Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
ausip:copyrightsubsp3 [2019/09/11 14:40]
nic
ausip:copyrightsubsp3 [2019/09/11 14:43] (current)
nic
Line 65: Line 65:
 A literary work is a work which is expressed in print or writing, irrespective of whether the quality or style is high. A literary work is a work which is expressed in print or writing, irrespective of whether the quality or style is high.
  
 +<WRAP case>
 __//​University of London Press v University Tutorial Press Ltd// (([1916] 2 Ch 601))__ __//​University of London Press v University Tutorial Press Ltd// (([1916] 2 Ch 601))__
  
Line 74: Line 75:
  
 This case is discussed further under '​Originality'​ (below). This case is discussed further under '​Originality'​ (below).
 +</​WRAP>​
  
 Examples of literary works include: Examples of literary works include:
Line 95: Line 97:
 The cases of //WH Allen & Co. v Brown Watson Ltd// and //​McWilliam’s Wines Pty Ltd v McDonald’s System of Australia Pty Ltd// considered passing off and copyright law.  The cases of //WH Allen & Co. v Brown Watson Ltd// and //​McWilliam’s Wines Pty Ltd v McDonald’s System of Australia Pty Ltd// considered passing off and copyright law. 
  
 +<WRAP case>
 __//WH Allen & Co. v Brown Watson Ltd//​(([1965] RPC 191))__ __//WH Allen & Co. v Brown Watson Ltd//​(([1965] RPC 191))__
  
Line 100: Line 103:
    
 There was already a reputation in the book written by Frank Harris entitled, "My Life and Loves"​. There was already a reputation in the book written by Frank Harris entitled, "My Life and Loves"​.
 +</​WRAP>​
  
 +<WRAP case>
 __//​McWilliam’s Wines Pty Ltd v McDonald’s System of Australia Pty Ltd//​(([1980] FCA 159))__ __//​McWilliam’s Wines Pty Ltd v McDonald’s System of Australia Pty Ltd//​(([1980] FCA 159))__
  
 In the case of [McWilliam’s Wines Pty Ltd v McDonald’s System of Australia Pty Ltd](http://​classic.austlii.edu.au/​au/​cases/​cth/​FCA/​1980/​159.html) a wine company brought out a wine called "Big Mac". McDonalds claimed that this was a breach of s 52 of the //Trade Practices Act// (the law preceding the Australian Consumer Law). McDonald'​s argued that people would be misled into thinking that the wine had some connection with McDonalds. The court held that there was no breach. McWilliam’s conduct might confuse people but this was not the same as being misled under the //Trade Practices Act//​.((According to Australian Consumer Law ss 18, 19)) In the case of [McWilliam’s Wines Pty Ltd v McDonald’s System of Australia Pty Ltd](http://​classic.austlii.edu.au/​au/​cases/​cth/​FCA/​1980/​159.html) a wine company brought out a wine called "Big Mac". McDonalds claimed that this was a breach of s 52 of the //Trade Practices Act// (the law preceding the Australian Consumer Law). McDonald'​s argued that people would be misled into thinking that the wine had some connection with McDonalds. The court held that there was no breach. McWilliam’s conduct might confuse people but this was not the same as being misled under the //Trade Practices Act//​.((According to Australian Consumer Law ss 18, 19))
 +</​WRAP>​
  
 +<WRAP case>
 __//Exxon Corporation v Exxon Insurance Consultants International Ltd// (([1982] Ch. 119))__ __//Exxon Corporation v Exxon Insurance Consultants International Ltd// (([1982] Ch. 119))__
  
Line 110: Line 117:
  
 Held, although the name was original, it was not sufficiently substantial for copyright to subsist in the name. Held, although the name was original, it was not sufficiently substantial for copyright to subsist in the name.
 +</​WRAP>​
  
 +<WRAP case>
 __//Francis Day and Hunter Ltd v Twentieth Century Fox Corporation Ltd// ((UKPC 68))__ __//Francis Day and Hunter Ltd v Twentieth Century Fox Corporation Ltd// ((UKPC 68))__
  
Line 117: Line 125:
  
 Held, a name alone cannot possess copyright unless it is sufficiently original and distinctive. "To break the bank" is a hackneyed expression, and Monte Carlo is or was the most obvious place at which that achievement or accident might take place. Held, a name alone cannot possess copyright unless it is sufficiently original and distinctive. "To break the bank" is a hackneyed expression, and Monte Carlo is or was the most obvious place at which that achievement or accident might take place.
 +</​WRAP>​
  
 +<WRAP case>
 __//Fairfax Media Publications v Reed International Books// (([2010] FCA 984 ))__ __//Fairfax Media Publications v Reed International Books// (([2010] FCA 984 ))__
  
Line 128: Line 137:
  
 However, "[i]t may be that evidence directed to a particular headline, or a title of so extensive and of such a significant character, could be sufficient to warrant a finding of copyright protection"​. ([46]) However, "[i]t may be that evidence directed to a particular headline, or a title of so extensive and of such a significant character, could be sufficient to warrant a finding of copyright protection"​. ([46])
 +</​WRAP>​ 
 +<WRAP case>
 __//The Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd & Ors v Meltwater Holding BV & Ors//​__(([2010] EWHC 3099 (Ch) )) __//The Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd & Ors v Meltwater Holding BV & Ors//​__(([2010] EWHC 3099 (Ch) ))
  
Line 136: Line 146:
  
 The decision was upheld on appeal. ((//The Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd & Ors v Meltwater Holding BV & Ors// [2011] EWCA Civ 890)) The decision was upheld on appeal. ((//The Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd & Ors v Meltwater Holding BV & Ors// [2011] EWCA Civ 890))
 +</​WRAP>​
  
 #### Copyright protection for software and databases #### Copyright protection for software and databases
  • ausip/copyrightsubsp3.txt
  • Last modified: 11 days ago
  • by nic