Judge Hacon’S Ten (+ 1) Commandments On Articulation Authorship Nether Uk Copyright Law

From Mathilde Pavis writing  on the IPKat

Richard Hacon 

In the here, Hacon J gave a useful summary of Great Britain copyright police clitoris on the number of articulation authorship. The summary, equally ready out inwards para. 54 of the judgment, almost reads equally Hacon’s ‘10 commandments’ on articulation authorship nether Great Britain copyright law:

“(1) Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 political party volition hold upwards articulation possessor of the copyright inwards a travel alone if he or she (or inwards the representative of a company, its employees) collaborated inwards the creation of the work. The collaboration must hold upwards past times agency of a mutual design, i.e. co-operative acts past times the authors, at the fourth dimension the copyright travel inwards number was created, which led to its creation.

(2) The contribution of each writer must non hold upwards distinct from that of the other writer or authors.

(3) Contributions past times a putative articulation writer (including those done past times agency of collaboration) which formed no purpose of the creation of the travel are to hold upwards disregarded inwards the assessment of articulation authorship.

(4) No distinction is to hold upwards drawn betwixt types of contribution that did shape purpose of the creation of the work. In particular, in that location is no distinction which depends on the variety of science involved inwards making the contribution.

(5) The contribution, assuming it is relevant to the assessment of articulation authorship, must hold upwards sufficient. This depends on whether the contribution constitutes a substantial purpose of the whole of the travel inwards issue.

(6) That volition hold upwards the representative if the contribution would hold upwards protected past times copyright inwards the work. Thus, if the contribution solitary were copied past times an unlicensed 3rd political party in addition to such copying would upshot inwards an infringement of the copyright, the contribution constitutes a substantial purpose of the whole.

(7) The seek of substantiality inwards the context of articulation authorship of copyright, equally inwards the context of infringement, involves a qualitative also equally quantitative assessment. 

Criticism in addition to suggestions do non amount to articulation authorship

(8) Suggestions from a putative articulation writer equally to how the principal writer should do his or her science – for instance past times agency of criticism or editing of a literary travel – volition non Pb to articulation authorship where the principal writer has the finally determination equally to the shape in addition to content of the work.

(9) It is so relevant, simply non decisive, whether an writer is the ultimate arbiter equally to the content of the work.

(10) If articulation authorship is established, the courtroom may apportion ownership of the copyright.”

An 11th commandment tin hold upwards found a petty afterwards inwards the decision, inwards relation to contradictory bear witness nigh ‘who did what’ during the creative process. In para. 61, Hacon J advises the following:  

[11] “place petty if whatsoever reliance at all on witnesses' recollections of what was said inwards meetings in addition to conversations in addition to instead … base of operations factual findings on inferences drawn from the documentary bear witness in addition to known or in all probability facts seems to me appropriate to the acquaint case.”

The relevant representative police clitoris for commandments 1 to 10 seems to be:

•         Fylde Microsystems Ltd v Key Radio Systems Ltd [1998] FSR 449
•          Levy v Rutley (1871) (1871) LR vi CP
•          Tate v Thomas [1921] 1 Ch 503
•        Wiseman v George Weidenfeld & Nicolson Ltd [1985] FSR 525
•         Fylde Microsystems Ltd v Key Radio Systems Ltd [1998] FSR 449
•          Robin Ray v Classic FM plc [1998] FSR 622
•         Brighton v Jones [2004] EWHC 1157
•        Cala Homes (South) Ltd v Alfred McAlpine Homes East Ltd [1995] FSR 818

And for the eleventh:

•  Gestmin SGPS S.A. v Credit Suisse (UK) Ltd [2013] EWHC 3560 (Comm)
• Blue v Ashley [2017] EWHC 1928 (Comm)

Isn’t  it prissy when copyright feels easy?