For exam

• 30 multi-choice questions;
• Know the names and intent of provisions; know case names.

Important cases

• Flood v. Times Newspapers Ltd. (2011) — Supreme Court

  • Upholds and restates the Reynolds Defence.
  • Article allegations that a British security company with wealthy Russian clients paid for sensitive information about extraditions
  • Subject to a libel complaint from police officer named. Flood was exonerated, so was pressing for libel.
  • Judges came down on side of the Times; argued it was in the public interest for story to be published.
  • “Story told was high public interest” — argued if Flood were not named, other members of the extradition unit would come under public scrutiny.

Copyright Law

• Purpose

  • Designed to ensure those who create copyright works — photographs, film footage, books, etc. — are rewarded for their labours.
  • Incentivizes creative work.

• Tangible form

  • No copyright in ideas — has to be created before it gets copyright.
  • No copyright in facts
  • Hughie Green v. NZ Broadcasting (1989) — elements of original programming in a knockoff in New Zealand. “Nobody owns the rights to a talent contest.”
  • Norowozian v. Arks (1999) — A Guinness advert using a technique (“jump cutting”) and dance style was similar to that used in the plaintiff’s film. Court ruled nobody owns a dance style or film technique.

• Physical ownership v copyright

  • Approached as a property right (Specifically intellectual property)
  • If you receive a letter, copyright rests with the letter writer — not the receiver.
• Copyrights in a news report

• No need for a registration

  • You don’t have to register work to have a copyright on something. No “copyright register”. Work automatically gains protection, even without the ©

• Breach — substantial use

  • “What is worth copying is worth protecting” — principle

Who owns it?

• Author — if you’re independent, then you own the copyright.
• Employees — if you’re employed by someone, then it’s your employer who owns the copyright.

• Freelancers — you generally own the copyright; newspapers now generally have a provision allowing reproduction of a piece bought from a freelancer online, etc.

  • Robin Ray v. Classic FM (1998) — asked to create an internal system for classifying music work. Radio station then tried to sell system to others; court ruled Classic FM wasn’t allowed to sell Ray’s work without permission.
• Assignment — Who owns the copyright?
• License — What is the breadth of the license? Single use, only on TV, on the Internet, both? For a time length or Into perpetuity? Where is this usage allowed?

Length of copyright

• Creative works: 70 years from end of year author died
• If author unknown, 70 years from end of year of publication

• Sound recordings / broadcast: 50 years from end of year of first publication

  • If it involves, say, a song with lyrics, the lyrics will be copyrighted as per the above (I.e., 70 years).

Legal events

• §30 CopyrighT Designs and Patents Act 1988

  • “Fair dealing” provision places reporting current events about the interest of a copyright owner.
  • “Fair dealing with a work other than a photograph for the purpose of reporting events does not infringe any copyright in the work, so long as it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgment.”

• What is fair?

  • Simply lifting content isn’t fair; not giving a credit isn’t fair.
  • Using material as wallpaper isn’t fair.

  • Time Warner Co V. Channel Four Television (1994)

    • Over 80% of Clockwork Orange was shown in a programme on Channel 4; court ruled in favour of Channel 4 despite lack of permission.

  • Pro Seiben v. Carlton UK TV (1999)

    • Carlton UK TV was doing programme on chequebook journalism and used clip from Pro Seiben exclusive; ruled on side of Carlton.

• Exclusivity

  • Less likely to be fair is just used to “yank rug out” from under a competitor.
• Motive
• Informational
• Restrictions
• Credit
• Does not apply to stills.
• Fair dealing for criticism, review

• Public interest defence?

  • Paddy Ashdown v. Telegraph — Telegraph had published snippet from plaintiff’s unpublished autobiography; court ruled there was a public interest due to it soon coming out.

• Damages — market rate/aggravated

  • Paid in terms of market rate; more in aggravated circumstances (photo stolen)
• Release forms — important; allows you to use their footage forevermore.
• Sports footage — if showing footage, normally able to use 60 seconds with credit. If a series of matches (I.e., World Cup or something), increases to 90 seconds.
• Internet — copyright applies as much as anywhere else. If using someone else’s photo, you have to seek permission.

• § 58 Copyright and Design Act

  • If someone giving a speech, you’re generally allowed to report it without permission.