Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Copyright > Cases > Flashcards

Cases Flashcards

1
Q

Infopaq

A

11-word extract protectable by (c), reproduction in part under Art. 2(1) InfoSoc Directive
CJEU - first implementation of InfoSoc Directive, harmonised approach across all types of (C) works. “Author’s own intellectual creation”.
Defence - transient reproduction? Ruled not transient as printed.

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

Infopaq progeny cases

A 
BSA
Painer
FAPL v QC Leisure
Funke Medien
Levola
Cofemel
Football Dataco v Yahoo
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Sawkins v Hyperion

A

Originality in modification, assessed under “old” UK law (CDPA 1988) with skill, labour and judgement criteria. Likely that outcome would be different following Infopaq.
Moral rights - attribution
Modernised notation inc. figured bass on old composition.

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

BSA

A

Interface of computer program could be artistic work if AOIC, but not if dictated by technical function

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

TuneIn

A

C2P - summarises the case law
2 key criteria: communication (inc. means) and public (new public)
Connection, not transmission, is still communication, authorising infringement by users

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

Cartier

A

TM case - website blocking orders, obligations of ISPs
Summary by Arnold J on all types of remedies.
Proportionality - submissions made by user organisations (inc. Open Rights Group)
Rights-holders responsible for extra costs incurred in actioning a WBO (ISPs caught up in someone else’s infringement)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Nova v Mazooma

A

Snooker game - not a dramatic work, re: infringement, sequence of images differ based on user’s input, no unity
No access to/copying of source code, generalised high-level ideas not substantial part - no infringement

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Creation Records

A

No (c) in “scene”/objet trouvée, costumes, assessed under UK law (CDPA 1988) with closed list of subject-matters - not a sculpture or dramatic work (not a work of action).

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

Temple Island v New English Teas

A

Red bus case - held infringing, assessed under both SLJ and AOIC criteria. Criticised - Expression of idea/concept?
Possible to infringe (c) by recreating a scene, there would have been ways which would not have been inappropriately based on C’s work

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

SAS v World Programming

A

CA - Infopaq may have changed UK legal test for originality. Programming language could be (c) work, literary?
InfoSoc Directive seems to have raised the hurdle to obtaining (c) protection (Arnold J)
Substantial part now to be assessed by AOIC

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

William Hill

A

originality

infringement - value, “what is worth copying is worth protecting” (not to be used as test)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Designer’s Guild

A

Infringement (SC) - Judge inferred derivation, access to (c) work - opportunity to copy from trade fair exhibition.
Substantial part - similarity beyond expectation from mere common ideas
Qualitative, not quantitative, relative importance of what D has taken
Considering increasing generality eventually reaches a point where it no longer meets (c) criteria, likely to be an idea

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Tidy v Natural History Museum

A

Picture of dinosaur - reduced size of cartoons of dinosaurs, added colour background, not derogatory treatment
Author’s opinion is irrelevant

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

Mitchell v BBC

A

Mitchell sent idea for TV show characters to BBC, objective similarity so BBC had to prove independent creation and was successful (creation began before idea sent, similar sources of inspiration)

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

John Kaldor v Leone Fashions

A

Copying - sample of fabric provided by JK but not used by LF, importance of evidence as to creation of design

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

Svensson

A

Hyperlinking to freely-available articles, no new public or new means, no C2P
NB: if bypassing a paywall, would be C2P

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

GS Media

A

Hyperlinking to unauthorised publication - new public (not contemplated by original rights-holder), knowledge/expectation that linking to works without consent.
Notice and take down for hyperlinks
Presumption of knowledge if for profit, rebuttable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

NLA v Meltwater

A

Newspaper headlines capable of being original literary works, no de minimis requirement or need for substantial time spent.
Temporary copying - browsing, viewing on screen falls within transient reproduction defence under InfoSoc Art. 5(1), downloading (inc. emails) does not.
HC - Infopaq has “restated but not significantly changed” approach, upheld by CA

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Levola

A

Originality in the taste of cheese - not expressing AOIC

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Cofemel

A

No need for aesthetic value, only AOIC, to be allowable subject-matter

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Funke Medien

A

Afghan papers - restricted by format of report, drafted in neutral and standard terms.
Can only be protected if reflects author’s own personality, expressed by free and creative choices - no originality so no (c)
NB: misuse of CI is a separate issue

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Painer

A

Free and creative choices in portrait photography - no, restricted by format
Missing child’s school photo published

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

FAPL v QC leisure

A

Greek decoder cards (cheaper) used in UK, cf. SGAE
CJEU - Football match not a dramatic work, not original as no room for creative freedom (constrained by the rules of the game)
NB: broadcast may be protected separately
C2P - communication in transmission through TV and speakers, new public not contemplated by rights holder

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Levola

A

Originality in the taste of cheese - not expressing AOIC
Test:
1. original (AOIC)
2. expression of AOIC
3. clear, precise and objective (taste of cheese fails here)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Macmillan

A

derivative works

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Renckhoff

A

Photo used by student in presentation, put on website by school - new public not taken into account, C2P
cf. Svensson, reproduction here vs linking (no option to remove linked site)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Green v NZ Broadcasting Corp

A

Opportunity Knocks - question of unity in dramatic work, must be reproducible, TV programme format features did not have sufficient specificity/detail or have bearing on other features.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Norowzian v Arks

A

Guinness advert - HC said not a dramatic work as could not be performed before an audience (jump cutting made impossible)
CA - liberal view, films could be “performance” under s.3(1) CDPA - “performance by artificial means”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Interlego

A

derivative works - tracing is not original despite SLJ

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Noah v Shuba

A

Clauses in employment contracts re. (c)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Islestarr v Aldi (Charlotte Tilbury)

A

Pattern in foundation - not permanent through use but successful in arguing (c) of graphic work

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Merchandising Corp v Harpbond (Adam Ant)

A

Makeup not artistic work, not intended to be permanent, face was not “canvas”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

Lucasfilm

A

SC - Stormtrooper helmet not a “sculpture” under UK closed list, primary function was utilitarian, lacked artistic purpose

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

NLA v M and S

A

“work” is the layout of the newspaper as a whole, not each individual literary work appearing in the paper (typographical arrangement)
Repeated copying of different works, when each copying was not a substantial part, was still not overall a substantial part

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

FreshTrading v Deepend (Innocent)

A

Beneficial interest - ownership with commissioner despite no consideration - dissolution of commissionee before consideration given

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

R Griggs v Evans (Doc Martens)

A

commissioned works - officious bystander assessing at time of contract who was going to have (c) ownership

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

Meridian v Richardson

A

GSK forecasting software - Meridian was commissionee, Richardson helped Meridian but refused to assign (c).
Richardson successful - payment not enough

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

Homes v McAlpine

A

Joint authorship - must consider more than just “who pushed the pen”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

Slater v Wimmer

A

Joint authorship in entrepreneurial works:
Producer - makes arrangements necessary for making of film (funding, equipment etc.)
Director - exercises creative control over making of film (e.g. cameraman)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

Hadley v Kemp

A

Spandau Ballet - song (music and lyrics) was complete when presented to band, no joint ownership as a result of “interpretation” by the band as no significant and original contribution
(no discussion of rights within band at the time)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

Fisher v Brooker

A

Whiter Shade of Pale - organ solo made a distinctive and significant contribution to the overall composition (joint author)

42
Q

Martin v Kogan

A 
HC, joint authorship (Floyd LJ):
collaboration
jointly with common design
not derivative
not just "who did the writing"
both must contribute significant amount of skill
judged by Infopaq criteria
contributions not distinct
intention not required
final say is not conclusive
shares not required to be equal
43
Q

Stevenson v Macdonald

A

(c) ownership in lectures, company resources used but not ordered to do so in course of employment - (c) with employee (decided under old law, 1952)

44
Q

Brigid Folely v Ellott

A

Knitting pattern - no infringement by following instructions, but (c) in instructions as literary work
NB: reproduction right would be infringed by 2D/3D in artistic works.

45
Q

Pelham

A

Kraftwerk - sound/broadcasts, (c) in signal not content
infringement of reproduction right, 2s sample
FD by quotation would require intention to enter into dialogue, recognisable to the ear

46
Q

Filmspeler

A

Device with hyperlinks to unlawfully stream content:
Marketing of device is C2P
Indispensible intervention, makes easier to find (facilitating, authorising)
pre-installing links beyond “mere” provision of physical facility
new public (not particularly skilled in using internet)

47
Q

Pirate Bay (Ziggo)

A

Platform for uploading © content, with means for indexing, is C2P – easier access, not mere provision of facilities, no requirement that otherwise impossible, could not be unaware, profit-making
indexing feature was key in CJEU decision ruling C2P

48
Q

House of Harlot

A

Cropping photo infringed as distortion, even though not prejudicial to honour/reputation of author
Successful

49
Q

Football Dataco v Yahoo

A

C2P, intention to target members of public, not simply where accessible
Assessed by e.g. language, top-level domain name
Act might also take place in territory where uploaded.
Not “sweat of the brow” for database (c) to subsist, here the arrangement was constrained by rules

50
Q

Newzbin

A

P2P file sharing, WBO. Website provided means for infringement, entirely within control, did nothing to prevent

51
Q

Bestwater

A

Applies Svensson in context of framing/embedding videos on websites
Mode of linking irrelevant if new public

52
Q

Peek Cloppenburg v Cassina Spa

A

CJEU ruled distribution act limited to transfer of ownership of object (not displaying artistic works in shop window)

53
Q

Knoll

A

CJEU - infringement of distribution right if invited by targeted advertising to acquire ownership of original/copy of that work.

54
Q

UsedSoft v Oracle

A

Under Software Directive re. computer programs.
Exhaustion of rights where made available by transferring the copy to the user for indefinite period.
Further transfer requires reseller to destroy their copy.

55
Q

Ranks

A

no exhaustion of rights in lawfully made back up copies of computer programs

56
Q

Tom Kabinet

A

current CJEU referral about digital exhaustion of © under Art 4(2) InfoSoc. Second-hand eBooks

57
Q

Jennings v Stephens

A

character of audience, not presence/absence or payment, for deciding whether a performance is “in public”

58
Q

CBS v Amstrad

A

Twin tape recorders, facilitating infringement wasn’t enough, up to user whether to infringe or not (restrictive interpretation of authorisation)
Supplier was not a joint tortfeasor

59
Q

SGAE v Rafael Hotels

A 
CJEU - C2P in distribution of signal by means of TV to hotel guests (intervention)
public (indeterminate number of hotel guests)
new public (distinct from public author had in mind)
60
Q

OSA

A

Films/sound recordings to health spa residents is C2P

61
Q

Del Corso

A

Dentists’ waiting room, radio broadcast, communication but not to public (small, stable, not profit-making)

62
Q

Reha Training

A

Rehab centre, C2P by retransmission, new public, targeted intervention, profit-making nature (benefit and impact on attractiveness)

63
Q

ITV v TV Catchup

A

streaming live broadcasts C2P, difficulty on whether “new public” but new technical means is per se transmission to new public

64
Q

Pasterfield v Denham

A

not derogatory to produce smaller version of drawing w/omissions and colour variations

65
Q

Confetti Records v Warner Music

A

Garage track superimposed with rap, not derogatory treatment

66
Q

Random House (Da Vinci Code)

A

Copying of ideas, not of the expression of those ideas, no infringement (expressed as fact vs as fiction)
Summarised UK approach set out in Designer’s Guild

67
Q

Jules Rimet v FA

A

Lion in football kit, idea and not expression (not infringing)
Was successful on Passing Off case (goodwill)

68
Q

Navitaire v EasyJet

A

Claimed infringement by copying of “look and feel”, but no access or copying of source code so no infringement
(analogy - recreating pudding without copying recipe)

69
Q

ECB v Tixdaq

A

Website where users upload clips of cricket match with 170 word commentary
Test for degree of reproduction qualitatively and quantitatively, extent of exploitation of investment by broadcaster/producer
Clips were substantial part - key parts of game (6, wicket)
cf. Pelham (short clips)

70
Q

Spiegel Online

A

Freedom of information and of the press not capable of justifying further derogation from exclusive rights of reproduction/C2P
Quotation - hyperlinking sufficient

71
Q

Infopaq II

A

Considered Art. 5(5) - transient reproduction
Integral and essential part of technological process, must be entirely internal but ok to start with human (e.g. scanning newspapers)
Lawful use: making a summary is (fairly broad construction)
No independent economic significance, separable from that obtained by lawful use

72
Q

Ashdown v Telegraph

A

Publication of minutes of private meeting with Tony Blair
3 factors relevant to fairness:
1. Commercial competition (e.g. author’s own publication, inc. potential future)
2. Prior publication
3. Amount taken, importance thereof
No FD as no criticism/review of work, but contents thereof

73
Q

Hyde Park v Yelland

A

Stills from security footage published by The Sun
Fairness judged by objective standard of fair minded and honest person, for the purposes of reporting CE
Stills were not necessary to make the point in the story

74
Q

HRH Prince of Wales v Associated Newspapers

A

Prince Charles’s diaries about HK/China

Copies had been provided to a small circle of c.75 people, this did not render the work publicly available

75
Q

TimeWarner v Channel 4

A

Clockwork Orange - FD covers criticism/review, C/R of decision to withdraw inseparable from C/R of film itself

76
Q

Hubbard v Vosper

A

Criticism of scientology book.
Number and extent of quotations relevant
Criticising scientology but also the work, inseparable so covered by FD

77
Q

Pro Sieben

A

FD to use extracts from another TV programme, intention to criticise journalistic standards of plaintiff

78
Q

Deckmyn v Vandersteen

A

Parody - no need for original character or acknowledgement
Balance between rights/interests of (c) holder and freedom of expression of users - discriminatory message, legitimate interests of author inseparable from parody.

79
Q

FAPL v Panini UK

A

Football cards

Incidental use of lion emblem on stickers - NO, essential to the object of creation

80
Q

Lyon

A

Public interest defence agreed by court in relation to faulty breathalysers for personal use

81
Q

Pinckney v Mediatech

A

Owner can sue in each MS where content placed online is protected/accessible, but Court’s jurisdiction only in that MS

82
Q

Hejduk

A

Applied Pinckney - Causal event of harm in DE but also caused damage in AT
No requirement for targeting, only accessibility

83
Q

MCA Records v Charly Records

A

Director of company liable where joined together in concerted action to secure that infringing acts were done

84
Q

Grenade v Grenade Energy

A

Evidential presumption that acts done by co were done by sole director/shareholder, director had to show why not initiated/controlled by him

85
Q

Gator Sports

A

Burden of proof not on single director to disprove allegations of personal liability (cf. Grenade)

86
Q

Scarlet Extended

A

Order requiring ISP, whose service had been used for infringing P2P copying, to screen all content uploaded - in breach of Art. 15 (no requirement for general monitoring)

87
Q

WBO cases

A 
20th Century Fox v BT, v Sky
Paramount v BSkyB (x2)
Dramatico Entertainment v BSkyB
UPC Telekabel
Cartier
FAPL v BT
88
Q

UPC Telekabel

A

Endorsed ability of courts to grant WBOs (CJEU)

89
Q

Norwich Pharmacal

A

Order to reveal relevant information such as names/addresses of infringers

90
Q

Magill

A

Refusal to licence (c) in TV listings was abuse of dominant position by broadcasting organisation

91
Q

Nintendo v PC Box

A

re. TPMs, use of a device enabling pirated/lawful but unauthorised games to be played on Nintendo console was a circumvention of TPMs.
Nintendo also recently got a WBO against website selling TPM circumvention items

92
Q

Panayiotou v Sony Music Entertainment (George Michael)

A

Agreement with Sony not set aside

Obiter: although agreement restrictive of trade, was reasonable to recoup investment (Sony’s interests)

93
Q

Microsoft v Commission

A

CJEU - Microsoft was ordered to make information about server systems available to interested parties (re. operability)

94
Q

IMS Health

A

CJEU - refusal to licence a company wishing to compete in the same market was abusive, if competitor wants to and is prevented from introducing a new product to market

95
Q

British Horseracing Board v William Hill

A

No database protection in “runners and riders” database because investment was of the “wrong sort” - distinction between creation vs arrangement of information
WH acts of extraction and reutilisation, but not qualitatively/quantitatively significant

96
Q

Fixtures Marketing Ltd (FML)

A

Football fixture lists not protected by database right as investment was of the “wrong sort” - distinction between creation vs arrangement of information

97
Q

BSkyB v Digital Satellite Warranty

A

Customer databases protected by sui generis database right

98
Q

Directmedia Publishing

A

List of 1000 German poems protected by sui generis database right
Transfer of materials from one database to another could still amount to extraction (even following on-screen consultation and individual assessment)

99
Q

Football Dataco v Sportradar

A

“live data” on football matches protected by sui generis database right.
Significant costs in obtaining and verifying data (ex-footballers at matches)
Not creating new information by recording e.g. goals scored
Customers extracted a substantial part when they clicked on links to SR’s website, evidence established data flow from FDC’s database
Accessibility in UK not sufficient, must be targeted at persons in UK

100
Q

Ryanair v PRAviation

A

Flight data obtained by screen scraping Ryanair’s website

Lawful use provisions did not apply, but database right did not subsist in Ryanair’s database

Copyright (2 decks)

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