Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

IP > 1. C - subject matter > Flashcards

1. C - subject matter Flashcards

1
Q

Copyright does not protect IDEA

A

Norwezian v Arks (No.2) - similar films (more idea so C does not protect)

Baigent & Leigh v Random House - Dan Brown adopted central theme of Holy Blood in his own book (more of an idea taken so C does not protect)

Temple Island Collection v New English Teas - red bus w/ B&W background in landmark (this wasn’t just idea, technique was important, C protects because it is expression of idea)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Relevance of Categories: Infopaq

A

any work can be protected as long as author’s own intellectual creation

BSA - GUI protected (intl. creation)

FAPL - football match not (not intl. creation, too limited by rules)

LOWER COURTS STILL USE CATEGORIES but Infopaq might mean subject matter is more widely interpreted (e.g. Creation records)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

SAS (Arnold J)

A

It is clear that C work must be literary or artistic within art.2(1) Berne Convention (and whilst definition is expansive, it is not unlimited)

This means CATEGORIES ARE NOT ENTIRELY DEAD

  • even if Infopaq is accepted, and there is obligation to protect all all statutory creations, this will be done through existing statutory language
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

University of London v University Tutorial Press

A

LITERARY WORK PROTECTED IRRESPECTIVE OF QUALITY

  • exam papers protected
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Nova Productions v Mazooma

A

SCOPE OF “LITERARY WORK” = VERY BROAD

  • incl. more than traditional literature
  • game simulating playing pool
  • design notes, source, object code = literary work

(NB. Nothing copied here so no infringement - only idea copied)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Exxon v Exxon

A

MUST BE SUBSTANTIAL ENOUGH TO BE LITERARY

  • EXXON cannot be protected
  • old case defining book (Hollinrake v Trusswell - either information and instruction or pleasure, in the form of literary enjoyment) is used as guidance
  • WORD DOES NOT SATISFY THIS DEFINITION
  • at very least, literary work must have content

policy reasons driving court:
INCONVENIENCE of C in word
DOUBLE protection

This case = better handled under originality (say one word isn’t original enough)

  • In the Court, they said 1 word might be protected if it was exceptionally creative
  • but Infopaq says word in isolation cannot be an intellectual creation
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Apple Computer v Computer Edge

A

“meaningless gibberish would plainly be excluded”

  • BUT L work is a pretty low threshold (ciphers, math tables, are fine - general public do not need to understand it)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Meltwater v NLA

A

newspaper headline = substantial enough to be L work

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Francis Day and Hunger v 20th Century Fox [1940]

A

courts refuse protection to song title

PC said title is not “substantial enough” to warrant protection in its own right

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Norowzian v Arks

A

D work if it is a “work of action” (that is CAPABLE OF BEING PERFORMED)

incl. performance by artificial means (displaying film infant of an audience)

DOES NOT include static objects/sets/scenery/costumes (Creation Records)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Green v Broadcasting Corp of NZ

A

(PC)
Talent Show w/ catchphrases, sponsors, clap-o-meter (beyond this, show varied each episode)

To be dramatic work = requires:
- SPECIFICITY OR DETAIL (as a whole, show lacked this, scripts only provided general idea/concept of talent quest)

  • SUFFICIENT UNITY for it to be capable of being performed (here, features repeated in each show was not dramatic work because no sufficient unity, they were unrelated to each other, just accessories to presentation of performance)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Nova Productions v Mazooma Games

A

Kitchen J:

  • interactive video game lacked SUFFICIENT UNTIY to be capable of being performed
  • each time played, images were different so no unity
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Lawson v Dundas

A

4 note jingle can be musical work - COURTS MAKE NO JUDGEMENT TO “QUALITY”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Sawkins v Hyperion Records

A

CA - tempo/performance practice indicators count as musical work (even though he didn’t alter notes or melody - his efforts counted as contributions to music)

Mummary LJ:

  1. COMBINING OF SOUNDS for listening to
  2. music NOT same as mere noise
  3. EFFECT on listener’s EMOTIONS AND INTELLECT
  4. Music is DISTINGUISHED from fact/form of its fixation of musical composition (the score)
  5. SPONTANEOUS SINGING, whistling, or humming with or without instruments can be “music” (as long as fixated)

TEMPO, performance indicators = equally music (contributes to sound as performed)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

John Cage (newspaper report from Independent 2002)

A

dispute over “silence”
The Planets incl. a 60 second silence on its recording
- payment to John Cage’s publisher (who incl. 4:33 of silence in his record prior to this)
- settlement shows fear that silence would be protected

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Creation Records v News Group Newspapers

A

ARTISTIC WORKS

  • need to fall within category of s.4(1)
  • and although no req. of fixation, there is a req. of permanence

“scene was not a collage since it was intrinsically ephemeral, existing only for a few hours”

not collage - not permanent enough also no sticking and gluing

not sculpture - no carving and moulding (this definition is out-dated now)

not dramatic work - it is static

17
Q

Metix v Maughan

A

ice sculpture is still a sculpture

  • requirement of permanence either doesn’t exist or is fairly low
  • transient existence can still be a sculpture
18
Q

Kenrick v Lawrence

A

hand drawing for “how to vote” card can be protected as drawing

19
Q

British Northrop v Textream Blackburn

A

drawings for spare parts for looms (2 concentric circles, very basic) = protected

CAN BE PROTECTED EVEN IF SIMPLE AND COMMON PLACE

  • only thing not protected = straight line with aid of ruler but anything else is probably protected
  • but if very simple, scope of protection is narrow (need to copy exactly to be infringing)
20
Q

Merchandising Corporation of America v Harpbond

A

PAINTINGS

  • paintings require a surface and face is not a surface (face paint)
  • unconvincing argument (esp. in light of EU development of ‘intellectual creation’ - no reason for tattoo/face paint not to be protected)

better explanations:

  • permanance
  • originality
  • idea/expression dichotomy
  • de minimis
21
Q

Spelling Goldberg Productions v BPC Publishing [1981

A

Individual frames from a film are not treated as photograph

22
Q

Abraham Moon & Sons v Thornber

A

the (then) Patents County Court (PCC) is now the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) held that the instructions for generating fabric designs were graphic work (because they had visual significance for experts)

23
Q

Navitaire v EasyJet Airline [2006]

A

• subcategory ‘graphic work’ has been held to protect computer screen icons and graphic user interfaces

24
Q

Lucasfilms v Ainsworth [2009]

(sculptures)

A

Mann J (confirmed by SC):

  1. no aesthetic judgement
  2. regard to normal use of word
  3. goes beyond what is found in art galleries but not too far beyond
  4. Sculptures must be a 3D representation of a concept (but not all 3D objects are sculptures)
  5. Mode of fabrication - if carved that can indicate but not determinative (and not all carved things are sculptures)
  6. PURPOSE (determinative) - must have intrinsic quality of being intended to be enjoyed as a physical thing (if purely functional it isn’t a sculpture, if partly functional its fine as long as mostly about aesthetic)

here - helmet had some aesthetics but is mostly functional (step in production of film/prop)

SC sceptical about whether helmet did convey artistic purpose but did not overturn (Mann J in better position) but this means in future, creative costumes might be protected)

25
Q

Hensher v Restawile [1976]

A

WORKS OF AC

  • not artistic but all judges gave different explanations that are irreconcilable

REID: public opinion, does person get pleasure or satisfaction from contemplating it

MORRIS: expert opinion

KILBRANDON: artist intention judged from work itself and circumstances of creation

V. DILHORNE: Q of fact - use intuition

SIMON - aim of creator, result achieved, and expert evidence

  • freedom of choice?
  • must be A + C (composite phase)
26
Q

AC = little consistency in case law

A

Merlot v Mothercare - baby cape, artist intention was purely utilitarian, so not AC (just C)

Vermaat v Boncrest - not AC because no evidence oc creativity

Guild v Eskander - look at expert evidence

27
Q

CRAFTSMANSHIP

A

Lord Simon (Hensher) - manifestation of pride in sound workmanship, special training, skill, training

HOMEMADE?

  • must be (Reid, dilhorne)
  • doesn’t need to be. (Simon - followed by HC Australia in Coogi)
28
Q

SAME PERSON FOR A AND C

A

unclear
yes must be same: Clauson J in Burke v Spicer Dress (A sketcher, C dressmaker)

no need not be same: tipping J in Bona v Cooke

29
Q

Burge v Swarbrick

A

AUSTRALIAN ESCAPE ROUTE

  • design freedom test for AC (Simon’s approach in Hensher)

THE MORE ARTIST IS CONSTRAINED THE LESS LIKELY ARTISTIC

key: significance of functional constraint
- can use intention
- experts is crucial evidence

here: shape of hull is limited by technical constraints for speed

30
Q

Lucasfilms v Ainsworth [2009 (ARTISTIC CRAFTSMANSHIP - this point not appealed so just 1st instance)

A

INTENTION = real significance

expert evidence not required but admissible

COMPOSITE PHRASE

relevant:

  • was maker someone that made artistic things in the past?
  • utilitarian article can have artistic qualities

HERE: Helmet was C but not A enough
C - he took justifiable pride in work and produced high quality work
A - purpose not to appeal to sense it was part of production of film (reliance on film to give impression that helmet was real)

31
Q

NLA v M&S

A

TA = the overall design

  • arrangement, distribution of text between margins, columns, headline relation to text layout
  • must be at least one page (1 story is not enough)
  • TA = the physical layout between 2 covers
  • NB. Fonts are separate, they are A works

(here M&S subscribed to press clipping and clipping photocopied and sent, is this an infringement ? is there TA copyright subsistence?

IP (18 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions