Post by Sapphire Capital on Aug 7, 2008 1:24:29 GMT 4
An Intentional View of the Copyright Work
Justine Pila
University of Oxford - Faculty of Law
Modern Law Review, Vol. 71, Issue 4, pp. 535-558, July 2008
Abstract:
The questions at the heart of copyright what is a work, and the extent of copyright protection are considered. Arguments are presented firstly for an understanding of works oriented around expressive intent, and secondly for a statutory test of infringement that pays closer attention to issues of policy and the authorial acts that copyright rewards. The article revisits two central cases of modern English copyright law, Walter v Lane and Interlego v Tyco Industries, and suggests that their reasoning is problematic; Walter v Lane because the transcripts of Lord Rosebery's speeches were not books for copyright purposes, and Interlego because the technical specifications were part of the drawings, which were consequently new artistic works for copyright purposes. This is supported by contemporary authority including paradoxically Sawkins v Hyperion Records, which recently affirmed the correctness of both cases and has wider implications for our copyright regime.
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1158123
Justine Pila
University of Oxford - Faculty of Law
Modern Law Review, Vol. 71, Issue 4, pp. 535-558, July 2008
Abstract:
The questions at the heart of copyright what is a work, and the extent of copyright protection are considered. Arguments are presented firstly for an understanding of works oriented around expressive intent, and secondly for a statutory test of infringement that pays closer attention to issues of policy and the authorial acts that copyright rewards. The article revisits two central cases of modern English copyright law, Walter v Lane and Interlego v Tyco Industries, and suggests that their reasoning is problematic; Walter v Lane because the transcripts of Lord Rosebery's speeches were not books for copyright purposes, and Interlego because the technical specifications were part of the drawings, which were consequently new artistic works for copyright purposes. This is supported by contemporary authority including paradoxically Sawkins v Hyperion Records, which recently affirmed the correctness of both cases and has wider implications for our copyright regime.
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1158123