Introduction
I have been asked to provide a legal opinion for Tony in regards to copyright infringement. The issues are whether there can be any actions taken against, Alice, James, Local Political Candidate, or the Television Station. To assess Tony 's likelihood of success against these individuals and organisations we need to consider the relevant authorities and their application to each case at hand. Once this has occurred any defenses will be raised and assessed in turn to each individual. Therefore we must follow the four stage test set out under P S Johnson v Bucko Enterprises:1 1. There is work for copyright to subsist 2. Copyright does subsist 3. Plaintiff owner the work 4. Work has been infringed
Copyright Law
The requirements …show more content…
The first case of Designers Guild v Russell Williams9 looked at originality as the contribution of the author 's skill and labour. The New Zealand courts also adopted this reasoning of originality. The Supreme Court in Henkel v Holdfast New Zealand10 helped define what originality. To be original it does not mean novelty but the product of the work has to have stemmed from the author, while at the same time incurred some form of skill and labour. The Court continued that the great the skill of the work or labour the higher chance the work would be classed as original. Furthermore it was said that if the underlying features were unoriginal then it may depart from originality.11 This judgment was affirmed in Fisher & Paykel12 where the courts also followed the test for originality. University of Waikato v Benchmarking Services13 summarised the factors for originality to sufficient time, skill or labour.14
If we apply this term 'originality ' to Tony 's work we can see there that the emails and photos would be original. Firstly with the emails, they required Tony 's skill and labour of writing them and researching about the issues of environmental concerns in regard to dairy. This research and literature that Tony uses is also his as the author. If we add this together the emails are …show more content…
Francis Day & Hunter v Bron24 outlined a test that for copying there needs to be objective similarity, and evidence of copying. Wham-O Manufacturing v Lincoln25 furthered the test stating there has to be wholly or substantially reproduction, there has to be objective similarity, and lastly causal connection between the works (which is the direct or indirect nature of the copying). Henkel KgaA26 observed these tests for infringement and came to the same conclusion that here has to be substantial, similar, and direct or indirect copying. The Act also defines what copying is, and it includes any reproducing, recording, or storage, of any
I have been asked to provide a legal opinion for Tony in regards to copyright infringement. The issues are whether there can be any actions taken against, Alice, James, Local Political Candidate, or the Television Station. To assess Tony 's likelihood of success against these individuals and organisations we need to consider the relevant authorities and their application to each case at hand. Once this has occurred any defenses will be raised and assessed in turn to each individual. Therefore we must follow the four stage test set out under P S Johnson v Bucko Enterprises:1 1. There is work for copyright to subsist 2. Copyright does subsist 3. Plaintiff owner the work 4. Work has been infringed
Copyright Law
The requirements …show more content…
The first case of Designers Guild v Russell Williams9 looked at originality as the contribution of the author 's skill and labour. The New Zealand courts also adopted this reasoning of originality. The Supreme Court in Henkel v Holdfast New Zealand10 helped define what originality. To be original it does not mean novelty but the product of the work has to have stemmed from the author, while at the same time incurred some form of skill and labour. The Court continued that the great the skill of the work or labour the higher chance the work would be classed as original. Furthermore it was said that if the underlying features were unoriginal then it may depart from originality.11 This judgment was affirmed in Fisher & Paykel12 where the courts also followed the test for originality. University of Waikato v Benchmarking Services13 summarised the factors for originality to sufficient time, skill or labour.14
If we apply this term 'originality ' to Tony 's work we can see there that the emails and photos would be original. Firstly with the emails, they required Tony 's skill and labour of writing them and researching about the issues of environmental concerns in regard to dairy. This research and literature that Tony uses is also his as the author. If we add this together the emails are …show more content…
Francis Day & Hunter v Bron24 outlined a test that for copying there needs to be objective similarity, and evidence of copying. Wham-O Manufacturing v Lincoln25 furthered the test stating there has to be wholly or substantially reproduction, there has to be objective similarity, and lastly causal connection between the works (which is the direct or indirect nature of the copying). Henkel KgaA26 observed these tests for infringement and came to the same conclusion that here has to be substantial, similar, and direct or indirect copying. The Act also defines what copying is, and it includes any reproducing, recording, or storage, of any