Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

Copyright > Cases > Flashcards

Cases Flashcards

(100 cards)

Start Studying
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
Macmillan
derivative works
26
Renckhoff
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)
27
Green v NZ Broadcasting Corp
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.
28
Norowzian v Arks
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"
29
Interlego
derivative works - tracing is not original despite SLJ
30
Noah v Shuba
Clauses in employment contracts re. (c)
31
Islestarr v Aldi (Charlotte Tilbury)
Pattern in foundation - not permanent through use but successful in arguing (c) of graphic work
32
Merchandising Corp v Harpbond (Adam Ant)
Makeup not artistic work, not intended to be permanent, face was not "canvas"
33
Lucasfilm
SC - Stormtrooper helmet not a "sculpture" under UK closed list, primary function was utilitarian, lacked artistic purpose
34
NLA v M and S
"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
35
FreshTrading v Deepend (Innocent)
Beneficial interest - ownership with commissioner despite no consideration - dissolution of commissionee before consideration given
36
R Griggs v Evans (Doc Martens)
commissioned works - officious bystander assessing at time of contract who was going to have (c) ownership
37
Meridian v Richardson
GSK forecasting software - Meridian was commissionee, Richardson helped Meridian but refused to assign (c). Richardson successful - payment not enough
38
Homes v McAlpine
Joint authorship - must consider more than just "who pushed the pen"
39
Slater v Wimmer
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)
40
Hadley v Kemp
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)
41
Fisher v Brooker
Whiter Shade of Pale - organ solo made a distinctive and significant contribution to the overall composition (joint author)
42
Martin v Kogan
``` 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
Stevenson v Macdonald
(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
Brigid Folely v Ellott
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
Pelham
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
Filmspeler
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
Pirate Bay (Ziggo)
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
House of Harlot
Cropping photo infringed as distortion, even though not prejudicial to honour/reputation of author Successful
49
Football Dataco v Yahoo
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
Newzbin
P2P file sharing, WBO. Website provided means for infringement, entirely within control, did nothing to prevent
51
Bestwater
Applies Svensson in context of framing/embedding videos on websites Mode of linking irrelevant if new public
52
Peek Cloppenburg v Cassina Spa
CJEU ruled distribution act limited to transfer of ownership of object (not displaying artistic works in shop window)
53
Knoll
CJEU - infringement of distribution right if invited by targeted advertising to acquire ownership of original/copy of that work.
54
UsedSoft v Oracle
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
Ranks
no exhaustion of rights in lawfully made back up copies of computer programs
56
Tom Kabinet
current CJEU referral about digital exhaustion of © under Art 4(2) InfoSoc. Second-hand eBooks
57
Jennings v Stephens
character of audience, not presence/absence or payment, for deciding whether a performance is “in public”
58
CBS v Amstrad
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
SGAE v Rafael Hotels
``` 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
OSA
Films/sound recordings to health spa residents is C2P
61
Del Corso
Dentists’ waiting room, radio broadcast, communication but not to public (small, stable, not profit-making)
62
Reha Training
Rehab centre, C2P by retransmission, new public, targeted intervention, profit-making nature (benefit and impact on attractiveness)
63
ITV v TV Catchup
streaming live broadcasts C2P, difficulty on whether “new public” but new technical means is per se transmission to new public
64
Pasterfield v Denham
not derogatory to produce smaller version of drawing w/omissions and colour variations
65
Confetti Records v Warner Music
Garage track superimposed with rap, not derogatory treatment
66
Random House (Da Vinci Code)
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
Jules Rimet v FA
Lion in football kit, idea and not expression (not infringing) Was successful on Passing Off case (goodwill)
68
Navitaire v EasyJet
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
ECB v Tixdaq
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
Spiegel Online
Freedom of information and of the press not capable of justifying further derogation from exclusive rights of reproduction/C2P Quotation - hyperlinking sufficient
71
Infopaq II
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
Ashdown v Telegraph
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
Hyde Park v Yelland
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
HRH Prince of Wales v Associated Newspapers
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
TimeWarner v Channel 4
Clockwork Orange - FD covers criticism/review, C/R of decision to withdraw inseparable from C/R of film itself
76
Hubbard v Vosper
Criticism of scientology book. Number and extent of quotations relevant Criticising scientology but also the work, inseparable so covered by FD
77
Pro Sieben
FD to use extracts from another TV programme, intention to criticise journalistic standards of plaintiff
78
Deckmyn v Vandersteen
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
FAPL v Panini UK
Football cards | Incidental use of lion emblem on stickers - NO, essential to the object of creation
80
Lyon
Public interest defence agreed by court in relation to faulty breathalysers for personal use
81
Pinckney v Mediatech
Owner can sue in each MS where content placed online is protected/accessible, but Court's jurisdiction only in that MS
82
Hejduk
Applied Pinckney - Causal event of harm in DE but also caused damage in AT No requirement for targeting, only accessibility
83
MCA Records v Charly Records
Director of company liable where joined together in concerted action to secure that infringing acts were done
84
Grenade v Grenade Energy
Evidential presumption that acts done by co were done by sole director/shareholder, director had to show why not initiated/controlled by him
85
Gator Sports
Burden of proof not on single director to disprove allegations of personal liability (cf. Grenade)
86
Scarlet Extended
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
WBO cases
``` 20th Century Fox v BT, v Sky Paramount v BSkyB (x2) Dramatico Entertainment v BSkyB UPC Telekabel Cartier FAPL v BT ```
88
UPC Telekabel
Endorsed ability of courts to grant WBOs (CJEU)
89
Norwich Pharmacal
Order to reveal relevant information such as names/addresses of infringers
90
Magill
Refusal to licence (c) in TV listings was abuse of dominant position by broadcasting organisation
91
Nintendo v PC Box
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
Panayiotou v Sony Music Entertainment (George Michael)
Agreement with Sony not set aside | Obiter: although agreement restrictive of trade, was reasonable to recoup investment (Sony's interests)
93
Microsoft v Commission
CJEU - Microsoft was ordered to make information about server systems available to interested parties (re. operability)
94
IMS Health
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
British Horseracing Board v William Hill
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
Fixtures Marketing Ltd (FML)
Football fixture lists not protected by database right as investment was of the "wrong sort" - distinction between creation vs arrangement of information
97
BSkyB v Digital Satellite Warranty
Customer databases protected by sui generis database right
98
Directmedia Publishing
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
Football Dataco v Sportradar
"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
Ryanair v PRAviation
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.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions