Introduction


Intellectual property is the recognition that the product of our mental labour and other intangible ideas that results from the creativity of the mind are considered as property that can be owned.[1] Intellectual property is therefore the result of human’s creative genius. According to MacQueen, Waelde, and Laurie the use of “property” depicts the “existence of rights”, which further implies “a system of control to be exercised by the right holder”.[2] This paper, will discuss the protection of copyrights. It will start by clarifying the definition of copyrights based on its history, dimensions, and scope. The copyright law in United Kingdom will be highlighted in contrast to American copyright system. The different international conventions and agreements that synchronize the application of copyright will also be discuss to bring light into its purpose and applicability. In particular, the emphasis will be given on the application of copyrights to jokes. This is based on the statement made by Matthew Harris that jokes are copyrightable.[3] In order to test the validity of this claim, jokes will be categorized as a dramatic work, which reveals artistic originality through the incorporation of the writer’s skill and labour, fixated through performances, and owned by its creator. There will be a discussion about the infringements of the moral rights and economic rights under copyright law. The possibility of applying the copyright law to jokes will further be contended. The possible defence against infringement through the use of fair deal argument will also be discussed. Finally, the remedies and possible reforms for the UK copyright law will be specified.

 

Definition of Copyright Law

Copyright is the prerogative of the creator or author to secure ownership of his or her work and prevent other people from accessing or using the creation freely or without permission[4]. Copyright is a means of protecting intellectual property through its expressions. It is essential to review and clarify the notion of copyright law before subjecting it to further analysis.

History and Dimensions

The origin of the copyright law can be traced back to the Statute of Anne in 1709, which incorporates the rules used in printing patent, Stationer’s copyright, and government press control. According to TB Macaulay “The principle of copyright…is a tax on readers for the purpose of giving a bounty to writers”.[5] TB Macaulay further argued that the author’s copyright must not be inherited. In addition, Macaulay disagreed with Talfourd’s sixty years protection and proposed that protection must be made forty-two years after publication.[6] In 1842, the Talfourd Act or the Copyright Amendment Act was legislated. Starting on 1988, all works published before 1923 were considered as part of the Public Domain.[7]

There are two dimensions in the copyright law: economic and moral rights. The Economic or Propriety Rights refers to the exclusive right of the author or the copyright owner to authorize the production of copies of works, as well as the performance and broadcast of the work to the public.[8] Economic rights make it possible to make money through copyrights.[9] Moral rights refer to the right to be identified as author or director, right to object to derogatory treatment of work, right against false attribution of work, and the right to privacy of certain photographs and films.[10] Through the implementation of moral rights, the author’s personality claims is recognized.[11]

Agreement, Conventions, Directives: Idea/Expression Dichotomy

In article 9 of the Berne Convention, it was argued that “Copyright protection shall extend to expressions and not to ideas, procedures, and methods of operation or mathematical concepts as such”[12] The Berne Convention protects the authors and the copyright of its member nations.[13] Expressions were protected because they are ‘originally’ created by the author whereas ideas, procedures, and mathematical concepts were merely discovered.[14] The TRIPS Agreement supported this claim by applying the same criteria in determining the copyright for computer programs, compilations of data, protection of performers, producers of phonograms and broadcasting organizations.[15] The TRIPs Agreement proclaimed that Intellectual Property Rights are legal rights bestowed to the author(s) or creator(s) of an intellectual property[16].

Further clarification of the idea/expression dichotomy was provided by Alan Beckley.[17] As expressed in Berne Conventions, the copyright law protects the expression of the idea.[18][19] Beckley explained that copyright law may only apply to works that “exist in permanent form.”[20] Giving importance to the expression and the form of work shows that originality is not the fundamental basis of copyright protection. Nevertheless, it is important that the work or creation is not an imitation of another author’s work.

The Universal Copyright Convention was created because there were countries that did not agree to the Berne Convention. The national laws of the non-participating countries were not compatible with the tenets of the Berne Convention.[21] This was particularly true with the case of the United States prior to 1989. The UCC required its member states that they must give foreign authors similar protection that the local authors receives.[22] It also required that works must have a formal registration and must always carry the copyright symbol.

UK Requirements for Copyrights

The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 is the current law on copyright in the United Kingdom. The CDPA 1988 described literary works as any work that are “written, spoken, or sung, and includes a table or compilation, and a computer program”.[23] Dramatic works are those that are portrayed through “work of dance or mime and musical work consists of music.”[24] In the consideration of these terms, jokes can be considered as a literary work or a dramatic work.

There are two lists of works in copyrights: closed lists and open lists. According to Martin Senftleben “whereas continental European countries provide for a closed catalogue of carefully defined exceptions, the Anglo-American copyright tradition allows for an open-ended fair use system that leaves that task of identifying individual cases of exempted unauthorized used to the courts.”[25] Estelle Derclaye argued that the key advantage of the “closed list/catalogue” approach is the presence of certainty and restraint.[26] Since the copyright system in the European Union is governed by the TRIPs Agreement, the copyright law protects the copyright strictly based on statutory definitions. Restraint is shown by the fact that the protection of work was not expanded inappropriately.

Copyrights on Jokes

Matthew Harris commented that jokes can be copyrightable. However, jokes were not included in any of the agreements, conventions, and other statutes that govern copyright protection. Therefore, jokes do not belong in the ‘closed lists’ of the UK law. In the United Kingdom, wherein the ‘closed list’ approach is being used, classifying jokes as a type of dramatic work will not be accepted. This was the case when the decision for the Creation Records v News Group Newspaper held that no copyright can be infringed if the work (photo-shoot scene) cannot be considered as a type of artistic, dramatic, or literary work.[27] Nevertheless, case laws revealed that the definition of work is being expanded to include cases that shows originality as J Peterson dicta denotes “that which is worth copying is prima facie worth protecting.”[28]

In order to recognize whether jokes are worth protecting, consider the case of Norowzian v Arks (No. 2). In this case, the judge argued that the film could not count as a dramatic work because it is not capable of being performed physically. The decision was based on the definition used in court that “dramatic work was a work of action, with or without words or music, which was capable of being performed before an audience.”[29] Since jokes are capable of being performed physically before an audience and jokes are acts with words, then the performance of jokes can count as a dramatic work.[30] By explaining it this way, the copyright protection from dramatic works such as dancing is expanded to jokes. Therefore, jokes do not belong to the closed lists of works under copyright in the United Kingdom. Nonetheless, case laws examine the issues in a case to case basis especially as a part of the harmonizing effort across European Union states. In order to understand whether the copyright law can be expanded and applied to jokes, the works that can be protected by copyright law were discussed below.

The CDPA Article 3 gave the following description of work[31] :

1)      “literary work” means any work, other than a dramatic or musical work, which is written, spoken or

sung, and accordingly includes—

(a)    a table or compilation, and

(b)   a computer program;

2)      “dramatic work” includes a work of dance or mime; and

3)      “musical work” means a work consisting of music, exclusive of any words or action intended to be

sung, spoken or performed with the music.

In determining whether the jokes can be considered as a literary work, consider the case of the University of London Press v University Tutorial Press. In light of this, Judge Peterson defined literary work as “work which is expressed in print or writing, irrespective of the question whether the quality or style is high.”[32] It is further argued that “Copyright Acts are not concerned with the originality of ideas, but with the expression of thought, and, in the case of literary work, with the expression of thought in print or writing.”[33] The two statements suggest that jokes can be defined as literary works if they are written or printed as an expression and not merely an idea. As expressed in the definition from the CDPA 1988, jokes in written form are considered as literary work according to the compilation category.

Duration

According to CDPA 1988 S9, the author or the creator of the expression is the owner of the copyright.[34] Copyright in literary, dramatic, or artistic work is an automatic form of ownership that last during the lifetime of the author and 50 years after the author’s death.[35] Anonymous authors and authors who used pseudonyms are protected 50 years after the first available copy was publicly available.[36] If there is more than one author, the protection will continue 50 years after the last author dies.[37]

Performances are also considered as a type of work. The CDPA 1988 Chapter 48 considered the “performance of the work in public is an act restricted by the copyright in a literary, dramatic or musical work…includes delivery in the case of lectures, addresses, speeches, and sermons, and… any mode of visual or acoustic presentation”.[38]In Part II of CDPA 1988, the rights of performers include “requiring his consent to the exploitation of his performance, and creates offences in relation to dealing with or using illicit recordings and certain other related acts”[39] Jokes are performable acts and can therefore be protected by the rights of performers under the CDPA 1988.

Sound recordings and films are also protected by copyright in a 50 years period after the end of the calendar year when it was created or released.[40] The term “released” implies the initial date when the film or sound recordings were published, broadcast, or shown in public.[41] In connection to this Section 14 of the CDPA 1988 entails that broadcast and cable programmes are also copyrighted for the duration of 50 years starting from the end of the year when the first broadcast was made.[42] The repetition of broadcast does not change or extend the expiration of copyright. This means that the original copyright will apply. Typographical arrangement of published editions is also copyrighted; however, the copyright period is only 25 years after the first publication.[43] Jokes that were broadcasted or were published are therefore protected by copyright law. The act of publishing the jokes in the internet can be considered as an act of copying and broadcasting.[44]

On October 29, 1993, the Council Directive 93/98/EEC harmonizing the term of protection of copyright and certain related acts was created as a result of incorporating more countries in the European Union.[45] The need to harmonize the differences among “national laws governing the terms of protection of copyright and related rights, which are liable to impede free movement of goods and freedom to provide services, and to distort competition in the common market”[46] was acknowledged. As a result, the duration of protecting the copyright was “harmonized at 70 years after the death of the author or 70 years after the work is lawfully made available to the public and for related rights at 50 years after the event which sets the term running.”[47]

 

Originality and the Sweat of Brow Approach

The issue of copying was prominently raised by Designer Guild Limited v. Russell Williams (Textiles) Limited. The issue was regarding the infringement of fabric design in terms of copying the entire design or a substantial part of the design. The similarities include vertical stripes and the presence of scattered fabric flowers and leaves[48]. There are also allegations in copying of the brush strokes, number of shades of the leaves, and the overall effect produced by the design.

The expression of using stripes, flowers, and certain brush strokes depict that the designs were expressions and not merely ideas. The defendants were found to copy a substantial part of the design. The designs differ in color but the technique and the impression which revealed the idea of the original creator were copied. A copyright protection is not granted to a person that did not make effort or exert labor known as the “sweat of the brow”[49] to the work. The UK copyright law argued that the “originality of the copyright work need only demonstrate that he or she has expended a significant effort in creating the work.”[50] The judgment of Walter v Lane [1900] AC 539 states that it will be an injustice if it will be permitted by the law that “one man to make profit and to appropriate to himself the labour, skill, and capital of another.”[51]

Nonetheless, this maxim may sound too restrictive and may give rise to problems. For instance, if the maxim is applied to the possibility of copyright protection of an alphabetical listing such as a grade list of students in a University based on the “sweat of brow” approach. Although a person exerted efforts to produce the compilation, this is not enough to warrant copyright protection. A degree of creativity and originality must be present to be considered as original.[52]

The Mauritius Research Council defined the term ‘original’ pertains that a “sufficient degree of effort and intellect has been used in the creation of a work”.[53] The Council Directive imposes a criterion to originality that the “work should be the author’s own intellectual creation.”[54] Consider the case of Ladbroke Ltd v William Hill Ltd [1964] 1 All ER 465, which showed that although the idea of using fixed odds football coupon was not original, the matter of presenting the idea (expression) through the finish product or through the completed work was not copied.[55] Although the copyright law in the United Kingdom reflects the use of the sweat of brow approach, it is not indicated in any UK legislation. As shown above, the court decision would normally consider the sweat of brow or the labour exerted by the author as a standard of originality if it comes with creative skills and judgment.[56]

The jokes that were used by Keith Chegwin were not originally his creation. They were not products of his creative genius nor are they results of his ‘sweat of brow’. This shows that Keith Chegwin cannot become the copyright owner of the jokes he posted in his Twitter account.

Authorship/Ownership

The term “author” refers to the person that created the work.[57] It could be the producer, the director of a film, the broadcasting network, the publisher, or the performer. A collaborative work between two or more authors is known as joint authorship.[58] In CDPA S 11 (2), it is explained that the first owner of the copyright is the author of the work.[59] Nonetheless, in case that the work is if the employee is working for an employer then the employer is the first owner not the author.[60] This type of ownership was the problem raised in Robin Ray v Classic FM plc [1998] FSR 622 wherein Robin Ray claimed the copyright ownership for a playlist with detailed categorization because it was made outside of requirements of employment.[61] Another relevant problem in the realm of authorship and ownership was the presence of false attribution.

False attribution is one type of moral rights. It can be demonstrated through the case of Noah v Shuba [1991] FSR 14. Dr. Noah was falsely quoted by the Health and Beauty Magazine.[62] The fact that the short passage was not present in any writings of Dr. Noah revealed that he was falsely attributed for something that he did not say. Another example is In Clark v Associated Newspapers Ltd. [1998] 1 All ER 959, Alan Clark sued the Evening Standard newspaper for a parody that could be misinterpreted and may be attributed to Alan Clark[63].

The owner of the jokes that Keith Chegwin posted in his Twitter account were the rightful author or the employer of the authors for whom the jokes were written. Keith Chegwin lifted many of the jokes from other peoples’ shows and performances. The jokes were not written for Keith Chegwin by an employee. In this case, Keith Chegwin is neither the owner nor the author of the jokes.

Fixation

The above case is related to the concept of fixation. Fixation implies that the idea is fixed in a material form. In Section 3(2) of the CDPA 1988 it is clear that copyright will not exists unless it is recorded in writing, which includes different notations or codes.[64] The Mauritius Research Council discussed that “for purposes of copyright, creation has to include fixation.”[65] Walter v Lane [1900] AC 539 recognized fixation as “a literary work has no copyright protection unless and until it is recorded, in writing or otherwise.”[66]The issue revolves on the copyright of the speech given by the Earl of Roseberry, written by note-takers hired by The Times Newspaper and later published in a book. The court ruled that the copyright belongs to the Newspaper according to Section 11 of CDPA 1988. [67] As explained above, the CDPA assert that “Where a literary, dramatic, musical, or artistic work is made by an employee in the course of his employment, his employer is the first owner of any copyright in the work subject to any agreement to the contrary.”[68] In connection to Keith Chegwin’s case, some of the jokes were broadcast; other jokes were written in scripts. Since the jokes were fixated, then the jokes were protected by the copyright laws.

Infringements

Infringements are made through unauthorized extractions and re-utilization of a substantial part of a work[69]. According to the BBC article Who, What, Why: Can a joke be copyrighted? Keith Chegwin posted “other comics’ material on his Twitter feed and passing it off as his own”[70]. In response, Matthew Harris argued that if the jokes are short such as one-liner jokes or if the joke used generic ideas, then it will be problematic to assess infringement[71] Matthew Harris further stressed that if there is a substantial similarity between the allegedly plagiarized jokes and the jokes that are originally written or printed by the authors, then the burden of proof will be on the person that plagiarized.

The Berne Convention affirmed that a person can be permitted to reproduce the copies of literary and artistic works if it passes the requirements set by Article 9(2). The Berne Convention requirements argued that reproduction is permitted if it will be use in “certain special cases, which does not conflict with normal exploitation of the work, and does not prejudice the legitimate interest of the author”.[72] This is known as the three-step-test.

If the jokes that Chegwin used were originally from Milton Jones, Jimmy Carr, and The Simpsons.[73] Then, what Chegwin did was to reproduce and post those materials in his twitter account. Is this an infringement of the Berne Convention? Considering the requirements, Chegwin had obviously exploited the work when he claimed that most of the jokes were originally his creations. The broadcast the jokes in the internet violated the second requirement as well, because the jokes loses their appeal to the people and the original authors need to create new jokes for their next show. This shows injustice toward the real author especially since they were not credited for their works.

Economic Rights

There are six economic rights: reproduction, distribution, rental, public performance, public communication, and adaptation rights. Reproduction involves the copying of the work. For example, producing a new copy of a file by creating a new copy to another hard drive is a form of reproduction. Nonetheless, reproduction through copying can go beyond simple imitation. In Mazer v. Stein [1954], Stein copyrighted statuettes were copied by Mazer and made into a functional lamp. Mazer argued that changing the function of the work removes it copyright protection. Nevertheless, the Court favored Stein by maintaining that changing the manner of expression does not remove copyright.[74] In King Features v Kleeman [1941] similar change in medium of copyrighted material was made when Kleeman created a three-dimensional doll by copying the two-dimensional artistic work of King Features. The Court maintained that changing the medium of work does not account for originality. This discussion revealed that whenever a substantial part is copied, infringement of copyright results. It is in accordance with the copyright law in UK that defines substantial parts based on “the nature and objects of selections…the quantity and value of materials, and the degree of similarity with the original work.”[75] To further clarify, consider Corelli v Gray (1913) wherein Corelli wrote a novel and holds it copyright; whereas George Gray created a dramatic sketch that has the same plot as the novel.[76] The similarity reveals that infringement must correspond to a substantial part. Substantial part is determined by the quality of similarities and not the quantity. Quality refers not to the amount of similarity but in the manner of its imitation.

Moral Rights

The discussion of moral rights will center on the right to be identified as the author or “paternity rights” and the right of such authors and directors to prevent derogatory treatment of their work or “integrity rights”.[77] In UK moral rights apply for the same duration as economic rights. The moral rights are not transferable to others and can be waived through a signed writing.[78] In order to be granted with paternity rights, the work must be copyrightable, published commercially, and the author must assert (waived) his right through a signed writing.[79] Paternity right is not the same as copyright and can be owned by two different people.

The second right is the integrity right, which includes the right of the author to object to any distortion or mutilation of his or her creation especially those that will “be prejudicial to the honour or reputation of the creator”. Unlike the paternity rights, integrity rights need not to be asserted but can be waived through a signed writing. In Morrison Leahy Music Ltd v Lightbond Ltd [1993] EMLR 144, parts of five compositions made by George Michael and owned by Morrison Leahy Music was mixed together by Lightbond Ltd into a single recording called “Bad Boys Megamix”.[80] The court argued that Lightbond Ltd infringed the integrity rights of Morrison Leahy Music by distorting or mutilating the five compositions.[81]

Performers Rights

Performers or people who conduct a performance are also protected by Under CDPA 1988 S180. The consent of the performer is required prior to using or exploiting his performance.[82] There are two categories of performer’s rights: property rights such as “authorized copies of performances” and non-property or recordings of live “performances without the need for performer’s consent.”[83] In general non-property rights can only be transferred after death whereas property rights which can be transferred and assigned. Under the UK copyright law, a performance includes a live performance and a recording of the performance. The performer’s right is infringed if consent of the performer is not given before the performance is transmitted, recorded, and imported.[84]

Fair dealings

Aside from infringements, there are also permitted acts such as fair dealing for “private and educational purposes, for criticisms or review of works, and for reporting of events, provided that the author is identified.”[85] Fair Dealings is defined by CDPA 1988 Section 29 (1) as “Fair dealing with a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work for the purposes of research or private study does not infringe any copyright in the work or, in the case of a published edition, in the typographical arrangement.” In the case of Keith Chegwin, if the claims of the other comedians were true and Chegwin indeed knowingly copied the jokes from other comedians, then he could not argue that he merely applying or using the notion of fair deal. Fair dealing can apply to Chegwin’s case only if he can prove that the jokes that he posted in Twitter were “remembered from old”.[86].

Chegwin could also argue that he is merely reporting what he heard from someone else. According to Section 30 of the CDPA 1988:[87]

(1) Fair dealing with a work for the purpose of criticism or review, of that or another work or of a performance of a work, does not infringe any copyright in the work provided that it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement.

(2) Fair dealing with a work (other than a photograph) for the purpose of reporting current events does not infringe any copyright in the work provided that (subject to subsection (3)) it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement.

(3) No acknowledgement is required in connection with the reporting of current events by means of a sound recording, film, broadcast or cable programme.

Notice that in all of the listed use of fair deal, it is stressed that infringement is not made if it is “accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement”.[88]If Chegwin will argue that he is merely reporting a current event, it will be useful to understand the concept by reviewing the case of Hyde Park residence v Yelland 1999 RPC 655.The issue of current event was raised by the fact that the copies of stills from a video system was published without authorization from the owner and that the act depicted in the event happened over a year prior to the publication[89]. The contention is based on the fact that the issue resurfaced and new allegations were being discussed, the stills can be considered as a reporting of current events. Nonetheless the presentation of stills in this case was not fair deal because the information was manipulated and used to spread inappropriate rumors[90].

If the definition of current events will be the reporting of currently relevant issues, then certainly jokes are not part of current events. In association to this fact, if Chegwin is merely reporting a current event, then there must be an acknowledgement of the authors and the shows from whom or from where the jokes were lifted. Chegwin did not make any acknowledgements.

Chegwin can also argue that the jokes were used for non-commercial purposes. If the case will be considered as a part of non-commercial purposes, then it must not be displayed in a blog that many people can access. With this respect the CDPA 1988 section 195[91] explained that,

“Commercial publication”, in relation to a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work

means—

(a) issuing copies of the work to the public at a time when copies made in advance of the receipt of orders are generally available to the public, or

(b) making the work available to the public by means of an electronic retrieval system;

and related expressions shall be construed accordingly

If this will apply to Chegwin’s case, the publication of the jokes that made it available to the public through his Twitter blog showed that the material was published for commercial purposes (according to the CDPA definition above). Commercial infringements like the one committed by Chegwin is treated with criminal penalties.[92] Therefore, the fair-dealing that applies to “non-commercial purposes” will not apply to Chegwin’s case. The jokes are also not use for educational or criticism purposes since there are neither academe nor criticism involved in the published jokes.

Remedies

According to Section 96 of the CDPA 1988, “In an action for infringement of copyright 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.”[93] These remedies depend upon the significance of the damage or infringement made. For example, if the defendant can prove that he did not know that the work is protected by copyright, then the “plaintiff is not entitled to damage against him, but without prejudice to any other remedy.”[94] If the defendant benefited from the infringement, then the court can award damages. The owner of copyright is also entitled for “order for delivery up” CDPA 1988 S99 wherein the owner can ask the court to deliver to him the infringing copies of copyrighted material.[95] In addition, CDPA 1988 S100 asserts the” right to seize infringing copies and other articles…when it is found or is exposed or otherwise immediately available for sale or hire.”[96] This is where the Anton Piller order may apply. The Anton Piller order “authorizes the plaintiff to…secure evidence of infringement which would otherwise probably be destroyed by the defendant prior to trial.”[97] Through these remedies the copyright owner can be compensated for the damages that includes “lost profits, a national royalty rate…compensation for personal suffering, humiliation, and personal distress.”[98] The types and amount of remedies depends on the claim/s put forward by the owner of copyright. Nevertheless, the final decision will rest on the judgment of the court.

Conclusion

Copyright protects the expression of ideas. As it turned out, the statutory definitions of copyrighted works does not mention explicitly that jokes are or can be protected. Nonetheless, jokes can be considered as a part of literary, dramatic, artistic, and performance works depending on the medium in which jokes were expressed. This denotes that Matthew Harris is correct in arguing that jokes are copyrightable under the English Law. If copyright law applies to joke, then Keith Chegwin is liable to copyright infringement because he failed to attribute the works of other writer and he even claimed that he was the original owner of the jokes that he posted. In this respect, the jokes were not produce out of the skills, labor, and creativity of Keith Chegwin. In addition, Keith Chegwin was not the author or creator of the jokes. As mentioned above, the jokes were lifted from other performances and works. The ownership of the jokes does not belong to Keith Chegwin either because he was not the employer of the authors of the jokes. The jokes were already fixated through broadcast (Simpsons) and written scripts. Therefore, Keith Chegwin cannot claim that he fixate the jokes into material form. In terms of fair dealings, Keith Chegwin did not acknowledge the authors of the jokes. Nevertheless, the copyright law in UK did not specify any guidelines on the copyright of Jokes. If UK will remain its closed list approach in categorizing copyright, then it is inevitable that jokes will not be copyrighted because it is not mentioned in the statutory definitions of copyrighted expressions. Furthermore, it is hard to protect jokes because they can be too short. It will be impractical if all short phrases or jokes will be monopolized by a single author. Moreover, the vagueness and ambiguity that revolves around UK Copyright Law can be use by Chegwin to argue that he is not aware that jokes are copyrighted. This is a possible rebuttal if Keith Chegwin did not assert that the jokes were his original creations, implying the claim that whether or not there is copyright protection Chegwin will not acknowledge the original writers because he claimed that he is the creator of the jokes. The Copyright law should be reformed with consideration of these problems. The remedies for the infringement of copyright depend on the damages that the real author and owner incurred.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bibliography

Books

Chandler, P.  An A-Z of Employment law: a complete reference source for managers, Kogan Page Limited. 2003.

Davison, MJ. The legal protection of database. Cambridge University Press. 2003.

Davison, MJ.,  Monotti, AL., and  Wiseman, L. Australian Intellectual property Law. Cambridge University Press. 2008.

Derclaye, E. Research handbook on the future of EU copyright. Edward Elgar Publishing. 2009.

Groves, P. Intellectual property rights and their valuation: a handbook for bankers. Woodhead Publishing Ltd. 1997

Hoffman, J. Introducing Copyright: A plain language guide too copyright in the 21st century. Vancouver: Commonwealth of Learning, 2009.

Jones, H. and Benson, C. Publishing law. Taylor and Francis. 2006.

MacQueen, HL., Waelde, C., and Laurie, GT. Contemporary intellectual property: law and policy. Oxford University Press. 2007.

Patterson, LR. Copyright in Historical Perspective. Vanderbilt University Press. 1968.

Schiavone, JJ. A guidebook for developing and sharing transit bus maintenance practices. Transportation Research Board. 2005.

Schwabach. A. Intellectual Property; a reference book. ABC-CLIO, 2007. p. 20.

Sherman, B. and Bentley, L. The making of modern intellectual property law: the British experience, 1760-1911. Cambridge University Press. 1999.

Spilsbury, S. Media Law. Routledge. 2000.

Sumpter, P. Intellectual property law: Principles in practice. CCH New Zealand Limited. 2006.

Takagi, Y.,  Allman, L., and Sinjela, MA. Teaching of intellectual property: principles and methods. Cambridge University Press. 2008.

 

Articles

BBC News. “Who, What, Why: Can a joke be copyrighted?” Retrieved on November 29, 2010 from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-10725773

Beckley, A. “Copyright law: monopoly or  monstrosity?” History of Copyright law. February 09, 1996.

Drassinower, A. “Sweat of the Brow, Creativity, Authorship: On Originality in Canadian Copyright Law.” University of Ottawa.  Law & Technology Journal. 2004. 106-121

MPhil, JP. “Criminal Actions-Copyright in the Digital Age”. Reed Elsevier (UK) Ltd 2010.

Pila, J. “Copyright and Its Categories of Original Works.” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. Issue 2. June 1, 2010.

Senftleben, M. The International Three-Step test: A Model Provision for EC Fair Use Legislation. JIPITEC. 2010. p. 67-80.

World Trade Organization. Dispute Settlement Reports 2000, Volume 8. Cambridge University Press, 2003.

 

Legislation

Copyrights (Designs Patents), Act, 15/11/88. WIPO Database of Intellectual Property Legislative Texts.

Council Directive 93/98/EEC.

TRIPS Agreement

Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (Paris Text 1971).

 

Cases

Clark v Associated Newspapers Ltd. [1998] 1 All ER 959

Corelli v gray 1913

Creation Records Ltd v News Group Newspapers Ltd [1997] EMLR 444

Designers Guild Ltd V Russell Williams (Textiles) Ltd [2001]

Hyde Park residence v Yelland 1999 RPC 655

Ladbroke Ltd v William Hill Ltd [1964] 1 All ER 465

Mazer v. Stein [1954]

Noah v Shuba [1991] FSR 14

Norowzian v. Arks Limited (No. 2)

Robin Ray v Classic FM plc [1998] FSR 622

University of London Press Ltd v University Tutorial Press Ltd .

 

Other Sources

Macaulay, TB. Speech Delivered in the House of Commons on the 5th of February 1841. Retrieved on November 29, 2010 from http://yarchive.net/macaulay/copyright.html.

www.ipo.gov.uk. Intellectual property Explained. Intellectual Property Office.

www.wto.org. Uruguay Round Agreement: TRIPS.

 

 

 

 

 

 


[1] Brad Sherman and Lionel Bently, The making of modern intellectual property law: the British experience, 1760-1911. Thomas Webster wrote in 1853 treatise on designs and patents, that the products of the mind or intellectual labour when embodied in a practical form.

[2] Hector L. MacQueen, Charlotte Waelde, and Graeme T. Laurie, Contemporary intellectual property: law and policy. page 7.

[3] BBC News. Who, What, Why: Can a joke be copyrighted?

[4] Hector L. MacQueen, Charlotte Waelde, and Graeme T. Laurie, Contemporary intellectual property: law and policy. page 7.

[5] Ibid. Macaulay insisted that copyright is a form of monopoly by the authors that negatively affect the society.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Copyrights (Designs Patents), Act, 15/11/88. WIPO Database of Intellectual Property Legislative Texts. p. 27.

[8] Peter Groves, Intellectual property rights and their valuation: a handbook for bankers.

[9] Hector L. MacQueen, Charlotte Waelde, and Graeme T. Laurie, Contemporary intellectual property: law and policy. page

[10] Copyrights (Designs Patents), Act, 15/11/88. WIPO Database of Intellectual Property Legislative Texts. p. 37-44.

[11] Hector L. MacQueen, Charlotte Waelde, and Graeme T. Laurie, Contemporary intellectual property: law and policy. page

[12] www.wto.org. Uruguay Round Agreement: TRIPS.

[13]Margreth Barrett, Intellectual Property, p. 196. The Berne Convention requires that member nations protect the right of reproduction, the right of translation, the right of adaptation, the right of public performance, the right of public recitation, the right of broadcasting, and the film right in connection with various types of works.

[14] Ibid

[15] TRIPS Agreement

[16] TRIPS Agreement

[17] Alan Beckley, Copyright law: monopoly or  monstrosity? History of Copyright law. February 09, 1996.

[18] Lyman Ray Patterson, Copyright in Historical Perspective. Vanderbilt University Press. 1968.

[19] Berne Convention for The Protection Of Literary And Artistic Works (Paris Text 1971)

[20] Alan Beckley, Copyright law: monopoly or  monstrosity? History of Copyright law. February 09, 1996.

[21] www.wto.org. Uruguay Round Agreement: TRIPS.

[22] Ibid

[23] Copyrights (Designs Patents), Act, 15/11/88. WIPO Database of Intellectual Property Legislative Texts. S. 3. p. 11

[24] Ibid.

[25] Martin Senftleben, The International Three-Step Test: A Model Provision for EC Fair Use Legislation,

1 (2010) JIPITEC 67, para. 1

[26] Estelle Derclaye,, Research Handbook on the Future of EU Copyright. p. 68

[27] Creation Records Ltd v News Group Newspapers Ltd [1997] EMLR 444

[28] University Of London Press v. University Tutorial press [1916] 2 Ch 601

[29] Norowzian v. Arks Limited (No. 2)

[30] Justine Pila, Copyright and Its Categories of Original Works. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. Issue 2. June 1, 2010.

 

[31] Copyrights (Designs Patents), Act, 15/11/88. WIPO Database of Intellectual Property Legislative Texts.

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

Copyright Acts are not concerned with the originality of ideas, but with

the expression of thought, and, in the case of “literary work,” with the expression of thought in

print or writing. The originality which is required relates to the expression of the thought.

[33] Ibid.

[34] Peter Chandler, An A-Z of Employment law: a complete reference source for managers, p. 361.

[35] Copyrights (Designs Patents), Act, 15/11/88. WIPO Database of Intellectual Property Legislative Texts. S. 12 p. 14

[36] Ibid.

[37] Ibid.

[38] Copyrights (Designs Patents), Act, 15/11/88. WIPO Database of Intellectual Property Legislative. p. 17

[39]Ibid., p. 86

[40] Ibid., p. 15

[41] Ibid.

[42] Ibid.

[43] Copyrights (Designs Patents), Act, 15/11/88. WIPO Database of Intellectual Property Legislative. p. 16

[44] Ibid.,. p. 36

[45] Alan Beckley, Copyright law: monopoly or  monstrosity? History of Copyright law. February 09, 1996.

[46] Council Directive 93/98/EEC. p. 2

[47] Ibid., p. 3

[48] Designers Guild Ltd V Russell Williams (Textiles) Ltd [2001]

[49] Stephen M. McJohn, Copyright: Examples and Explanation. p. 43-44.

[50] Mark J. Davidson, The legal protection of databases. p. 14

[51] Walter v Lane [1900] AC 539

[52] Abraham Drassinower. Sweat of the Brow, Creativity, Authorship: On Originality in Canadian Copyright Law, University of Ottawa Law & Technology Journal, 2004. p 108.

[53] Mauritius Research Council. draft Guidelines on Intellectual Property Rights. October 2008.

[54] Alan Beckley, Copyright law: monopoly or  monstrosity? History of Copyright law. February 09, 1996.

 

[55] Ladbroke Ltd v William Hill Ltd [1964] 1 All ER 465 Lord Evershed in page 471 explained that the originality lies on the presentation or expression of the idea: I conclude that there was present here the requisite degree of skill, judgment and labour not only in selecting out of the vast possible total of wagers those which should be offered but also in the way in which the result of the selection was presented to the customer, including particularly the arrangement of the document and of its component headings and the way in which such headings were described and were coloured and also in the way in which, in the appropriate notes underneath the headings, the punter was informed of the possibilities open to him under each heading

[56]Mark J. Davison, The Legal Protection of Database, p. 14

[57] Copyrights (Designs Patents), Act, 15/11/88. WIPO Database of Intellectual Property Legislative. 13.

[58] Ibid., p. 14.

[59] Ibid.

[60] Ibid.

[61] Robin Ray v Classic FM plc [1998] FSR 622

[62] Noah v Shuba [1991] FSR 14

[63] Clark v Associated Newspapers Ltd. [1998] 1 All ER 959

[64] Hector L. MacQueen, Charlotte Waelde, and Graeme T. Laurie, Contemporary intellectual property: law and policy. page 7.

[65] Mauritius Research Council, Draft on Intellectual Property Rights, p. 10.

[66] Paul Sumpter, Intellectual property law: principles in practice. p. 12

[67] Copyrights (Designs Patents), Act, 15/11/88. WIPO Database of Intellectual Property Legislative Texts.

[68] Copyrights (Designs Patents), Act, 15/11/88. WIPO Database of Intellectual Property Legislative Texts.

[69] Paul Sumpter, Intellectual property law: principles in practice. p. 12

[70] BBC News. Who, What, Why: Can a joke be copyrighted?

[71] BBC News. Who, What, Why: Can a joke be copyrighted?

[72] Copyrights (Designs Patents), Act, 15/11/88. WIPO Database of Intellectual Property Legislative Texts.

[73] BBC News. Who, What, Why: Can a joke be copyrighted?

 

[74] Mazer v. Stein [1954] We find nothing in the copyright statute to support the argument that the intended use or use in industry of an article eligible for copyright bars or invalidates its registration. We do not read such a limitation into the copyright law.

[75] Martin Senftleben, The International Three-Step Test: A Model Provision for EC Fair Use Legislation, p. 69.

[76] Corelli v Gray 1913, In my judgment the similarities and coincidences in this case are such as, when taken in combination, to be entirely inexplicable as the result of mere chance.

[77] Copyrights (Designs Patents), Act, 15/11/88. WIPO Database of Intellectual Property Legislative Texts. P. 37-39

[78] Hector L. MacQueen, Charlotte Waelde, and Graeme T. Laurie, Contemporary intellectual property: law and policy. Page 99.

[79] Hughes Jones and Christopher Benson, Publishing law. Taylor and Francis. 2006. P. 44-45

[80] Hector L. MacQueen, Charlotte Waelde, and Graeme T. Laurie, Contemporary intellectual property: law and policy. Page 103

[81] Hughes Jones and Christopher Benson, Publishing law. Taylor and Francis. 2006.p. 49 The judge, at first, argued that “it is self-evident that taking parts of five different works and putting them together necessarily involves a change of character or modeification.”

[82] Copyrights (Designs Patents), Act, 15/11/88. WIPO Database of Intellectual Property Legislative Texts. p 86.

[83] Hector L. MacQueen, Charlotte Waelde, and Graeme T. Laurie, Contemporary intellectual property: law and policy. page 212..

[84] Copyrights (Designs Patents), Act, 15/11/88. WIPO Database of Intellectual Property Legislative Texts. CDPA 1988 S182-84. p. 86-87.

 

[85] Peter Groves, Intellectual property rights and their valuation: a handbook for bankers.

[86] BBC News. Who, What, Why: Can a joke be copyrighted?

[87] Copyrights (Designs Patents), Act, 15/11/88. WIPO Database of Intellectual Property Legislative Texts

[88] Ibid

[89] Hyde Park residence v Yelland 1999 RPC 655

[90] Sally Spilsbury, Media Law, p. 262.

[91] Copyrights (Designs Patents), Act, 15/11/88. WIPO Database of Intellectual Property Legislative Texts. p. 81

[92] Hector L. MacQueen, Charlotte Waelde, and Graeme T. Laurie, Contemporary intellectual property: law and policy. Page 190.

[93] Copyrights (Designs Patents), Act, 15/11/88. WIPO Database of Intellectual Property Legislative Texts . p 46

[94] Ibid.

[95] Ibid., p. 47

[96] Copyrights (Designs Patents), Act, 15/11/88. WIPO Database of Intellectual Property Legislative Texts . p 7

[97] Mark J. Davison, Ann Louise Monotti, Leanne Wiseman, Australian Intellectual property Law, Cambridge University 2008. Press, p. 596.

[98] Ibid., p. 268

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s