3. C - authorship/ownership Flashcards
TO QUALIFY
by author or
by place of 1st publication
Cummins v Bond [1927]
to be an author: must be a FACTUAL, CAUSATIVE LINK between inspiration and the actual production of work
- D argued spirits won’t have spoken to C without his presence
- C’s SLJ in translating the communication gave her authorship
Walter v Lane [1900]
This case was before the act required originality
- so requiring SLJ to get it can be seen as implied into authorship
Authorship is closely linked to work
Whether creator has made the right kind of contributions depends on the type of work
- to determine what contributions count, consider the essence of the type of work
E.g. interlego - artistic work so what they contributed wasn’t enough to amount to authorship
e.g. Sawkins - musical work, S contributed to playability and thus the sound, so it amounted to authorship
Donoghue v Allied Newspapers [1938]
NO JOINT AUTHORSHIP
- reporter was sole author
- D just told the stories but C chose how to write them down
Heptulla v Orient
JOINT AUTHORSHIP
- D dictated (he was not confident in English)
- C wrote it down but D provided ideas for changes
- D had on-going control over the creative process = JA
BOTH RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTENT OF THE WORK
Lightman J in Robin Ray v Classic FM
“…in my judgment what is required is something which approximates to penmanship. What is essential is a direct responsibility for what actually appears on the paper.”
EXAMPLES
unlikely to be author:
- amanuensis
- tracer
- stenographer
- contributions at abstract level (ideas)
authors:
- creative choices (even if only a small amount) - like Cummins v Bond
- specific contributions to creation (e.g. if he dictates text and punctuation slowly to a person who merely writes it)
Tate v Thomas [1921]
Man who contributed the title, leading characters, a few catchwords, and scenic effects for the play did not contribute enough to justify being treated as a joint author
Slater v Wimmer
W (skydiver) asked S to film dive
W = producer (instigated and organised) S = director (chose angles, lens)
Adventure Films v Tully [1933])
PRODUCERS: some degree of direct organisational control over the process of production
INSTIGATES/ORGANISES/CONTROLS
(So banks funding it don’t count as producers)
Bamgboye v Reed [2002]
The moving force is the director – he is the person who got the record made at the end of the day
Beggars Banquet v Carlton
producer because =
PROVISION OF FUNDS
+ SECURED filming locations (scouting isn’t enough though, must be securing and getting permission)
Robin Ray v Classic FM (THE JA TEST)
3 STEP TEST FOR JA
1. AUTHORSHIP (significant and original contribution to creation of work)
- COLLABORATION (in pursuance of a common design)
- NOT DISTINCT (respective contributions must be not be distinct and separate from each other)
AUTHORSHIP LIMB (JA)
where most fail
must be SIGNIFICANT and ORIGINAL
Original:
- contribution as a result of own SLJ (Locksley Brown v Mcasso Minor)
- quantitative? (Brooker - if only in beginning might not be enough)
- qualitative (Brown v Casa, rap expert got 10% even though only made small contribution)
Significant:
- substantial/considerable rather than aesthetically important (fisher v broker, Blackburn J asked if non-trivial)
- probably quantitative but quality is considered (Kemp - memorable sax fill?)
COLLABORATION limb
plan that unites authors (even if in a loose sense) when setting out to create work
- can be over long distance (Cala Homes)
- working on same project not enough, must be shared goal
- no need for intention to collaborate
translating poem - translator not JA of original (and original author not JA of translator)
Chappell v Redwood Music [1981]
author A - contributed music
author B - contributed lyrics
= DISTINCT contributions
- not JA
Beckingham v Hodgens
session musician added introduction to song
- not distinct because it was ‘heavily dependent’ on the rest of the song
- by itself it would have ‘odd and lose meaning’
Hedley v Kemp
Park J suggested a saxophone solo in the middle of Spandau Ballet’s ‘Gold’ might be a distinct work
Robin Ray v Classic FM (CASE ITSELF)
NOT JA (didn’t pass AUTHORSHIP limb)
- D only contributed vague ideas (this contribution is not protected by C)
- no need to contribute to fixation but still need responsibility for what appears
- held meetings but just told C what he wanted
Brighton v Jones [2005]
NOT JA
- J had ultimate control over expression and could reject or accept B’s suggestions
- Comments NOT significant contributions
- contributions were of the wrong kind (to performance not authorship)
- only J listed in promotional material (indicates J is sole author - s.104)
Hadley v Kemp [1999]
Kemp = sole author
LOOK AT CREATIVE PROCESS
- K composed song and at that point it was “fixed into his musical consciousness”
- he presented to other members and they interpreted it on their instruments
NO JA because
- not enough contriution
- changes made were minimal
- work complete when K fixed it
- K has final say
Stuart v Barrett
collective jamming = JA
- creative collaboration
Fisher v Brooker [2009]
distinctive organ solo
- 40% JA
- PROCESS was collaborative (others took ideas, not like Kemp)
