RIV fon 320 pyreLLecTUAL prorel i right Ownership of nr span, be the Fst ovenet OF ANY copy, a subject 10.06 CNET guet af two OF mE authors, any! Lov the criterion for deter? inn thor eal eotebutlons of they ses iia COPY ine f ae aa significance in the software ater oF So cific area of DUSINCSS,prody Hor use im 88? on , rowledge of the mule be the existence oF t¥0 sep, “The author of a work will subi which may stsist in it?" Where ci the joint PP Yyright arising will be E ree joint anthorsIiP hed. fil ; ti, Unless suit, the existenc can be distingu her portion of the qn this eases bea ofa progt amin hout the other where in the ease may require both progt contractual arrangements copyrights, each useless with 1d works. ; isthe first owner of COPYFIGh in ayy fhe author's employment. 1 this een the contrary, vest in the employer ‘i contractual " , eet sae from the position ‘under previous COpyTIght statutes, wher sa hanes Tremploye-eeated works were limited in the situate ted for publication in @ newsPaPet magazine, or other perio the publication containing th, vould possess copyright in aoa yould remain with the author. Thus, the incluio, \d require the author’ permission. Today, many newspa. ies available in the form of an electronic database. Under consent of the author of every piece of information required. Responding to lobbying on the pax. d Patents Act 1988 eschews any exceptions to employer. Employee-create nciple tha he course 0 ‘The exception to the prin created in th provision to sre the work is applies wher copyright will, sul This approach marl the employer’ rights in where the work was crea cal2? Although the employe work, all other rights in respec of the work in a database woulk es of previous issu jescribed above, th latabase would have been right, Designs ant .d copyright on the pers make copi the provision d appearing in the d of media interests, the Copy’ the general rule conferring unrestricte Computer-generated works ato assist in the production of a work. In many instances Computers are frequently us Fer not afect copyright in the work at all. This book, for example, was typed on ax “Apple MacBook" computer, using Microsoft Word™ software. In this, andin many other ceptions, the computer is merely a tool and the author of the text acquires full copyright in the completed work-—which is then assigned to the publisher. In Express NewspapersP level, the + Liverpool Daily Post and Echo ple another case determined at interlocutory ‘Millionaire of the Month’ in its newspaper. A number of other the key feature was tht ether numbers: allocated numbers other plaintiff ran a competition national newspapers operated similar competitions. In each case, competitors would have to check the newspaper each day to see wh to them matched winning numbers, The defendant republished all the winning withthe obvious intention that readers could participate inthe competitions run b publishers without having to purchase copies of the newspaper. In defence to an actiot nts Act 1988, s, 11(1) 1, Designs and Pat » Copy 4 51003). % 5 1001), % Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, 11(2). Copyright Act 1956, s.4(2) 2% [1985] 1 WLR 1088. 4 Scanned with CamScannerCopy TS YRIGHT PROTECT ag ct ght infringeme, ging covyre 'eeMent, the defo, eu ale® Computer Program, they were not Mt ai ond P (as he then 08) hele thay eto protetion, Gnumbers were selected ¥ Hajop the compuEF Program (not 'smissing this defence, CA ‘elected)- As with the word-prace "en required to yatoo! giving effect tothe intentions Haier instances the role of the dk and may serve £0 embelli numbers were yond that of, we pling. Other applications . «AN example co Fecording a user's sim ng On ral ns in the musical feta in cerns the practice of dig saihesisers. Without delving into the might concern the use bs € of electronic spseproduets function, iis sufficient sthe manner in urn mnttively greater level than that occ ‘ nvolvement Dot . uring in wor ntof the computer is at Afrthe situation which may raise questionsf ec eEADPlcatin vere a database oF expert system program is acquired. ene OPH gin of data by the user and the combinati The program will require th ace ew product in the form ofthe process eam he tserplicd es vilowea considerable amount to the underlying prograra, "i finished product ‘The Copyright, Designs and Pat. unique in copyright statutes. It int and provides: tents Act 1988 contains a provision : ich appears t roducesa specific category of computer peresna, ler-generated wo: Inthe case of literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work which comput a ‘is computer. generated, son by whom the arrangements necessary fr the creation ofthe work are undertaken2* ‘The concept of a computer-generated work is defined as one where “t tycomputer in circumstances such that there is no human author of the work’ itisunclear when this provision might be applicable. Fev if any, works will be created bya computer in the absence of any human involvement. In circumstances sich as those identified here, human involvement will be required. The question which may have to be determined by a court in the event of any dispute is whether the input of any of the parties issufficently substantial to qualify them for sole ownership of copyright (as will almost certainly be the case with a piece of text produced on a word processor) or whether there might be joint ownership of copyright. In many instances, the enabling computer programs may be sold under the terms of a contract which prescribes the use to which a completed work may be put. Typically, the purchaser of the program will be entitled to use it for his orher own purposes but prohibited from selling or disposing of any work thereby created without the further agreement of the supplier. ssocamunrhe relevant Indetermining whether there is no human author ofa work, Wo sues may beeleank The first would be whether there is no human involvement of any Kind isthe predation ofthe work. It is difficult to conceive of situations where the computer will ast ci ‘sown initiative. Once the possibility of some human ine ‘nryprovision might appear otiose. The general criterion Mt ni Protected requires that it be the author’ ‘original work: AMOws "altyhas limited application inthe general field, the co rien toe operator {2a have meaning only if this is interpreted 80 38 ellectual contribution t0 the work. fom qualifying for authorship where they make "° operates to produce + apater proget operat example of such a situation might be where # compar’ Pr ona completely ‘vith the operators only he work is generated ervention is accepted, the statt cerary or other work to be gementof origi- ated works en contribution being to ————— Scanned with CamScanner