On the 29th November 2017, the CJEU purported to hand down its judgment in the VCAST case. What was meant to be another judgment on article 5(2)(b) of the InfoSoc Directive—the private-copying exemption— turned into another ruling on the making available right under article 3. Rather than addressing the specific questions referred to it from the Tribunale di Torino (District Court, Turin, Italy), the CJEU took the peculiar step of analysing the business “service” of VCAST holistically. Continue reading “Thoughts on VCAST and private copying”
My last article for this blog focused on the decision of the Designers Guild case and the function of the substantial part test to copyright law in cases which deal with the “altered copying” of an artistic work. My reflections on this case attempted to highlight the need for a de minimis threshold before it is concluded that a substantial part of a work has been infringed. Continue reading “De Minimis and the Meltwater Case”
When does copyright law permit an artist to be inspired by a predecessor? And to what extent can that at artist be allowed to study and copy elements of his predecessor’s work? Can he copy certain techniques or motifs, structural composition and lighting or relief effects?
These were the questions before the House of Lord in the landmark case of Designers Guild v Williams, the go to legal authority on the function of copyright’s ‘inference of copying’, ‘idea/expression dichotomy’ and ‘substantial part’ tests in the United Kingdom. Unfortunately, the judgement is unclear without a close and rigours reading. Many of the finer points are given little elaboration by the Law Lord and, on other points, the judgements are contradictory. This short piece attempts to breathe a sense of cohesion into the logic of the judgement. Continue reading “On the Designers Guild case, the importance of the ‘independent creation’ defence, and the proper placement and function of the idea/expression dichotomy in UK copyright”