[CR] Exceptions and Limitations

Question 1

What are some general exceptions/Limitations?

Answer 1

Fair dealing [Hubbard v Vosper]

• satire [Deckmyn]
• public interest [Hyde Park] [Duke of Norfolk] [Lion Lab]

Question 2

International 3 step test for exemption - is this fair, effective, applicable?

Answer 2

“Eg: Art 9(2) Berne

• matter of legislation
• working in special cases when reproduction doesnt conflict w normal exploitation
• work not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of author”

Question 3

Copyright exceptions

Answer 3

“Chapter III CDPA

Info Society DIR - s28 CDPA, optional exceptions (max extent)”

Question 4

How to determine fair dealing

Answer 4

“Purpose of use: s29-31
‘Fair’: degree + impression

Hubbard v Vosper: criticism of psychology
1. Amount taken (quantity and quality)
2. Proportions of use (extract v comments, size of OG work)
3. Use of work (purpose for taking, can it substitute (does it transform?))
Previous publication? If no, unfair.
How work obtained? Leaked = unfair

[Ashdown v Telegraph] must justify vertabrim takings of work.

1. context of research/crticism? (objective)
2. depends on amount taken [Hubbard v Vosper]

• subjective intention doesnt matter. if purpose could be achieved by diff means [Hyde Park v Yelland (Camera creeping on princess)”

Question 5

When sufficient acknowledgement?

Answer 5

“Applies for most exceptions.
make clear author + title of work. Unless impractical.
must convey that author created work

(UK: only for private study, parody, caricature, pastiche)”

Question 6

For Criticism/Review Purpose

Answer 6

“1. must be made available to public

2. can be anything related to work
3. can be pholosophy [hubbard v Vosper]
4. must be a work [Frasher Woodward v BBC]

can also be s30(1ZA)”

Question 7

Report on events

Answer 7

”

1. Current (important - royal family?) [Hyde v Yelland - 1 year later still talked about]
2. Event (national or political importance)
   - can be transformed into an event due to media coverage [Pro Sieben v Carlton TV]
3. degree of competition
4. wide interpretation”

Question 8

Parody defence

Answer 8

Deckmyn v Vendersteen

Question 9

incedental use

Answer 9

“[Football Association Premier League v Panini UK]

• not infringe if incidental use. (s31)
• elblems on jerseys on trading cards. not incidental as economic purpose and again”

Question 10

Discolure in public interest

Answer 10

“[Lion Lab v Evans]: public interest defence exists
[Prince of Wales] Considentiality of private issues
[Ashdown v Telegraph] only in rare circumstances + onus on D”