proof (or at least a strong inference) of de facto familiarity with the work alleged to be copied" o Although not fulfilled on the facts, recognised the possibility of subconscious copying as a sufficient causal connection

AUTHORISATION S16(2) S16(2): Authorising another person to do the restricted acts is primary infringement

PENSHER V SUNDERLAND CC [2000] RPC 249?D engaged another company to make security doors because C's tender was too expensive The new contract specified that the doors were to be of the same type as a specific model produced by C, also included an indemnity against copyright infringement Court: D had clearly authorised the infringement

CBS SONGS V AMSTRAD [1988] AC 1013?

D manufactured and sold a dual-tape cassette deck machine which could be used to record pre-recorded cassette tapes to blank cassette tapes UKHL: D had not authorised infringement o Recorders can facilitate copying, which may be lawful or unlawful o "No manufacturer and no machine confers on the purchaser authority to copy unlawfully", it is up to the user to determine what he copies o No purchaser could reasonably deduce from the features or advertisements that D "possessed or purported to possess the authority to grant the required permission for a record to be copied" o Distinguished Moorhouse v University of NSW [1976] since there the library had control over the use of the photocopy machine and knew or had reason to suspect that it would be used to commit infringements without trying to prevent it

20 TH CENTURY FOX V NEWZBIN [2010] EWHC 608Kitchin J: Authorisation "means the grant or purported grant of the right to do the act complained of. It does not extend to mere enablement, assistance or even encouragement" o Authorisation can be express or implied

DRAMATICO ENTERTAINMENT V BRITISH SKY BROADCASTING [2012] EWHC 268?

Blocking orders sought in relation to The Pirate Bay Arnold J: Orders granted, TPB was authorising infringing acts o "Infringement is not merely an inevitable consequence", but The Pirate Bay's "objective and intention"

o

TPB had sufficient control to prevent infringement: it did remove certain kinds of torrents from the site
? They took no steps to prevent infringement and in fact "actively encourage it and treat any attempts to prevent it with contempt"

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Intellectual Property Law Notes.

More Intellectual Property Law Samples