Intellectual Property Law
1. Copyright
a) Subject Matter
i) Literary work
-Section 3(1) CDPA 1988- written, spoken, sung, includes technological
words such as software, programs, code, and quality and style are
irrelevant
-University of London Press v University tutorial press (1916) - maths
papers can be literary work because style and quality is irrelevant factor
-Exxon v Exxon Insurance (1982) - literary works must inform, instruct or
pleasure to be capable of copyrighta company title cannot be
copyrighted
-Fairfox media publications v Reed International (2010) A title is too short
and trivial to be capable of protection
- NLA v Meltwater (2011)- issue on extracts and hyperlinks but part was
about whether newspaper headlines capable of protection? Yes for literary
work it is because created with skill, labour and pleasures and informs
readerdoes it have originality? Is it part of article it relates to? Went to
supreme court and is still being referred to ECJ but they have said
headlines CANNOT be protected
-Ladbroke v William Hill (1964)- football coupons devised with enough skill
and labour to be literary work and protected
-Navitare v Easyjet (2006)- ticketless airline system- berne convention will
not protect programming language
-BSA v Ministry of Culture of Czech Republic (2010)- a computer program
will be protected if it can be reproduced in different computer languages
- SAS Institute v WPC (2012)- CJEU say computer program
expression/source/code can be protected but functionality/programming
language/ user interface cannot
-Database Directive 1996 collection of independent works arranged in
systematic way and individually accountable by certain means—directive
means very widely defined
-Fixtures Marketing Limited v OPAP (2005)- football league fixture list
capable of being database as date, time and team names are independent
etc
ii) Dramatic work
-Section 3(1) CDPA 1988- includes a work of dance or mime
-Green v Broadcasting corporation of NZ (1989)- said defendant copied
script and dramatic format of his game showNO must be structured and
controlledvery hard to get protection and very hard to prove
infringement
, -Norowzian v Arks (No.2)(2000)- “joy” advert used “jump cutting”
technique used in Guinness advertfilm can be dramatic work as clearly
work of dance and mime but must be materially and substantially the
same to infringe
iii) Musical work
Section 3(1) CDPA 1988- including music, exclusive of words action
intended to be performed
-Hyperion records v Sawkin (2005)- modern performs of lalandes work,
spent considerable time, expertise and skill on remaking themYES is
musical work in copyright—not just musical notes which constitute the
copyrighted work
iv) Artistic work
Section 4 CDPA 1988: a) graphic work, photograph, sculpture, collage
irrespective of quality
b) Architecture of model or building
c) Work of artistic craftsmanship
-Solar Thomson v Barton (1977)- very simple blueprint for a washer.
Mundane drawling and scribbles can still be artistic workartistic taste
and quality is NOT relevant
-Merchandising corp of America v Harpband (1983)- making not protected
because painting requires a surface
COLLAGES
-Creation Records v News Group Newspaper (1992)- Oasis band cover,
photographer sneaks on premises takes exact same photo—NOT COLLAGE
—need to be fixed down to be collage and no copyright here as no copy as
original photo taken
SCULPTURES
-Wham-o-manufacturing v Lincoln industries (1985)- New Zealand-wooden
prototype and engraving of Frisbeeis a sculpture and protected as
artistic work
-Hi Tech Autoparts v Towergate Two (No.2) (2002)- metal plates for
manufacturing mats can be protected as a sculpture as it is an engraving
and so an artistic work
-Breville Europe v Thorn EMI (1995)- sandwich toastie engraver is a
sculpture! FALCONER sculptures include”chiselling stone, carving
wood, modelling clay, casting metal, or similar processes”
-Metix v GH Maughan (1997)- LADDIE J “sculpture is 3 dimensional work
made my artists hand”
-Lucasfilm ltd v Ainsworth (2011)- stormtrooper helmet case. Is this
sculpture?
1. Copyright
a) Subject Matter
i) Literary work
-Section 3(1) CDPA 1988- written, spoken, sung, includes technological
words such as software, programs, code, and quality and style are
irrelevant
-University of London Press v University tutorial press (1916) - maths
papers can be literary work because style and quality is irrelevant factor
-Exxon v Exxon Insurance (1982) - literary works must inform, instruct or
pleasure to be capable of copyrighta company title cannot be
copyrighted
-Fairfox media publications v Reed International (2010) A title is too short
and trivial to be capable of protection
- NLA v Meltwater (2011)- issue on extracts and hyperlinks but part was
about whether newspaper headlines capable of protection? Yes for literary
work it is because created with skill, labour and pleasures and informs
readerdoes it have originality? Is it part of article it relates to? Went to
supreme court and is still being referred to ECJ but they have said
headlines CANNOT be protected
-Ladbroke v William Hill (1964)- football coupons devised with enough skill
and labour to be literary work and protected
-Navitare v Easyjet (2006)- ticketless airline system- berne convention will
not protect programming language
-BSA v Ministry of Culture of Czech Republic (2010)- a computer program
will be protected if it can be reproduced in different computer languages
- SAS Institute v WPC (2012)- CJEU say computer program
expression/source/code can be protected but functionality/programming
language/ user interface cannot
-Database Directive 1996 collection of independent works arranged in
systematic way and individually accountable by certain means—directive
means very widely defined
-Fixtures Marketing Limited v OPAP (2005)- football league fixture list
capable of being database as date, time and team names are independent
etc
ii) Dramatic work
-Section 3(1) CDPA 1988- includes a work of dance or mime
-Green v Broadcasting corporation of NZ (1989)- said defendant copied
script and dramatic format of his game showNO must be structured and
controlledvery hard to get protection and very hard to prove
infringement
, -Norowzian v Arks (No.2)(2000)- “joy” advert used “jump cutting”
technique used in Guinness advertfilm can be dramatic work as clearly
work of dance and mime but must be materially and substantially the
same to infringe
iii) Musical work
Section 3(1) CDPA 1988- including music, exclusive of words action
intended to be performed
-Hyperion records v Sawkin (2005)- modern performs of lalandes work,
spent considerable time, expertise and skill on remaking themYES is
musical work in copyright—not just musical notes which constitute the
copyrighted work
iv) Artistic work
Section 4 CDPA 1988: a) graphic work, photograph, sculpture, collage
irrespective of quality
b) Architecture of model or building
c) Work of artistic craftsmanship
-Solar Thomson v Barton (1977)- very simple blueprint for a washer.
Mundane drawling and scribbles can still be artistic workartistic taste
and quality is NOT relevant
-Merchandising corp of America v Harpband (1983)- making not protected
because painting requires a surface
COLLAGES
-Creation Records v News Group Newspaper (1992)- Oasis band cover,
photographer sneaks on premises takes exact same photo—NOT COLLAGE
—need to be fixed down to be collage and no copyright here as no copy as
original photo taken
SCULPTURES
-Wham-o-manufacturing v Lincoln industries (1985)- New Zealand-wooden
prototype and engraving of Frisbeeis a sculpture and protected as
artistic work
-Hi Tech Autoparts v Towergate Two (No.2) (2002)- metal plates for
manufacturing mats can be protected as a sculpture as it is an engraving
and so an artistic work
-Breville Europe v Thorn EMI (1995)- sandwich toastie engraver is a
sculpture! FALCONER sculptures include”chiselling stone, carving
wood, modelling clay, casting metal, or similar processes”
-Metix v GH Maughan (1997)- LADDIE J “sculpture is 3 dimensional work
made my artists hand”
-Lucasfilm ltd v Ainsworth (2011)- stormtrooper helmet case. Is this
sculpture?
