Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
30 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
What are the 3 requirements for primary infringement?
|
1) the defendant carried out one of the activities which falls within the copyright owner's control;
2) the defendant's work was derived from the copyright work (causal conenction); and 3) the restricted act was carried otu in relation to the work or a substantial part thereof (section 16(3)) |
|
Which case states that where a person copies a 3D object, they may infringe the copyright in the drawings on which it was based even thoguh they had never seen the drawings?
|
British Leyland v Armstrong [1986]
|
|
Which case states that the court is likely to accept a causal conenction if the similarities are very numerious, or so individual that the possibility of their having been independently conceived by the defendant is implausible?
|
Designers Guild v Russell Williams [2000]
|
|
Which case states that a defendant may attempt to show that the similarities are attribtuable to the fact that the two works were inspired by the same source?
|
Harman Picture v Osbounre [1967]
|
|
Which case shows that a defendant may attempt to show that the similarities were due to chance?
|
Francis Day Hunter v Bron [1963]
|
|
What were the facts of Designers Guild v Williams [2000]?
|
The judge infeered that the fabric design 'marguerite' had been derived from the complainant's design 'Ixia' as there were 7 similarities between the designs that went 'far beyond the similarities that would be expected.'
Also, the designer of marguerite had the opportunity to copy Ixia as she was at a trade fair in 1995 where the design was exhibited. |
|
Which case sets out the basic test for 'the work or a substantial part thereof?'
|
Designers Guild v Williams [2004]
|
|
What is the test for 'substantial part?'
|
It must be determined by its quality or quantity. It depends on its importance to the copyright work, and NOT on its importance to the defendant's work.
|
|
What were the facts of Hyperion Records v Warner Music (1991)?
|
Hyperion Records claimed that the use of 8 notes from their song infringed their copyright.
It was held that the 8 notes could not be treated as a separate work and thus subject to copyright protection, however they stressed that it did not meant that 8 notes could not be a copyright sound recording in other situations. |
|
Which case states that the plot may be protected by copyright?
|
Harman Pictures v Osbourne [1967]
|
|
Which case states that the sotryline, incidents and themes may be protected by copyright?
|
Corelli v Gray (1913)
|
|
Which case stated that 'the feeling and artistic character' of the claimant's work could be protectable and could be infringed?
|
Krisarts SA v Briarfine [1977]
|
|
Which case concerned the drawing of a hand pointing to a square of a ballot paper, and stated that 'as the level of skill and labour that was used in creating the work was minimal, nothing short of exact literal reproduction would suffice?
|
Kenrick v Lawrence (1890)
|
|
What is the idea-expression dichotomy?
|
the idea that copyright predominantly protects the mode of expression used by the author, but not the actual idea itself.
|
|
Which case shows that literary copyright does not give rights that enable persons 'to monopolize historical research or knowledge?'
|
Baigent v Random house (Da Vinci Code Case) [2006]
|
|
Whcih case states that it does not matter whether the part taken is a substantial part of the defendant's work?
|
Warwick Films v Eisinger [1969]
|
|
Which case states that the question of substantiality is one of QUALITY rather than QUANTITY?
|
The Newspaper Licensing Agency v Marks & Spencer plc [2003]
|
|
Which section of the act states that copying in relation to a film/ tv broadcast includes making a photograph of the whole or any substantial part of any image?
|
Section 17(4) CDPA
|
|
Which case stated that the fact that a feature was 'functionally important' did not make it 'more potent' for demonstrating that a substantial part had been reproduced?
|
Johnstone Safety v Peter Cook [1990]
|
|
Whchi case stated that there was no copyright in the title of a film itself as it was 'too unsubstantial?'
|
Francis Day & Hunter v 20th Century Fox [1940]
|
|
Whcih case states that with regards to repeated takings, a persno will infringe if the acts can reasonably be seen as a single act and the cumulative taking is 'substantial'?
|
Electronic Techniques Anglia v Critchley Components [1997]
|
|
Which case stated that 'repeated systematic copying from the same work' could be infringement?
|
Newspaper Licensing Agency v Marks & Spencer [2001]
|
|
What is the standard-protocol rule regarding copying?
|
10% or one chapter of a book may be copied.
|
|
What is secondary infringement?
|
The aiding or abetting of the primary infringer. Concerns people in a commercial context who either deal with infringin copies, facilitate such copying, or facilitate public performance.
|
|
Which parts of the act set out the circumstances for Secondary Infringement?
|
Sections 22-27 CDPA 1988
|
|
What is the mental element required for secondary infringement?
|
The defendant must know or have reason to believe that the activities in question are wrongful- DECIDED OBJECTIVELY.
|
|
Which case states that the defendant must be in a position where they are able to evaluate the information given to them, and have a reasonably amount of time to consider it?
|
LA Gear v Hi-Tech Sports [1992]
|
|
Whcih case states that a defendant could have 'known' about the wrongful nature of their activities without ever having seen the copyright work?
|
Pensher Security Doors v Sunderland CC [2000]
|
|
Which case states that n determining infringement 'more freedom to copy' would be allowed in the case of a historical work than a work of fiction?
|
Ravenscroft Case
|
|
In which case did the judge state that copyright did not protect the 'facts and information' in the claimant's book, but the combination of 'facts, themes and ideas?'
|
Baigent v Random House (Da Vinci Code)
|