copyright key cases

Norowozian v Arks (No 1 and 2) [1999]

• infringement of copyright in film and the other entrepreneurial works requires reprographic copying, so film copyright was not infringed

• dramatic works must involve movement that can be performed - N’s film did, as it could be displayed to an audience

Lucasfilm v Ainsworth [2011]

• helmets used in hte firm were not sculptures

• Mann J set out a ‘multi-factorial’ test for sculptures: recognise that modern art may not fit what is ordinarily regarded as a sculpture, no judgement is to be made about artistic work, and a sculpture should have as part of its purpose a visual appeal in the sense that it might be enjoyed for that purpose alone

Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening [2009]

• extracts as short as 11 words could be protectable if the ‘AOIC’ test was met

General de Autores y Editores (SGAE) v Rafael Hoteles SL [2006]

• RH sent TV broadcasts to guests by a network connecting the rooms, and were accused of infringement by ‘communicating to the public’

• amounted to communication as recipients were not present at the place the transmission originated

• was to the public as the hotel guests were not envisaged as recipients of the original broadcasts by the rights owners when they gave permission to the broadcaster

Designers Guild v Russell-Williams [2000]

• the ‘substantial part’ test requires an analysis of the amount of the original author’s skill and labour that went into the creation of the aspects of D’s work that are proved to be copied from C’s work

• taking a sufficient quantity of the detailed ideas in a work can amount to infringement

Ashdown v Telegraph Group Ltd [2001]

• as it involved the current Parliament, A’s possible involvement in gov was a matter of public interest and a current event

• even if that were not the case, public interest defence would apply in principle to protect the journalist’s freedom of expression, as to which ECHR principles applied