Seminar 2

1. Copyright protects the expression of an idea. It has to fall within one of the 8 categories.
Newer are a lot broader, the older ones are more narrow. The categories have widened with
technological advancement. Distinction between idea and expression is not a definitive
distinction of what you can protect. But it is important because it separates copyright from
the other IP rights. And because we don’t have a definition of copyright in statute.
2. Lucasfilm- idea was the thought you had. Expression of the idea is the movie itself. Bad
decision. Court held that they said there was an expression but it wasn’t the kind of
expression that we can protect as a sculpture because theres a purpose to it. 2007-2009.
(They started with a solution and argued their way around the interpretation)
Temple Island are about the pictures of buses which were clearly different expressions. But
the court held that the underlying expression was the same and so they couldn’t be
protected. Pictures of buses. Didn’t mention hollinrake or dichotomy of expression. They
decided it on copyright grounds instead which is the mistake.problem is the definition of
photograph. Should be broader to allow much broader scope for things with the same
underlying purpose. The courts would only look at infringement and the decisions would be
more rationalised.
3. (Read the article in e list) Requirements for copyright protection: 8 categories, originality
tests (different for LDMA) . Apply the originality test for non-ldma but don’t mention its
originality test (because of the Interlego case), …. See notes on Copyright- Requirements and
Categories
4.
5. Introduction- State what IP right it is. Why is it copyright? State that theres no definition for
copyright. So what is copyright? Hollinrake v Truswell because it gives a widely approved
definition of copyright. What are the requirements for copyright? S.1-8 ‘works’.
a. The band name may be a literary work but it may not because of Exxon case and
Hollinrake. Hollinrake mentioned it could be part of ‘information’. And there is
protection for some short words in shetland and meltwater. Highlight the exxon
principle and mention that it was a ‘made up’ word. In this case, was the word made
up? No. In Exxon, the word doesn’t exist, it is actually made up. Therefore, exxon
may not apply here.
b. Playing at a local festival- could be dramatic work under s 1(1) or 3 (1). Dramatic
work must be ? ( Oasis case, creation records, 9 films, Norowzian). Green v Wilson:
unity and certainty so they may be protected for the line-up.
c. Songs- Written song could attract 2 rights. Literary work 3.(1) and musical work
3.(1). Case is hyperion v sawkins.
d. Based on Rolling Stone song- Look at Robbie Williams v Ludlow Music 2002. Issues of
liability and permission? How much did he copy? But there is ‘inspired’ ideas and
expressions. Discuss Temple Islands for this to look at the underlying expression.
Sweeney v Mcmillan can discuss how certain individual parts may be protected if
original. But the case says its better to look at overall expression. Or argue
Hollinrake to say that the expression was original?
e. S.1 (1)(b) for the recording. S.5(a). Potential to reproduce. If you got a performance
with lineup you can say that the recording was in relation to the performance? Can
use cases from dramatic works. Because s.5 says that sound recordings are non
LDMA and derivative works. Derivative works are based on LDMA works.
f. Broadcast- s.6. On radio and on BBC and beamed across the world. Only has to be
live if its an internet transmission. Was the beaming on internet transmission?
Beaming will be protected if the other countries are signatories to the Bern
Convention, national treatment. If it was beamed on internet, it would be protected
if it was under Berne Convention.
g. CDs- s.5(a) sound recording in the master copy is protected. On the CD the songs
would be literary or musical work. Mention hyperion. Connection of CDs and
booklets, that’s why it could be literary or artistic. Booklets give out information
(Hollinrake). Could argue s.8 for typographical. If there are photos, can discuss
Temple Island.
h. Website- hasn’t been published because it hasn’t been fixated and also because of
qualification. Could mention computer programs because of the codes,its protected
by literary works. Nova case. Website has text and other stuff. But its not published
so its qualified.
i. Video- Protected under films. Dramatic work. Norowzian case. Or oasis case because
it links back to the requirement for performance. If no performance then it’s a film.
j. Second life presence- virtual world. ‘gigs’ it could be an internet transmission online.
If its not live, it might not be protected.
k. Youtube- same as videos but you don’t know who uploaded it. Potential issue. If
someone else did it, was it with permission. Could argue youtube as a database
under s.3(a) because it stores the data in a structural format.
l. Bullring- s.4(1)(b) architecture. Artistic work and they need permission. The picture
may have been taken with intention of including it in their commercial image.
m. Tshirt with band name and logo- image rights in the tshirt. Artistic. Rihanna v
topshop for image rights. She wasn’t getting paid for it that’s why she sued.
*Apply statutory sections. Don’t copy paste.
*Apply case law.
*Apply law to the issue.