LLM: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW2010-11

LAW OF COPYRIGHT

Lectures: 11am-1pm ThursdaysProfessor Lionel Bentlylb329@cam.ac.uk

StatuteCopyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988

Reference Works:Bently and Sherman, Intellectual Property Law (OUP, 2008), Part ILaddie, Prescott & Vitoria, The Modern Law of Copyright (2000)Copinger and Skone James on Copyright (2006)Cornish and Llewellyn, Intellectual Property (Sweet & Maxwell, 2007)

Case book:Aplin and Davis, Intellectual Property Law: Text, Cases and Materials (OUP, 2009)

1. Introduction

(A) History1710 Statute of AnneMillar v Taylor (1769) 4 Burr. 2303Donaldson v Becket (1774) 2 Bro. P.C.129Expanding protection: Engravings: 1735Music: Bach v Longman (1777) 2 Cowp 623Sculptures: 1798 (& 1814)Performances of plays (1833) and music (1842)Paintings, drawings, photographs (1862)Sound recordings, films (1911)

(B) Justifications Natural rights Reward theory Unjust enrichment Incentives Law and Economics

Sample of Classic Readings

1

M. Spence, “Justifying Copyright” in D McLean and K Schubert (eds), Dear Images: Art, Copyright and Culture (2002)

Jeremy Waldron, “From authors to copiers: individual rights and social values in intellectual property” (1992-3) 68 Chi-Kent L. Rev. 841

Arnold Plant, “The Economic Aspects of Copyright in Books” (1934) 1:2 Economica 167 (available on J-Stor)

S. Breyer, “The uneasy case for copyright: A study of copyright in books, photocopies, and computer programs” (1970) 84:2 Harv. L.R. 281

William M. Landes and Richard A. Posner, “An Economic Analysis of Copyright Law” (1989) 18 J. Legal Stud. 325

(C) International and European ContextInternational treatiesBerne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, 1886 (revised to 1971)

Rome Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organisations, 1961.

Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property, 1994 (TRIPS)

WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) and WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT), both 1996

European harmonisationCouncil Directive 91/250/EEC on the legal protection of computer programsCouncil Directive 93/83/EEC on the coordination of certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmissionDirective 96/9/EC on the legal protection of databasesDirective 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (Information Society or InfoSoc Directive)Directive 2001/84/EC on the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of artDirective 2006/115/EC on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual propertyDirective 2006/116/EC on the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights

(D) Challenges and Current Issues Striking an appropriate balance between the interests of creators, producers and

users

Addressing the challenge of increased digitization“The argument… is that always and everywhere, free resources have been crucial to innovation and creativity; that without them, creativity is crippled. Thus, and especially in the digital age, the central question becomes not whether government or the market should control a resource, but whether a resource should be controlled at all. Just because control is possible, it doesn’t follow that it is justified. Instead, in a

2

free society, the burden of justification should fall on him who would defend systems of control.” L. Lessig, The Future of Ideas (2002)

Coherence, consistency, acceptance and enforcement“The reason that people don’t believe in copyright law, I would argue, is that people persist in believing that laws make sense, and the copyright laws don’t seem to them to make sense, because they don’t make sense, especially from the vantage point of the individual end user.” J. Litman, Digital Copyright (2001)

See also:The Hargreaves Review, Independent Review of Intellectual Property and Growth (2011)http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ipreview/ipreview-c4e/ipreview-c4e-paper.htm

Extra reading:L. Lessig, The Future of Ideas (2002)J. Litman, Digital Copyright (2001)A. Barron, “Copyright Infringement, ‘Free-Riding’ and the Lifeworld’, LSE Law, Society and Economy Working Papers 17/2008 on http://ssrn.com/abstract=1280893Mr Justice Laddie, “Copyright: Over-strength, Over-regulated, Over-rated?” [1996] EIPR 253W. Patry, “Metaphors and moral panics in copyright” [2008] IPQ 1F.W. Grosheide, “Copyright from a user’s perspective” [2001] EIPR 321B. Fitzgerald, “Copyright 2010: the future of copyright” [2008]EIPR 43N. Netanel, “Copyright and a Democratic Civil Society” (106) Yale Law Journal (1996-7) 283N. Netanel, Copyright’s Paradox.

2. Subject Matter Exhaustive list of 8 categories, s.3 CDPA:Electronic Technique v Critchley [1997] FSR 401Norowzian v Arks (No. 2) [2000] EMLR 67 **Creation Records Ltd v News Group Newspapers Ltd [1997] EMLR 444*** Case C-393/09 Bezpečnostní softwarová asociace – Svaz softwarové ochrany v. Ministerstvo kultury (Dec 22, 2010) (CJEU 3rd ch)

Literary Works (s.3)“any work, other than a dramatic or musical work, which is written, spoken or sung, and accordingly includes –

(a) a table or compilation other than a database,(b) a computer program,(c) preparatory design material for a computer program, and(d) a database.

Hollinrake v Truswell (1894) 3 Ch 420**University of London Press v University Tutorial Press [1916] 2 Ch 601Express Newspapers v Liverpool Daily Post [1985] 3 All ER 680Anacon Corp Ltd v Environmental Research Technology Ltd [1994] FSR 659Sandman v Panasonic [1988] FSR 651*Exxon Corp v Exxon Insurance Consultants [1982] Ch 119Francis Day & Hunter v 20th Century Fox [1940] AC 112Dick v Yates [1881] Ch 6

3

**NLA v Meltwater [2010] EWHC 3099 (Ch) (on appeal, hearing June)

Dramatic Works (s.3)“includes a work of dance or mime”.*Green v BCNZ [1989] RPC 700[Nine Films & Television v Ninox Television Ltd [2005] FCA 1404]

See also U. Klement, “Protecting television show formats under copyright law – new developments in common law and civil law countries” [2007] EIPR 52]

**Norowzian v Arks (No 2) [2000] ECDR 205See also Stamatoudi, “’Joy’ for the claimant: Can a film also be protected as a dramatic work?” [2000] IPQ 117 and R. Arnold, “Joy: A Reply” [2001] IPQ 10.

Nova Productions Ltd v Mazooma Games [2007] EWCA Civ 219

Musical Works (s3)“a work consisting of music, exclusive of any words or action intended to be sung, spoken or performed with the music.”Coffey v Warner/Chappell Music Ltd [2005] ECDR 21**Hyperion Records Limited v Dr Lionel Sawkins [2005] EWCA Civ 565L S Cheng, “Protecting the sound of silence in 4’33” – a timely revisit of basic principles in copyright law” [2005] EIPR 467

Artistic works (s.4)(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, or(c) a work of artistic craftsmanship.

**Creation Records Ltd v News Group Newspapers Ltd [1997] EMLR 444**Merchandising v Harpbond [1983] FSR 32*Nova Productions Ltd v Mazooma Games Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 219Wham-O v Lincoln Industries [1985] RPC 127Hi-Tech Autoparts v Towergate Two Limited [2002] FSR 254J&S Davis (Holdings) Limited v Wright Health Group Limited [1988] RPC 403Metix v Maughan Plastics [1997] FSR 718**George Hensher v Restawile Upholstery (Lancs) [1976] AC 64Merlet v Mothercare [1986] RPC 115Vermaat and Powell v Boncrest Ltd [2001] FSR 5[Burge v Swarbrick [2007] HCA 17

J. Pila, “Works of Artistic Craftsmanship in the High Court of Australia: The Exception as Paradigm Copyright Work”, University of Oxford Legal Research Paper Series, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1260104]

**Lucasfilm Limited v Ainsworth [2008] EWHC 1878 (Ch); [2009] EWCA Civ 1328; (appeal to Supreme Court)

Sound recordings (s5A)(a) a recording of sounds, from which the sounds may be reproduced, or(b) a recording of the whole or any part of a literary, dramatic or musical work, from which sounds reproducing the whole or part may be reproduced,

4

regardless of the medium on which the recording is made or the method by which the sounds are reproduced or reproduced.

Films (s.5B)(1) a recording on any medium from which a moving image may by any means be

produced.(2) The sound track accompanying a film shall be treated as part of the film for the

purposes of this Part.

Broadcasts (s.6)“an electronic transmission of visual images, sounds or other information which

(a) is transmitted for simultaneous reception by members of the public and is capable of being lawfully received by them,

(b) or is transmitted at a time determined solely by the person making the transmission for presentation to members of the public…

Excepted from the definition of ‘broadcast’ is any Internet transmission unless it is – (a) a transmission taking place simultaneously on the Internet and by other means,(b) a concurrent transmission of a live event, or(c) a transmission of recorded moving images or sounds forming part of a programme

service offered by the person responsible for making the transmission, being a service in which programmes are transmitted at scheduled times determined by that person. “

Published editions (s.8)‘“published edition” in the context of copyright in the typographical arrangement of a published edition, means a published edition of the whole or any part of one or more literary, dramatic or musical works’.

What falls outside the categories? Multimedia works? Perfumes?L’Oréal v Bellure[2006] ECDR 16Bsiri-Barbir v Haarmann & Reimer [2006] ECDR 28C. Seville, ‘Copyright in perfumes: Smelling a rat’ [2007] CLJ 49

T. Cheng, ‘Does copyright law confer a monopoly over unpreserved cows?’ [2006] EIPR 276

5

3. Requirements for Subsistence

A) Material forms.3(2) Copyright does not subsist in a literary, dramatic or musical work unless and until it is recorded, in writing or otherwise.s.3(3) It is immaterial for the purposes of subsection (2) whether the work was 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.s.178 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.”

B) Expression not ideaMillar v Taylor (1769) 2 Bro. P.C.129

Per Willes J: “The book conveys knowledge, instruction, or entertainment; but multiplying copies in print is a quite distinct thing from all the book communicates. And there is no incongruity, to reserve that right; and yet convey the free use of all the book teaches.”

Jefferys v Boosey (1854) 4 HLC 815Per Erle J: “the claim is not to ideas but to the order of words, and this order has a marked identity and a permanent endurance…”

TRIPS Art 9(2)“Copyright protection shall extend to expressions and not to ideas, procedures, methods of operation or mathematical concepts as such.”

See also WCT Art. 2, Software Directive, Art 1(2)IPC Media Ltd v Highbury-Leisure Publishing Ltd [2005] FSR 20

“The law of copyright has never gone so far as to protect general themes, styles or ideas.”

Nova Productions Ltd v Mazooma Games [2007] EWCA Civ 219SAS Institute Inc v. World Programming Limited [2010] EWHC 1829; reference pending (Case C-406/10)

C) Originality s1(1) Copyright is a property right which subsists in accordance with this Part in the following descriptions of work –

(a) original literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works,… **University of London Press v University Tutorial Press [1916] 2 Ch 601[Feist Publications v Rural Telephone Service Co 499 US 340 (1991)

See also J. Ginsburg, “No Sweat Copyright and Other Protection of Works of Information after Feist v Rural Telephone” 92 Colum. L. Rev. 338 (1992)

Desktop Marketing Systems Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation Limited [2002] FCAFC 112Nine Network Australia Pty Limited v IceTV Pty Limited [2008] FCAFC 71

6

See also J. Pila, “Compilation Copyright – A Matter Calling for “a Certain…Sobriety” (2008) 19 Australian Intellectual Property Journal 231 (available on www.ssrn.com)]

*Walter v Lane [1900] AC 539Macmillan v Cooper (1924) 40 TLR 186Sands McDougall Proprietary Ltd v Robinson 23 CLR 49Express Newspapers Plc v News (UK) Ltd [1990] FSR 359**Interlego v Tyco Industries [1988] RPC 343Antiquesportfolio.com Plc v Rodney Fitch & Company Limited [2001] ECDR 5**Hyperion Records Limited v Lionel Sawkins [2005] EWCA 565Leslie v J. Young & Sons [1894] A.C. 335G.A. Cramp v Smythson [1944] AC 329*Ladbroke (Football) Ltd v William Hill (Football) Ltd [1964] 1 WLR 273*Case C-5/08 Infopaq International A/S v. Danske Dagblades Forenung [2009] ECDR 16***Case C-393/09 Bezpečnostní softwarová asociace – Svaz softwarové ochrany v. Ministerstvo kultury (Dec 22, 2010) (CJEU 3rd ch)Football Dataco v Yahoo! UK Ltd [2010] EWHC 841 (Ch); [2010] EWCA Civ 1380 (making reference)

SubstantialityMerchandising v Harpbond [1983] FSR 32Francis Day and Hunter Limited v Twentieth Century Fox Corporation [1940] AC 112Rose v Information Services [1987] FSR 254Shetland Times Limited v Dr Jonathon Wills [1997] FSR 604Exxon Corp v Exxon Insurance Consultants [1982] Ch 119Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited v. Reed International Books Australia Pty Limited [2010] FCA 984

D) QualificationCDPA ss153-6

E) Excluded subject matter *Glyn v Weston Feature Film Company [1916] 1 Ch 261Attorney-General v Observer and Others [1990] 1 AC 109 (“Spycatcher case”)[Fraserside Holdings v Venus Adult Shops [2005] FMCA 997 (and appeal [2006] FCAFC 188)]CDPA s171(3)

4. Duration Directive 2006/116/EC on the term of protection of copyright and certain related rightsCDPA ss12-15I. Kilbey, “Copyright duration? Too long!” [2003] EIPR 105C. Seville, “Copyright’s Bargain – defining our terms” [2003] IPQ 312

7

Proposal to increase the term of protection for sound recordingshttp://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/term-protection/term-protection_en.htmN. Helberger et al., “Never forever: why extending the term of protection for sound recordings is a bad idea” [2008] EIPR 174“Creativity stifled? A joint academic statement on the proposed copyright term extension for sound recordings” [2008] EIPR 341See also the Gowers Review and the study it commissioned from CIPIL – links at:http://www.cipil.law.cam.ac.uk/news/article.php?section=25&article=806

8

5. Authorship and Ownership CDPA ss9-11Authorship*Cummins v Bond [1927] 1 Ch 167Walter v Lane [1900] AC 539

Joint authorship*Robin Ray v Classic FM [1998] FSR 622Cala Homes (South) Limited v Alfred McAlpine Homes East Limited [1995] FSR 818Hadley v Kemp [1999] ETMR 589Beckingham v Hodgens [2003] ECDR 6 and [2004] ECDR 6 (CA)Fisher v Brooker and Onward Music [2007] EMLR 9 (appeal allowed in part [2008] EMLR 13)

OwnershipStephenson Jordan v McDonald & Evans (1952) 69 RPC 10*Noah v Shuba [1991] FSR 14Byrne v Statist [1914] 1 KB 622**Robin Ray v Classic FM [1998] FSR 622*Griggs Group v Evans [2004] FSR 31 (appeal dismissed [2005] FSR 31) Permission/LicencesMGN v Grisbrook [2010] EWCA Civ 1399

6. Infringement

A) Primary Infringement

(i) Restricted act CDPA s.16

(a) Copy – s17Brigid Foley v Ellott [1982] RPC 433J & S Davis v Wright Health Group [1988] RPC 403

(b) Issue copies of the work to the public – s.18

(ba) Rent or lend the work to the public – s.18A

(c) Perform, show or play the work in public – s.19Duck v Bates (1884) 13 QBD 843PRS v Kwik-Fit[2008] ECDR 2

(d) Communicate the work to the public – s.20Sociedad General de Autores y Editores de Espana v Rafael Hoteles SL Case C-306/05 [2007] ECDR 2

9

Case C-136/09 Organismos Sillogikis Diakhirisis Dimiourgon Theatrikon kai Optikoakoustikon Ergon v Divani Acropolis Hotel and Tourism AE (CJEU, Order, March 2010)Football Dataco v Sportradar[2010] EWHC 2911 (Ch) (on appeal, hearing March

2011)ITV v TV Catch Up [2010] EWHC 3063 (Ch)Case C-403/08 and C-429/08, Opinion of AG Kokott, Feb 3, 2011

(e) Make an adaptation – s.21

(f) Authorization – s.22Moorhouse v UNSW [1976] RPC 151**CBS Songs v Amstrad [1988] 2 All ER 484[CCH Canadian Ltd v Law Society of Upper Canada [2004] SCC 13Universal Music Australia v Cooper [2006] FCAFC 187Universal Music v Sharman License Holdings [2005] FCA 1242MGM v Grokster 125 S Ct 2764 (2005)Ricketson and Ginsburg, ‘Inducers and Authorisers: A Comparison of the US Supreme Court’s Grokster Decision and the Australian Federal Court’s KaZaa Ruling’ (2006) 11 Media and Arts Law Review, at http://lsr.nellco.org/columbia/pllt/papers/o698. M. Jackson and M. Shelly, ‘Black hats and white hats: authorisation of copyright infringement in Australia and the United States’ (2006) 14:1 IJL&IT 28-46]

(ii) Causal Connection

Designers Guild v Russell Williams [1998] FSR 803 (upheld by HL [2000] 1 WLR 2416)*Francis Day & Hunter v Bron [1963] Ch 587

(iii) Whole Work or a Substantial Part

Kenrick v Lawrence (1890) 25 QBD 99Bramwell v Halcomb (1836) 3 My & Cr 737Ladbroke (Football) Ltd v William Hill (Football) Ltd [1964] 1 WLR 273Ludlow Music v Robbie Williams [2001] FSR 271IPC Media Ltd v Highbury-Leisure Publishing Ltd [2005] FSR 20**Designers Guild v Russell Williams [2000] 1 WLR 2416**Newspaper Licensing Agency v Marks & Spencer [2003] 1 AC 551

M. Chacksfield, “The Hedgehog and the Fox, A Substantial Part of the Law of Copyright” [2001] EIPR 259R. Deazley, “Copyright in the House of Lords: Recent Cases, Judicial Reasoning and Academic Writing” [2004] IPQ 121M. Spence and T. Endicott, “Vagueness in the Scope of Copyright” [2005] LQR 657

Nova Productions Ltd v Mazooma Games Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 219*Baigent & Leigh v Random House [2008] EMLR 7

10

Case C-5/08 Infopaq International A/S v. Danske Dagblades Forenung [2009] ECDR 16SoftwarovaSAS Institute Inc v. World Programming Limited [2010] EWHC 1829; reference pending (Case C-406/10)

Computer ProgramsJohn Richardson Computers v Flanders [1993] FSR 487 (Ferris J)IBCOS Computers Ltd v Barclays Mercantile Finance [1994] Ch D 275 (Jacob J)Cantor Fitzgerald International v Tradition (U.K.) Ltd [2000] RPC 95Navitaire Inc v. easyJet Airline Co Ltd [2006] R.P.C. 3*Navitaire Inc v. easyJet Airline Co Ltd (No.2) [2006] R.P.C. 4 Nova v Mazooma [2007] EWCA Civ 219 (see Supervision 1)

S. Stokes, “The Development of UK Software Copyright Law: From John Richardson Computers to Navitaire”, C.T.L.R. 2005, 11(4), 129-133)

B) Secondary Infringement: ss22-27 *LA Gear v Hi-Tec Sports [1992] FSR 121ZYX Music v King [1997] 2 All ER 129Pensher Security Door Co Ltd v Sunderland City Council [2000] RPC 249

C) Circumvention of copy protection: s.296Sony v Ball [2004] EHC 1738 R v Higgs [2008] EWCA Crim 1324

D) Dishonest reception of programmes: s.297Karen Murphy v Media Protection Services [2007] EWHC 3091; [2008] EWHC 1666Football Association Premier League v QC Leisure [2008] EWHC 1411Case C-403/08 and C-429/08, Opinion of AG Kokott, Feb 3, 2011

7. Permitted Acts and Defences

CDPA, Chapter 3Berne Convention, Art. 9(2)Information Society Directive, Arts 5 and 6Beloff v Pressdram [1973] FSR 33*Hubbard v Vosper [1972] 2 QB 84

A) Fair Dealing

(i) Research or Private Study – s.29 Sillitoe v McGraw Hill [1983] FSR 545Case C-467/08 PADAWAN SL v Sociedad General de Autores y Editores (SGAE) CJEU (Third Chamber) (Oct 21 2010)

(ii) Criticism or Review – s.30(1) Sillitoe v McGraw Hill [1983] FSR 545*Pro Sieben Media v Carlton UK Television [1999] FSR 610

11

Time Warner v Channel 4 [1994] EMLR 1*Ashdown v Telegraph Group [2002] Ch 149IPC Media v News Group Newspapers [2005] FSR 752Fraser-Woodward v BBC [2005] FSR 762

(iii) Reporting Current Events – s.30(2) *Newspaper Licensing Agency v Marks & Spencer [2003] 1 AC 551Hyde Park Residence Ltd v Yelland (CA) [2000] ECDR 275 (noted [2000] EIPR 289 & 394)Associated Newspapers v News Group Newspapers [1986] RPC 515HRH The Prince of Wales v Associated Newspapers [2006] EWHC 522

J. Phillips, “When is a Fact” [2000] Ent. L.R. 116D. Bradshaw, “Copyright, Fair Dealing and the Mandy Allwood Case; The Court of Appeal gets the Max out of a Multiple Pregnancy Opportunity” [1999] Ent. L.R. 125J. Griffiths, “Preserving Judicial Freedom of Movement – Interpreting Fair Dealing in Copyright Law” [2000] IPQ 164

B) Other Permitted Acts

(i) Public interest Beloff v Pressdram [1973] FSR 33Lion Laboratories v Evans [1985] QB 526*Hyde Park Residence Ltd v Yelland (CA) [2000] ECDR 275**Ashdown v Telegraph Group [2002] Ch 149Attorney-General v Observer and Others [1990] 1 AC 109 (“Spycatcher case”)

Sims, “The denial of copyright protection on public policy grounds” [2008] EIPR 189Griffiths, “Copyright law after Ashdown – time to deal fairly with the public” [2002] IPQ 264Ryan, “Human rights and intellectual property” [2001] EIPR 521Pinto, “The influence of the ECHR on IP rights” [2002] EIPR 209Angelopoulos, “Freedom of expression and copyright: the double balancing act” [2008] IPQ 328

(ii) Making temporary copies – s.28A Case C-5/08 Infopaq International A/S v. Danske Dagblades Forenung [2009] ECDR 16NLA v MeltwaterCase C-403/08 and C-429/08, Opinion of AG Kokott, Feb 3, 2011Note also the further reference in Case C-302/10 Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening

(iii) Incidental inclusion – s.31 *Football Association Premier League v Panini UK [2004] FSR 1

12

(iv) Computer Programs – ss.50-50D SAS Institute Inc v. World Programming Limited [2010] EWHC 1829; reference pending (Case C-406/10)

C) Proposals for Reform

Parody?Joy Music v Sunday Pictorial [1960] 2 QB 60Schweppes v Wellington [1984] FSR 210Williamson Music v Pearman [1987] FSR 97M. Spence, “Intellectual property and the problem of parody” [1998] LQR 594Gowers Review of Intellectual Property, HMSO, 2006, Recommendation 12, paras 4.89-90J. McCutcheon, “The new defence of parody or satire under Australian copyright law” [2008] IPQ 163

Format shifting?Gowers Review of Intellectual Property, HMSO, 2006, Recommendation 8, paras 4.72-4.76

13

Transformative uses?Gowers Review of Intellectual Property, HMSO, 2006, Recommendation 11, paras 4.85-4.88R. Burrell, “Reining in Copyright Law: Is Fair Use the Answer?” [2001] IPQ 361

D) Laches, acquiescence and delay / Proprietary estoppelFisher v Brooker and Another [2009] 1 WLR 1764

8. Moral Rights

Berne Convention, Art. 6bis

A) Right of attribution or paternity, ss.77 – 79Sawkins v Hyperion [2005] EWCA Civ 565

B) Right of Integrity, s.80Morrison Leahy Music Ltd v Lightbond Ltd [1993] EMLR 144 Tidy v Natural History Museum Trustees (1998) 39 IPR 501Pasterfield v Denham [1999] FSR 168*Confetti Records v Warner Music [2003] EWHC 1274Snow v The Eaton Centre (1982) 70 CPR (2d) 105 (Canada)Frisby v BBC [1967] Ch 932

C) False attribution, s.84*Clark v Associated Newspapers [1998] 1 All ER 959Moore v News of the World [1972] 1 QB 441

D) Right to privacy of certain photographs and films, s.85

E) Droit de suiteDirective 2001/84/EC on the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of artBerne Convention, Art. 14terArtist’s Resale Right Regulations 2006 (SI 2006 no 346)

F) GeneralConsent and waiver, s.87Duration, s.86Transmission, ss.94, 95.

J. Ginsburg, “Moral rights in the common law system” [1990] Ent LR 121S. Teilman, “Framing the Law: the right of integrity in Britain” [2005] EIPR 19I. Stamatoudi ‘Moral Rights of Authors in England: The Missing Emphasis on the Role of Creators’ [1997] IPQ 478N. Kawashima, ‘The Droit de Suite Controversy Revisited: Context, Effects and the Price of Art’ [2006] IPQ 223

14

9. Remedies – Ch VI CDPA

A. Pre-trial remedies, ss.100, 196*American Cyanamid v Ethicon [1975] AC 396Series 5 Software v Philip Clarke [1996] FSR 273*Anton Piller v Manufacturing Processes [1976] Ch 55Cobra Gold v Rata and Others [1998] Ch 109

B. Remedies at trial, ss.96-99Cantor Gaming Ltd v GameAccount Global Ltd [2008] FSR 4Ludlow Music v Robbie Williams [2002] EMLR 29ZYX Music v King and others [1996] ECC 314Cala Homes v McAlpine Homes (No 2) [1996] FSR 36*Notthinghamshire NHS Trust v News Group Newspapers [2002] EMLR 33Redrow Homes v Betts Brothers [1998] FSR 345

C) Criminal offences, ss.107-110NB s.107A not in statute books ((9th ed)Amended Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on criminal measures aimed at ensuring the enforcement of intellectual property rights, COM(2006) 168 finalhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2006/com2006_0168en01.pdf

G. Harbottle, “Criminal remedies for copyright and performers’ rights infringement under the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988” [1998] EIPR 317P. Sugden, “How long is a piece of string? The meaning of “commercial scale” in copyright piracy” [2009] EIPR 202P. Sugden, “You can click but you can’t hide: copyright pirates and crime – the “Drink or Die” prosecutions” [2008] EIPR 222R. Hilty, a Kur, A Peukert, “Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on criminal measures aimed at ensuring the enforcement of intellectual property rights” [2006] IIC 970

15