More Plagiarism Protection Actually

In ancient Greece and rome, there were already forms of copyright protection.

More plagiarism protection actually.

One of the key issues of copyright protection is assessing whether there is any effect at all?

You could say that maybe, those works that are half a million years old needed protection for them to foster.

Lascaux,culture.fr

In ancient Egypt, regulation occurred at about 600BC.

The book of the dead. Text meant to be placed in burials.

They had to be approved in some form by the religious order.

In ancient Greece, you start to have the concept of plagiarism being developed.

Rules began on what could or could not be copied.

-Posner, R., The Little Book of Plagiarism New York, Pantheon Books, 2007.

Plagiarism is not the same thing a copyright.

Definitions may differ on what it is.

One view is that it is about reproducing the general structure out of a textbook? A harsh interpretation?

Plagiarism is something that is very flexible.

In Rome, there was the use of contract.

There was an extensive system of bookshops. Mostly in scrolls etc.

Produced by slaves acting as scribes of what people said.

Alot of the production and producing of these scrolls were done by contract.

Must have been a successful system, as the system was introduced throughout the empire.

Pro CD v Zeidenberg

Zidengburg made copies of CDs to sell cheaply on the internet.

However, contract is involved here?? CHECK RECORDINGS.

In the US, because we are dealing with a telephone directory here, there was insufficient means of introducing copyright protection.

So, it was regulated through contract.

The district court said that copyright trumped contract.

In the court of appeal, it was decided that contract trumped copyright here.

It has been discussed in circles whether contract should replace copyright.

Finnian v Columba (Eire, AD 567)

An Irish case.

A lot of copyright ideas came from Ireland, as it was the cultural capital of Europe during that period. It’s natural then, that the first case comes from it.

Columba allegedly made a copy of text belonging to someone.

Case went to th eking, Columba lost, and was exiled to Scotland.

The story goes that he then rallied troops, got back, and defeated the king.

Exeter Cathedral had the first public library accessible to the public in the UK.

950, 1050

The church focused on making copies of existing works, and not so much on introducing brand new works.

Reproduction became really important.

As time went on, the idea of the individual author started to appear.

It went from simple scribing to having commentary from the author.

Combined with the development of the printing press meant that new works started becoming more available.

Gutenberg – 1455

Caxton- Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales 1478.

The church start’s losing its grip on what can or cannot be published.

Richard III

1483

He passed an act which encouraged more works to be brought in into the UK. If you take such works and reproduce them, you won’t be guilty of infringement.

By 1518, just before Henry VIII’ time, licenses started to be given by the crown.

Richard Pynson had a license which allowed him control over certain kinds of books. Monopoly started to be given to particular works.

Henry VIII 1529

The authority of the crown is needed for anything to be published. Otherwise, it will be confiscated, burned etc.

Stationers Guild (The self governing body made up of publishers, book sellers etc, acting on the behalf of the crown.)

Booksellers

(Commissioned; Printed; Sold)

Statute of Monopolies of 1662.

The last statute that was passed that continued the system of licensing.

Lost favour with the public by 1669.

The civil war happened, parliament got more powers etc, and parliament started clamouring for change.

1695

The statute of Anne

(Copyright Act 1710)

There was a switch in calendar systems. Calender changed in 1750?

The idea of author’s rights was created by publishers.

The basis of copyright.

Regardless of what an author has done, inevitably, the right has been transferred to a publisher.

Another change the statute brought in was that of duration.

14 years from the end of calendar year of the publication.

Matched the period of most apprenticeships.

1. Back then, people did not live that long?

2. Computer games, DVD’s, do not hold much value after a few years.

Most of the commercial value of works then was obtained during probably, the first 3 years of their use.

By 1734, copyright was extended to engravings.

After that:

Sculptures: 1798 & 1814

Performances of plays (1833) and music (1842)

Paintings, drawings, photographs (1852)

Sound recordings, films (1911)

Berne Copyright Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works

1886

The notion of national treatment.

The Berne convention has a slightly different structure than the UK copyright act.

1908 – Berne Convention, Berlin Revisions

Term of author..

1911, Copyright Act

A. B. E.g. Sound recordings.

Entrepreneur works enjoy less protection?

If you buy a music CD and make a copy of it, you might be infringing on the copyright of the music, the lyrics, the performance of the music, and the entrepreneur work, the sound recording.

If I listen to the CD and go out on the CD and sing it, I might infringe everything except for the sound copyright.

If you photocopy a newspaper, you are infringing arrangement of type of the page and literary work.

If you write it out, you only infringe the literary work.

That’s why entrepreneur work receives less protection, as you have to have an exact reproduction.

Moral Rights

Moral rights introduced to this 1988 act.

About author’s rights. E.g. Rights against derogatory treatment, and the right to be named or right not to be named as the author.

At the time, it was thought that moral rights might take over the traditional system of copyright law, but it never happened.

In the UK and EU, there isn’t passive protection for computer software. It’s only protection as such. Different from America.

Blablabla..Stuatory instruments then make changes to the...

Laddie: First judge to leave judicial post to become an academic.

Felt that copyright law has covered more and more things. Might be damaging as it seems to be so broad and vast now.

cOpyright: over-strenfh, overregulated, over-rated? 18 European Intellectual Proterty Review 253 (1996) attacks copyright bcause:

It has been extended in duration so much

Bandwagon effect
ANOTHER POINT HERE.

Does Copyright law need a radical rethink?

Griffin, J., “300 years of copyright law: A not so modest proposal for change” 28 John Marshall Journal of Computer and Information Law 1 (2010).

Laddie, H., ‘Copyright: over-strength, over-regulated,over-rated?’18 European Intellectual Property Review 253 (1996)

Netanel, N., “Impose a non-commercial use levy to allow free peer to peer file sharing” 17 Harvard Technology of Law and Technology 1 (2003)

Innovation?

“And our view is, when people try to do really innovative things, with business models around creative content, is difficult to automate it because no one understands the value of the use.”

“I think there is an unrealistic expectation on the part of academics and o the part of tech companies.”

Capturing value has been very important with Itunes.

Idea of House of Cards came from looking at what people liked watching, and deducing that people liked House of Cards and watching Kevin Spacey.

Literary, Dramatic, Musical and Artistic Works

Entrepreneurial works

Usually, we focus on literary or artistic works.

4 or 5 tests that we need to work through before we can access if something is under copyright law.

1. Does the work fall under one of the categories.

2. Is the work recorded in a material form?

3. The work has to be original.

4. The work has to be sufficiently connected to the UK.

5. The work should not be dismissed in public policy grounds.

There may be times when a work is infringed but it is let off because of public policy grounds.

What is a “literary work”?

(a) “Literary Work”

s3(1) “…any work, other than a dramatic or musical work, which is written, spoken or sung and accordingly includes a table or compilation, other than a database; a computer

program; preparatory design material for a computer program; and a database”.

s178 “…“writing” includes any form of notation or code, whether by hand or otherwise and regardless of the method by which, or medium in or on which, it is recorded, and

“written” shall be construed accordingly”.

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

Produced exam papers without permission.

Francis Day & Hunter v 20th Century Fox [1940] AC 112

8 barsof a musical piece had been reproduced without permission.

The issue was whether there was the taking of the work. It all came down to subconscious copying.

The taking of 8 bars could be sufficient to find an infringement.

Ladbroke v William Hill [1964] 1 WLR 273

Football coupons obtained protection.

Exxon Corp v Exxon Insurance [1982] Ch 119

Can a single word enable copyright protection to come into force.

Words itself cannot do so. Not just a literary work. The word must offer information, instruction or pleasure. If it does that, it will be capable of being offered protection.

Bookmakers Afternoon Greyhound Services v Wilf Gilbert [1994] FSR 723

Race forecast cards case.

The Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd v Meltwater Holding BV Court of Appeal [2012] R.P.V. 1

Newspaper headlines are capable of being obtained protection, as they may be sufficiently original.

Followed an ECJ case called infopack, which basically said the same thing.

Contrasted with an Australian case, which felt that headlines cannot be sufficiently original.

Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limitedv.Reed International Books Australia Pty

Limited [2010] FCA 984 (Australia)

b) Dramatic Works

A dramatic work is one which “includes a work of dance or mime” s.3(1) CDPA 1988

Tate v Fullbrook [1908] 1 KB 821

Series of sketches and one of them involves throwing fireworks on the stage. Can an action like this be something that is capable of protection as a dramatic work.Decided that this sort of thing wouldn’t be capable of protection. Somebody had done something, thrown something on the stage. That was that.

Green v Broadcasting Corporation of New Zealand [1989] RPC 700

A program. Opportunity knocks.

Somebody had copied the format of the game.

Could the format be protectable?

It was decided that although there was a genral format of th show, a lot of ti was made up as the show progressed. The general structure was the only thing that had baenthougth about. Wasn’t sufficient to be protected as a dramatic work. The X Factor’s genral structure can’t be protected for e.g., as too many things are thought up at the spur of the moment

That’s not to say that the recording fo the show can’t beprotected though. It’s the format that can’t.

Norowzian v Arks Ltd (No 2) [1999] FSR 79, and in the Court of Appeal [2000] FSR 363

There was a process known as jump cutting. The advertising agencies in charge of the advert wanted to mantain control.

Jump cutting. Making people do things that they would not be able to do in real life.

Usually ,only done in film.

One argument... Cannot qualify for protection, as sicne you can only do it on film and not in real life.

Another, it will qualify for protection as a dramatic work.

S3(1) CDPA 1988

c) Musical Works

A musical work is “one consisting of music, exclusive of any words or action intended to be sung, spoken or performed with the music”s.3(1) CDPA 1988 (these will be under separate copyright)

Lawson v DundasThe Times 13 June 1985

The advertisement for channel 4.

4 notes. Question of whether it is capable for protection. Yes, it can.

Hyperion Records Ltd v Dr Lionel Sawkins [2005] RPC 808

Compositions are able to have copyright protection.

This is the 2nd Hyperion case.

Dr Sawkins had certain editions of classical music which hyperion records reproduced.

d) Artistic Works

s4(1) “Artistic work” means:

(a) a graphic work, photograph, sculpture or collage, irrespective of artistic

quality;

(b) a work of architecture, being a building or model for a building;

(c) a work of artistic craftsmanship.

s4(2) “graphic work” includes:

(a) any painting, drawing, diagram, map chart or plan; and

(b) any engraving, etching, lithograph, woodcut or similar work.

Examples:

i.Painting - Merchandising Corporation v Harpbond [1983] FSR 32

Trying to create copyright for lines over his face.Wasn’t sufficient.

ii.Sculpture – “includes any cast or model made for the purposes of sculpture” – s.4. CDPA 1988

J & S Davis (Holdings) Ltd v Wright Health Group Ltd [1988] RPC 403

Cast to make a sculpture. But, it was decided not to be made into a sculpture.

Wham-O Manufacturing Co v Lincoln Industries Ltd [1985] RPC 127 [New Zealand]

SOMETHING HERE.

Breville Europe Plc v Thorn EMI Domestic Appliances Ltd [1995] FSR 77

Something used for making toast could be protected.

Because of this case, artistic works seem to be getting more protection.

Lucasfilm v Ainsworth [2011] 3 WLR 487

The starwars trooper uniform. The bloke who designed it was selling it everywhere. In the US, he didn’t contest case. In the Uk, he was trying to argue design right, because the fear of prosecution was less. He got away with it. There wasn’t copyright infringement, as it was aid to be for a sort of utilitarian purpose. Created for a film, people to wear as a costume. Not considered a sculpture.

iii.Drawing – British Northrop v Texteam Blackburn [1974] RPC 57

Concerned drawings of diagrams of a spare part. Discussion on whether drawings were too simply. However, it was said that you should not exclude drawings simply because they are too simple.

iv. Photographs – s.4 CDPA 1988 – “means a recording of light or other radiation on any medium on which an image is produced or from which an image may be by any means be produced and which is not part of a film”.

Antiquesporfolio.com plc v Rodney Fitch & Co Ltd [2001] FSR 345

Should phorograpohs obtain opyright protection? Only if there is flair in the photogeaph.Sideways, made it blurry. That might make it capable of protection.

Cataloging photographs of antiques. Case involve whether be protection over them?

v. Works of artistic craftsmanship – perhaps the most difficult to define

George Hensher Ltd v Restawhile [1976] AC 64

Concerned a boat shaped piece of furniture. A sofa?Whether this piece of furniture had soepece of artistic quality.Decided that it did not. The troule was that tartistic quality was not clearly defined. TRhat fell to the mertlet case.

Mertlet v Mothercare [1986] RPC 115

Definition not clear still, but Walton J set out the fllowjgn test:

1. Did the creation of the work involve an exervse of craftsmanship bt a person who exervcises skill in its manufacture and who takes a pride in what he creates?

2. Was the work created by an artist such as that it has asthetic appeal?

The idea of fixation. Not in material form.

II. The work must be in material form

The basic position is that if someone is talking and you are writing what he has said, there will be 2 copyrights in existence. One for the speaker, and onfor the writer. However, what happns if the spaker looks at someone and says: Stop writing down what I’m saying. Thr writer will still have copyright.

S58 raises the issue ofwhere the copyright can lie or not. You can still sue the writer over infringement though.

s3(2) “Copyright does not subsist in a literary, dramatic or musical work unless and until it is recorded, in writing or otherwise…”

“Writing” is defined in s178 as “any form of notation or code, whether by hand or

otherwise” regardless of the medium on which, or method by which, it is recorded.

s3(3) “It is immaterial for the purposes of subsection (2) whether the work is recorded by or with the permission of the author; and where it is not recorded by the author, nothing in that subsection affects the question whether copyright subsists in the record as distinct from the work recorded.”

Note the implications of s3(2) and (3) for reports of impromptu speeches

NEWSPAPER REPORTER WROTE DOWN SOMETHING, AND THE QUESTION IS WHETHR HE HAD COPYRIGHT PROTECTION OR NOT.