THE LAW OF COPYRIGHT

_______________________________________
THE LAW OF COPYRIGHT

1 GENERAL

1.1 The law will be examined under the following headings:

§ Nature of the right

§ Establishing the right, and its duration
§ Subject matter
§ Ownership of, and dealing in, the right
§ Infringement and its consequences
§ Moral rights

- but the issues involved are so interdependent that they cannot always be neatly or discretely
categorised, so that effective study may require contemplation of several headings at once.

1.2 The law is to be found in the

o Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA) and case law both before and after this –
s 172.

Also of importance are:

o Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works 1886 (1971 revision)
o Universal Copyright Convention 1952 (1971 revision)
o Geneva Convention for the Protection of Producers of Phonograms Against Unauthorised
Duplication of their Phonograms 1971
o TRIPS Agreement 1994
o WIPO Copyright Treaty 1996

______________________________________________________________________________________

2 NATURE OF RIGHT – PERSONAL PROPERTY

s 1(1) CDPA 1988 - "property right....in...[a]...work"

Both economic and moral:

s 2(1) - "exclusive right to do the [restricted] acts " (see ss 16-27)

s 2(2) - moral rights (see ss 77-89)

3 INTANGIBLE RIGHT

3.1 Separate From Medium Of Manifestation

Re Dickens [1935] Ch 257

Macmillan v Dent [1906] 1 Ch 101; [1907] 1 Ch 107
Pacific Film Laboratories v Federal Commissioner of Taxes (1970) 121 CLR 154

3.2 Idea / Expression Dichotomy

Baker v Selden (1877) 101 US 99

Jeffreys v Boosey (1885) 4 HLC 815
The claim is not to ideas, but to the order of words, and this order has a marked identity and a permanent endurance - Erle J.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

© Chris Poole 1983, 2000, 2002

THE LAW OF COPYRIGHT
______________________________________________________________________________

Elanco v Mandops [1980] RPC 213

There is no copyright in information or ideas, but only in the manner of expressing them - Goff LJ

LB (Plastics) v Swish [1979] FSR 145

Ladbroke v William Hill [1964] 1 WLR 273

______________________________________________________________________________________

4 ESTABLISHING THE RIGHT

4.1 Automatic

No application, registration or other formalities - Art 5(2), Berne (Contrast with Art III, UCC eg ©)
Two alternatives, by author or by country – s 1(3) CDPA; ss 153-162
First publication – ss 155(3) & 175(1)(5)
Bodley Head v Flegon [1972] 1 WLR 680
Francis Day and Hunter v Feldman [1914] 2 Ch 728
Merchant Adventurers v Grew [1972] 1 Ch 242

4.2 Requirement of Fixation

s 3(2); s 4(2); s 5A(1); s 5B(1); s 7; s 8 CDPA 1988 - contrast with s 6 (and s 178).
"writing or otherwise" – s 178

Northern Office Micro Computers v Rosenstein [1982] FSR 124

Merchandising Corporation of America v Harpbond [1983] FSR 32
Komesaroff v Mickle [1988] RPC 204

______________________________________________________________________________

5 SUBJECT MATTER I : Original Literary Works

s 1(1)(a) CDPA 1988

5.1 Original

Contrast with continental jurisprudence's 'droit d'auteur'

University of London Press v University Tutorial Press [1916] 2 Ch 601

Sudwestdeutsche Inkasse KG v Bappert und Burker Computer GmbH (1985) BGHZ94, 276
Cramp v Smythson [1944] AC 329
Roberton v Lewis [1960] The Times, 1 June; [1976] RPC 169

5.2 Literary

University of London case (above)

In my view the words 'literary work' cover work which is expressed in print or writing, irrespective of the question whether the
quality or style is high - Peterson J

Anderson v Lieber Code [1917] 2 KB 469

Pitman v Hine (1884) 1 TLR 39
Mirror Newspapers v Queensland Newspapers [1982] ACLD 230
Express Newspapers v Liverpool Daily Post [1985] 3 All ER 680
Fournet v Pearson (1897) 14 TLR 82
Joy Music v Sunday Pictorial (as referred to in Williamson Music v Pearson Partnership [1987] FSR)

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2

© Chris Poole 1983, 2000, 2002

THE LAW OF COPYRIGHT
______________________________________________________________________________

5.3 Work

Macmillan v Cooper (1923) 40 TLR 186 (JCPC)

It will be observed that it is the product of the labour, skill and capital of one man which must be appropriated by another, not
the elements, the raw material, upon which the labour and skill and capital of the first have been expended. To secure
copyright for the product it is necessary that labour, skill and capital should be expended sufficiently to impart to the product
some quality of character which the raw material did not possess, and which differentiates the product from the raw
material.... The distinction [is] between the materials upon which one claiming copyright has worked and the product of the
application of his skill, judgment, labour and learning to these materials, which product, though it may be neither novel nor
ingenious, is the claimant's original work in that it originates from him, and is not copied - Lord Atkinson

cf: Feist Publications Inc v Rural Telephone Service Co Inc (1991) 111 SCt 1282
Walter v Lane [1900] AC 539
Cramp v Smythson (above)
Kirk v Fleming [1928-35] MCC 44

5.4 "Original Literary Work"

Hollinrake v Truswell [1894] 3 Ch 420

...a literary work is intended to afford either information and instruction, or pleasure in the form of literary enjoyment -Davey LJ

Exxon Corporation v Exxon Insurance Consultants International [1981] 1 WLR 624; 3 WLR 541
...I do not think that the right way to apply a composite expression is, or at any rate is necessarily, to ascertain whether a
particular subject matter falls within the meaning of each of the constituent parts, and then to say that the whole expression is
merely the sum total of the constituent parts - Oliver LJ

5.5 "..includes...a table or compilation other than a database"

5.5.1 De minimis principle operates - "skill, judgment, labour"

Cramp v Smythson (above)

Mirror Newspapers (above)
...the features in relation to which mental effort and industry are being applied by the plaintiff are the choice of numbers...the
division of the numbers into categories... the choice of the number to be drawn in the sequence and the order in which they
are drawn and the mechanical means by which the drawing is performed - Connolly J

5.5.2 Examples:

Kelly v Morris (1886) LR 1 Eq 697 - directory

Exchange Telegraph v Gregory [1896] 1 QB 147 - stock exchange prices
Cox v Land & Water Journal (1869) LR 9 Eq 324 - list of foxhounds
Nisbet v Golf Agency (1907) 23 TLR 370 - biographical notes
Sweet v Benning (1855) 16 CB 459 - abridgments
Blacklock v Pearson [1915] 2 Ch 376 - list of railway stations
Feist Publications (above 5.3)
Waterlow Directories Ltd v Reed Information Systems Ltd [1992] FSR 409

5.5.3 Work and labour or end product; ideas or expression

Football League v Littlewoods [1959] Ch 637

Ladbroke v William Hill (above 2.3)
Independent Television Publications v Time Out [1984] FSR 64
Kenrick v Lawrence (1890) 25 QBD 99

5.6 Treatment of Existing Material

5.6.1 Translations and adaptations

Byrne v Statist Magazine [1914] 1 KB 622

Macmillan v Cooper (above 5.3)

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3

© Chris Poole 1983, 2000, 2002

THE LAW OF COPYRIGHT
______________________________________________________________________________

5.6.2 News and historical information

Walter v Steinkopff [1892] 3 Ch 489

International News Service v Associated Press (1918) 248 US 215
Ravenscroft v Herbert and New English Library [1980] RPC 193
Harman Pictures v Osborne [1967] 2 All ER 324
Warwick Films v Eisenger [1969] 1Ch 508

5.7 Titles, Names and Slogans

Kirk v Fleming (above 5.3)

Wombles v Wombles Skips [1977] RPC 99
Taverner Rutledge v Trexapalm [1977] RPC 276
Exxon Corporation (above 5.4)
Francis Day and Hunter v Twentieth Century Fox [1940] AC 11

______________________________________________________________________________________

6 SUBJECT MATTER 2 : Original Dramatic and Musical Works

s 3(1)(2) CDPA 1988

6.1 Dramatic

Fuller v Blackpool Winter Gardens [1895] 1 QB 429

Tate v Fulbrook [1908] 1 KB 821
Rees v Melville [1911-1916] MCC 168
Green v Broadcasting Corporation of New Zealand [1989] RPC 700
Tate v Thomas [1921] 1 Ch 503
Ashmore v Douglas-Home [1987] FSR 553
Creation Records v News Group [1997] EMLR 444
Norowziah v Arks (No 2) [1999] FSR 79

6.2 Musical

Definition - s3(1) CDPA

"Combination of sounds to be appreciated by the ear for reasons other than linguistic content" -
Laddie, Prescott and Vitoria

Redwood Music v Feldman [1979] RPC 385

Wood v Boosey (1868) LR 3 QB 223
Metzler v Curwen [1928-35] MCC 127
Roberton v Lewis [1976] RPC 169

"Originality - A Question of Arrangement" - McFarlane, 130 NLJ 33

and Cornish, [1971] JBL 241

Problems of notation and fixation.

Necessity for human composer?

______________________________________________________________________________________

7 SUBJECT MATTER 3 : Original Artistic Works

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ 4

© Chris Poole 1983, 2000, 2002

THE LAW OF COPYRIGHT
______________________________________________________________________________

7.1 s 4(1)(a) - Graphic works etc

Kenrick v Lawrence [1890] 25 QBD 99

Allibert v O'Connor [1981] FSR 613
British Northrop v Texteam [1974] RPC 57
Arnold v Miafern [1980] RPC 397
Wham-O Manufacturing Co v Lincoln Industries [1985] RPC 403
Breville Europe plc v Thorn EMI Domestic Appliances [1995] FSR 77
J & S Davis v Wright Health Group [1988] RPC 403
Metix (UK) Ltd v G H Maughan Ltd [1997] FSR 718
Burke v Spicer Dress Design [1985] RPC
Re Graves, ex parte Walker (1869) LR 4 QB 715
Gross v Seligman [1911-16] MCC 219
Merchandising Corporation of America v Harpbond [1983] RPC 115
Creation Records v News Group [1997] EMLR 444

7.2 s 4(1)(b) - Work of architecture

Meikle v Maufe [1941] 3 All ER 144

Vincent v Universal Housing Co [1928-35] MCC 275

7.3 s 4(1)(c) - Work of artistic craftsmanship

Hensher v Restawhile [1976] AC 64

Merlet v Mothercare [1984] FSR 358; [1986] RPC 115
Bonz Group Ltd v Cooke [1994] 3 NZLR 216
Shelley Films v Rex Features [1994] EMLR 134
Creation Records v News Group [1997] EMLR 444

______________________________________________________________________________________

8 SUBJECT MATTER 4 : Secondary Works

8.1 s 5A - Sound Recordings

' a recording of sounds '. Subject matter may or may not be a copyright work itself.

8.2 s 5B - Films

' on any medium '. NB soundtrack treated as part of film.

8.3 s 6 - Broadcasts

' by wireless telegraphy ' - see s 178

Australian PRA v Telstra [1994] RPC 299

NB Satellites

8.4 s 7 - Cable Programmes

Shetland Times v Jonathan Wills [1997] FSR 604

8.5 s 8 - Typographical Arrangements

A right enjoyed by the publisher whether or not the subject matter is a copyright work.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ 5

© Chris Poole 1983, 2000, 2002

THE LAW OF COPYRIGHT
______________________________________________________________________________

9 AUTHORSHIP

9.1 s 9 - ' person who creates it '

Donoghue v Allied Newspapers [1938] 1 Ch 106

Cala Homes v Alfred McAlpine [1995] FSR 818
Tate v Thomas [1921] 1 Ch 503
Walter v Lane [1900] AC 539
Cummins v Bond [1927] 1 Ch 167

9.2 ' producer....director....maker '. Films - now joint.

A & M Records v Video Collection [1995] EMLR 25

9.3 ' computer-generated '.

9.4 Joint Authorship

Fylde Microsystems v Key Radio Systems [1998] FSR 449

Cala Homes v McAlpine Homes [1995] FSR 818
Robin Ray v Classic FM [1998] FSR 622

______________________________________________________________________________________

10 OWNERSHIP

10.1 s 11 - ' The author of a work is the first owner ' except where it is produced by ' an employee in the
course of his employment '.

Byrne v Statist [1914] 1 KB 622

Beloff v Pressdram [1973] 1 All ER 241
Stephenson Jordan and Harrison v MacDonald and Evans [1952] RPC 10
Noah v Shuba [1991] FSR 14
Warner v Gestetner [1988] EIPR D-89
Saphena Computing v Allied Collecting Ltd [1995] FSR 616
Blair v Osborne and Tomkins [1971] 2 WLR 50
Richardson Computers v Flanders [1993] FSR 497

10.2 Assignment – s 90

Chaplin v Leslie Frewin [1966] Ch 71

Orwin v Att Gen [1988] FSR 415
Schroeder v Macaulay [1974] 3 All ER 616

10.3 Licensing

Frisby v BBC [1987] Ch 932

Jonathan Cape v Consolidated Press [1954] 3 All ER 253

10.4 Crown Copyright etc

See later.

______________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ 6

© Chris Poole 1983, 2000, 2002

THE LAW OF COPYRIGHT
______________________________________________________________________________

11 DURATION OF COPYRIGHT

11.1 Literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works

s 12 - ' 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the author dies '

Joint authors: last to die

Unknown author: from when work made, or published, whichever is later
Computer-generated: 50 years from making

11.2 Sound Recordings

s 13A - ' 50 years from end of the calendar year in which it is made....or...if, during that time it is
released, ...from [then] '

11.3 Films

s 13B - ' 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the death occurs of the last to die of...'
principal director, screenplay author, dialogue author, composer of music for the film.

11.4 Broadcasts and Cable Programmes

s 14 - ' ..50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the broadcast was made or the cable
programme included in a.....service '

11.5 Typographical Arrangements

s 15 - ' 25 years from the end of the calendar year in which the edition was first published.'

11.6 Crown Copyright etc

See later.

______________________________________________________________________________________

12 INFRINGEMENT

12.1 General

s 16(1): " The owner of the copyright in a work has... the exclusive right to do the [restricted acts] "

s 16(2): " Copyright is infringed by a person who without the licence of the copyright owner does, or
authorises another to do, any of the [restricted acts] "

ss 22-26: copyright is also infringed by a person who uses, or facilitates the use of, a copyright work
in the course of business or trade.

s 107: it may also be a criminal offence to deal commercially with a copyright work.

12.2 Restricted Acts – s 16(1)

The owner has the exclusive right to:

§ copy the work

§ issue copies to the public
§ rent or lend the work to the public
§ perform, show or play the work in public
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ 7

© Chris Poole 1983, 2000, 2002

THE LAW OF COPYRIGHT
______________________________________________________________________________

§ broadcast the work or include it in a cable programme

§ make an adaptation or do the above in relation to an adaptation

12.3 Pervading Issues

12.3.1 s 16(3)(a): a restricted act is done if it is done " in relation to the work as a whole or any
substantial part of it "

Ladbroke Football v William Hill [1964] WLR 273; [1980] RPC 539
Quality not quantity - Lord Reid

PCR v Dow Jones Telerate [1998] EMLR 407

Hawkes v Paramount Films [1934] Ch 593
Warwick Films v Eisinger [1969] 1 Ch 503
Biotrading v Biohit Ltd [1998] FSR 109
Kipling v Genatosan [1917-23] MCC 203
Express Newspapers v Liverpool Daily Post [1985] FSR 306

12.3.2 s 16(3)(b): a restricted act is done if it is done " either directly or indirectly "

LB (Plastics) v Swish [1979] RPC 611

Plix Products v Winstone [1986] FSR 63
House of Spring Gardens v Point Blank [1983] FSR 213; [1985] FSR 327

12.4 Copying

12.4.1 s 17(2): "...in relation to a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work means reproducing the
work in any material form. This includes storing the work in any medium by electronic
means. "

Francis, Day and Hunter v Bron [1963] Ch 587

Krisarts v Briarfine [1977] FSR 557
Breville Europe v Thorne EMI [1995] FSR 77
Glyn v Western Feature Film Co [1916] 1 Ch 261
Schweppes v Wellington [1984] FSR 210
Elanco v Mandops [1980] RPC 213
Bookmakers Afternoon Greyhound Services Ltd v Wilf Gilbert [1994] FSR 723
Ward v Sankey [1988] FSR 66
Cate v Devon and Exeter Constitutional Newspaper (1889) 40 Ch D 500
Spectravest v Aperknit [1988] FSR 161
Electronic Techniques v Critchley [1997] FSR

Digital sampling.

12.4.2 No need to reproduce for gain:

Chappell v Columbia [1914] 2 Ch 124; 74

Warne v Seebohm (1888) 39 Ch D 73

12.4.3 s 17(3): " In relation to an artistic work...includes... a copy in three dimensions of a two-
dimensional work and...a copy in two dimensions of a three-dimensional work. "

King Features Syndicate v O & M Kleeman [1941[ AC 417

LB (Plastics) v Swish [1979] RPC 611
Plix Products v Winstone [1986] FSR 63
House of Spring Gardens v Point Blank [1983] FSR 213; [1985] FSR 327
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ 8

© Chris Poole 1983, 2000, 2002

THE LAW OF COPYRIGHT
______________________________________________________________________________

Solar Thomson v Barton [1977] RPC 537

British Leyland Motor Corporation v Armstrong Patents [ 1986] 2 WLR 400
Brigid Foley v Ellot [1982] RPC 433
Autospin (Oil Seals) Ltd v Beehive Spinning [1995] RPC 683
Anacon v Environmental Research [1994] FSR 359
Sandman v Panasonic [1998] FSR 651
Electronic Techniques v Critchley Components [1997] FSR 401

Reynolds and Brownlow [1994] EIPR 399

12.4.4 s 17(4): "In relation to a film, television broadcast or cable programme includes making a
photograph of the whole or any substantial part of any image forming part of the film,[etc] "

Spelling-Goldberg Productions v BPC Publishing Ltd [1981] RPC 283

12.4.5 s 17(5): The copyright in a typographical arrangement is infringed only by making " a
facsimile copy of the arrangement ".

12.5 Issuing Copies to the Public

12.5.1 s 18(2): "..putting [copies or the original] into circulation ".

British Northrop v Texteam [1974] RPC 57

12.5.2 NB: relevance of EEA area.

12.6 Rental or Lending

This is new.

12.7 Performance, Showing or Playing of Work in Public

12.7.1 s 19(1)&(2): " ..any mode of visual or acoustic presentation..[in public][of]..a literary, dramatic
or musical work "

Turner v Performing Rights Society [1943] Ch 167

Jennings v Stephens [1936] Ch 469
PRS Harlequin Records [1979] FSR 233
PRS v Glasgow Rangers Football Club [1975] RPC 626
Duck v Bates (1883) 13 QBD 843

12.7.2 s 19(3): "..playing or showing of the work in public is a..[restricted} act..in a sound recording,
film, broadcast or cable programme"

______________________________________________________________________________________

13 REMEDIES

13.1 General

Provided for in ss 96-118 CDPA. Tortious and criminal. Note the difficulty of gaining proof and the
development of procedures, including discovery orders.

s 96(2) - " all such relief by way of damages, injunctions, accounts or otherwise is available to the
plaintiff as is available in respect of the infringement of any other property right. "

s 96(1) - actionable by the copyright owner, but also by exclusive licensee: s 101
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ 9

© Chris Poole 1983, 2000, 2002

THE LAW OF COPYRIGHT
______________________________________________________________________________

NB: doubt about conversion damages.

13.2 Damages

Tortious basis - compensation for loss which is caused and not too remote, eg lost (chance of)
royalties.

Redwood Music v Chappell [1982] RPC 109

s 97 - 'innocent' infringement; no damages. Aggravated or exemplary damages possible:

Williams v Settle [1960] 1 WLR 1072

13.3 Injunction

Very valuable - reality of market lifespan. NB: doctrine of laches.

Interlocutory action:

American Cyanamid V Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396

Series 5 Software Ltd v Philip Clarke [1996] FSR 273
the grant of an interlocutory injunction was a matter of discretion and depended on all the facts of the case;
there were no fixed rules;
the court should rarely attempt to resolve complex issues of disputed fact or law;
major factors to be taken into account are:
§ the extent to which damages would be likely to be an adequate remedy and the ability of the other party to pay,
§ the balance of convenience,
§ the maintenance of the status quo, and
§ any clear view the court may reach as to the relative strength of parties' cases - Laddie J

13.4 Forfeiture, Destruction and Delivery Up

Now unusual, but still available under ss 99 & 114

14 EXCEPTIONS AND DEFENCES

14.1 s 16(2) - " ..without the licence of the copyright owner..."

Licences can be contractual or bare; written or oral; express or implied.

NB: importance of contractual law principles - see eg shrink-wrap licences for computer programs.

14.2 Public Interest

Hubbard v Vosper [1972] 2 QB 84

Kennard v Lewis [1983] FSR 346
Att-Gen v Guardian Newspapers [1988] 3 All ER 241

______________________________________________________________________________________

15 PERMITTED ACTS: ss 28-76

15.1 Fair Dealing

Hubbard v Vosper [1972] 2 QB 84 (quote from Lord Denning)

The issue may be, at bottom, whether the act takes away a 'sale or licence fee'.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ 10

© Chris Poole 1983, 2000, 2002

THE LAW OF COPYRIGHT
______________________________________________________________________________

15.2 Research or Private Study – s 29

s 29(1)(1A)(2) - works covered.

When it is fair.
s 29(3) - who can do it.

Sillitoe v McGraw-Hill [1983] FSR 545

15.3 Criticism, Review etc; News Reporting

Associated Newspaper Group v News Group Ltd [1986] RPC 515

Hubbard v Vosper [1972] 2 QB 84
Sillitoe v McGraw-Hill [1983] FSR 545
Pro Sieben Media v Carlton Television [1999] 1 WLR 605
BBC v BSB [1992] Ch 141
Express Newspapers v News (UK) Ltd [1990] FSR 359
Newspaper Licensing Agency v Marks and Spencer [2000] 4 All ER 239
Hyde Park Residence v Yelland [2000] RPC 604

Browes ‘Copyright: Court of Appeal Considers Fair Dealing Defence and Rejects Common Law
Defence of Public Interest’ [2000] EIPR 289

15.4 Education

See ss 32-36A

15.5 Libraries

See ss 37-44

15.6 Miscellaneous

See ss 45-50, 57-76.

16 COPYRIGHT AND NEW TECHNOLOGIES

16.1 General

Copyright has particular application in relation to computer programs, databases and electronic
publishing. The best treatment of such issues can be found in Intellectual Property, 4th edition 1999
by David Bainbridge (Ch 8). For in-depth treatment see Information Technology Law, 3rd ed by Ian
th
Lloyd, published by Butterworths; Introduction to Computer Law, 4 edition 2000 by Bainbridge
th
(Longman); Computer Law, 4 edition by Reed and Angel (Blackstones).

16.2 Copyright in Computer Programs - protected by copyright (or its equivalent) in most jurisdictions
worldwide.

16.2.1 Terminology:

Program
' Series of instructions which control or condition the operation of a data processing machine ' -
Banks Committee, Cmnd 4407

Operating system program

Supplies the working environment for computer use, such as Windows 2000

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ 11

© Chris Poole 1983, 2000, 2002

THE LAW OF COPYRIGHT
______________________________________________________________________________

Application program
Performs a specific task, such as word-processing

Source code
Computer programming in a recognised (high-level) language, such as BASIC or FORTRAN. Can
be written or printed on paper and easily understood by any one knowing the language

Object or machine code

A 'low-level' language comprising an apparently meaningless collection of '0' and '1', or numbers and
letters, understandable by the machine but not easily readable by humans. This will be converted by
a machine from the source code, using a compiling program, in order to run the program

RAM
Random Access Memory - usually part of the hard disk which can be used as space for temporary
storing of programs or data which can be retrieved and utilised while the computer is operating.

ROM
Read Only Memory - a chip, integrated circuit, or part of a disk containing operating instructions.
cannot be altered by the user.

Software
Programs or data on chip, circuit board or disk; preparation materials; associated documentation
such as manuals

Hardware
Machines, including silicon chips and electronic circuit boards, and material inserts such as disks.

16.2.2 Historically thought to be examples of literary works under the 1956 Act, and equivalent
Commonwealth legislation, particularly when manifested in source code:

Northern Office Micro Computers v Rosenstein [1982] FSR 124

Sega Enterprises Ltd v Richards [1983] FSR 73
Thrustcode v W W Computing [1983] FSR 502

- although some doubt expressed in Australia about operating systems in object code form in ROM
chips:

Apple Computer v Computer Edge [1984] FSR 246

does not 'afford information and instruction, or pleasure, in the form of literary enjoyment'
NEC Corp v Intel Corp (1985) 645 F Supp 1485

Copyright (Computer Software) Amendment Act 1985 - specifically provided they were to be dealt
with as if they were literary works.

16.2.3 CDPA s 3(1) - 'literary work...includes.. (b) a computer program..(c) preparatory design
material for a computer program'.

Powerflex v Data Access Corp [1997] FCA 490

News Datacom v Satellite Decoding Systems [1995] FSR 201
Japan Capsules Computers (UK) v Sonic Game Sales, 16 October 1986
IBCOS Computers v Barclays Mercantile Highland Finance [1994] FSR 275
suite of programs can be a compilation

Originality - because the inclusion of computer programs in the 1988 Act followed from the EC
Directive 91/250 it may be that the requirement of originality is higher than normal with literary works
-Art 1(3) A computer program shall be protected if it is original in the sense that it is the author's own
intellectual creation. No other criteria shall be applied to determine its eligibility for protection.

Idea/Expression - Art 1(2) Protection......shall apply to the expression in any form of a computer
program. Ideas and principles which underlie any element of of a computer program.....are not
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ 12

© Chris Poole 1983, 2000, 2002

THE LAW OF COPYRIGHT
______________________________________________________________________________

protected... Expression here means not only the code lines of a program but its structure, ie tghe
way in which the various parts and files are organised. Beware of Jacob J's comments in IBCOS
nd
apparently to the contrary. It may be inferred (Holyoak and Torremans, 2 ed p500) that where an
idea is capable of being expressed in only one way, the resulting program is not protected in that it
cannot be seen as the author's own intellectual creation

Fixation - a program is often written in flow-charts and source code, but even if tapped directly into a
computer's memory is capable of being fixed. It would appear that hard-wiring a microcode into a
microprocessor ROM built into the computer is sufficient - NEC v Intel Corp. Storage solely in a
RAM may not be sufficient (unless the RAM is on a network, as with bulletin boards on the internet).

16.3 Infringing a Computer Program

16.3.1 Substantial

M S Associates v Power [1988] FSR 242

43 lines out of 9000, plus structural similarities, plus some common errors.
IBCOS Computers v Barclays Mercantile Highland Finance [1994] FSR 275

s 17(6) CDPA 1988

loading into RAM is copying

16.3.2 Literal copying

IBCOS Computers v Barclays Mercantile Highland Finance [1994] FSR 275

common mistakes, comment lines and redundant code raised the presumption of disk copying

'For infringement there must be copying. Whether there was or not is a question of fact. To prove copying the
plaintiff can normally do no more than point to bits of his work and the defendant's work which are the same and
prove an opportunity of access to his work. If the resemblance is sufficiently great then the court will draw an
inference of copying. It may then be possible for the defendant to rebut the inference - to explain the similarities
in some other way. For instance he may be able to show both parties derived similar bits from some third party
or material in the public domain. Or he may be able to show that the similarities arise out of a functional
necessity - that anyone doing this particular job would be likely to come up with similar bits."

,... at this stage ... both the important and the unimportant bits of the works being compared count."

'QUALITATIVE' - a question of degree where a good guide is the notion of overborrowing of the skill, labour
and judgment which went into the copyright work. ... In the end the matter must be left to the value judgment of
the court."'

Ocular Sciences v Aspect Vision Care [1997] RPC 289

16.3.3 Non-literal copying - copying of the structure without copying the code-line (language).

Whelan v Jaslow [1987] FSR 1 - ' look and feel '

Plains Cotton Cooperative v Goodpasture (1987) 807 F 2d 1256
Broderbund v Unison World (1986) 648 F Supp 1127
DCA v Softklone (1987) 659 F Supp 449
Computer Associates v Altai Inc (1992) 20 USPQ 2d 1641 - abstraction; filtration; comparison

Possible difference between USA and English approach: the 'abstraction, filtration, comparison' test
from Altai was followed by Ferris J in:

John Richardson Computers v Flanders [1992] FSR 497; [1993] FSR 497

'In the test propounded in Computer Associates the discovery of a program's abstraction is the first step. The
second step is to filter these abstractions in order to discover a "core of protectable material". In the process of
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ 13

© Chris Poole 1983, 2000, 2002

THE LAW OF COPYRIGHT
______________________________________________________________________________

filtration there are to be excluded from consideration (a) elements dictated by efficiency; (b) elements dictated
by external factors and (c) elements taken from the public domain."'

- but rejected by Jacob J in IBCOS, on the ground that the EU test of originality precludes the USA
need for 'filtration'.

Cantor Fitzgerald v Tradition (UK) Ltd [2000] RPC 95

16.3.4 Defences – s 50B CDPA: gives right for lawful user to decompile to obtain interoperability
information, eg to produce a program to run with Windows.

Mars UK Ltd v Teknowledge Ltd [2000] FSR 138

s 50A - back-up copy. s 50C - to correct errors.

16.4 Copyright in databases

16.4.1 CDPA ss 3(1)(d) and 3A - requires author's own intellectual creation. Data has to be
arranged in a systematic or methodical way.

16.4.2 Because copyright protection extends to non-literal copying, it should protect the design and
structure of the database.

16.5 Database Right

Independent of (and may be additional to) any copyright - established by SI 1997/3032, Copyright
and Rights in Databases Regulations 1997.

No requirement of originality - exists where there has been a substantial investment in obtaining,
verifying or presenting the contents of the database – reg 13(1)

First owner is the maker,.....the person who takes the initiative in obtaining, verifying or presenting
the contents of the database and assumes the risk of investing in that that obtaining, verification or
presentation.

Exists for 15 years from completion, or publication if later.

Right is to prevent extraction or re-utilisation of all or a substantial part of the contents of the
database.

______________________________________________________________________________________

17 MORAL RIGHTS

Newly introduced in 1988 to conform with latest revision of Berne Convention.

Marino ‘R-E-S-P-E-C-T - That’s what moral rights mean to me’ [1992] NLJ 1084
Cornish ‘Moral Rights under the 1988 Act’ [1989] EIPR 449

17.1 Right of Paternity

s 77 - Right to be identified as author or director.

s 78 - right has to be asserted.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ 14

© Chris Poole 1983, 2000, 2002

THE LAW OF COPYRIGHT
______________________________________________________________________________

s 77(2)-(6) - occurs on publication, performance, broadcast etc of work.

Exceptions are listed in s 79.

17.2 Right of Integrity

s 80 - Author/director has right to object to derogatory treatment of work. This is defined in s 80(2).

s 80(3)-(6) - Infringement occurs where there is some publication etc of the work in its derogatory
form.

Exception are listed in ss 81-2

Snow v Eaton Centre (1982) 70 CPR (2d) 105 (Canada)

Beckett RIDA 1993 No 155, 225 and Huston v Turner Entertainment (1992) 23 IIC 702 (France)

17.3 False Attribution

s 84 Right not to have a work falsely attributed to one on publication etc.

17.4 Privacy

s 85 Person who commissions personal photograph or film (video) has right to prevent unauthorised
publication.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ 15

© Chris Poole 1983, 2000, 2002