-
Statutory Provisions
-
§ 3(1) provides as an economic right of copyright the right "to publish the work or any substantial part thereof"
-
§ 2.2(1) defines publication:
-
making copies of a work available to the public,
-
the construction of an architectural work, and
-
the incorporation of an artistic work into an architectural work, and
-
(b) in relation to sound recordings, making copies of a sound recording available to the public, but not include
-
the performance in public, or the communication to the public by telecommunication, of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work or a sound recording, or
-
the exhibition in public of an artistic work.
Oscar Trade Mark -
Application was made for registration as a trademark the word "Oscar" adjacent to a silhouette of an Oscar statuette, for radio, television and recording apparatus and record players, tape recorders and cassettes.
-
Registration was opposed by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.
-
The silhouette representation of an Oscar in the trademark was an infringement of the academy's UK copyright in the Oscar statuette. CR for the Oscar statuette, as an artistic work, would exist in the UK at the time only if the various statuettes, created in the US, were unpublished.
-
Held that the issuance of many statuettes to award winners was not "publishing" them, because it was not an offer of reproduction to the public, as the issuance and use is very limited and controlled.
Infabrics Ltd. v. Jaytex Ltd. -
Allegation of infringement of copyright by "publication" of a fabric design for use in manufacturing shirts.
-
Plaintiffs had previously published the design.
-
The defendant had used the design for the manufacture of shirts in Hong Kong for shipment to the UK.
-
HoL considered whether the sale in the UK of the shirts of the design constituted a "publication" of copyright.
-
Defendant submitted that in copyright law, publication meant making available to the public copies of a work previously unpublished.
-
CoA rejected this, finding that "the acts of importation and sale constituted infringement by publishing.
-
The HoL reversed.
-
Ruled that "publication" meant making available copies to the public.
-
JB - What is the meaning of this then? Pretty sure it means you actually have to make copies available to the public to have copyright.
Robert D. Sutherland Architects Ltd. v. Montykola Investments Inc. -
Plaintiff had authored a development plan for a residential development.
-
Plaintiff was to participate as a partner in the development proposal and submitted to the municipality various plans, including the one that was eventually approved by the town planning advisory committee of the relevant municipality.
-
The plaintiff's development plan "formed part of the town's resolution and was attached to the development plan".
-
Planned purchase didn't happen, and then a different developer purchased the land at a higher price.
-
Copies of the development plan appeared "anonymously" at the office of the town engineer, who attached them to the development agreement of the new purchasers of the land, even though the plaintiff had refused to supply copies and had even forbidden the use of his plans.
-
Court discussed various issues, including breach of copyright in the plaintiff's plan.
-
The defendant owner of the land was found to have infringed the copyright in the plaintiff's plan.
-
Found that the defendant owner of the land infringed the copyright in the plaintiff's plan.
-
Reasoning:
-
The Sutherland plan was designed specifically for the lot of land in question, therefore unique.
-
In view of the J it was included in the definition of artistic work.
-
The copyright was restricted to the plan itself, and not a development agreement with the town.
-
Not clear who actually reproduced the pirated copy of the plan, which was probably another breach of copyright.
-
The fact that the plan was not used in the actual construction is relevant to the question of damages, but does not take away from the fact of use.
-
It wasn't the construction of the buildings that breached the copyright; it was the use of the plans in the development agreement.
Corporeal and Incorporeal re Dickens; Dickens v. Hawksley -
Novelist Charles Dickens died in 1870, gave all his private papers to his sister-in-law, Hogarth.
-
Residuary estate, including his copyrights, was given to trustees for the benefit of residual legatees, Hogarth and Forster.
-
Property included an unpublished manuscript, entitled variously as "The New Testament" among other titles.
-
Written for the instruction of his children and not intended to be published.
-
Determined to be amongst Dickens' "private papers" and to have passed to Hogarth.
-
Didn't give her the copyright for the work, this passed to the trustees for Hogarth and Forster.
-
Passed through various estates until 1934 when the executrix and trustee of the then holders assigned it to Associated Newspapers Ltd for publication, which duly took place.
-
Beneficiaries of the residual legatees sued for copyright infringement.
-
Copyright laws:
-
At time of death in 1870, unpublished literary matters the rights of an author and his personal representatives and of those who became entitled to the unpublished literary matter either upon an intestacy or by virtue of a testamentary disposition rested upon the provisions of the common law.
-
Before July 1, 1912, the date upon which the Copyright Act, 1911, came into effect, there was no statutory copyright in unpublished literary works.
-
Neither the Copyright Act, 1942, nor the earlier Copyright Acts which ere thereby repealed, earliest of which was the 8th Anne, c 19, protected unpublished literary property.
-
Held in the respondent's favour on the basis that copyright in an unpublished work was an incorporeal right of property, which subsisted independently of the actual manuscript.
-
Maybe take a look at the notes on pg 33 to see what additional stuff is in the other cases listed there.
Share with your friends: |
