Copyright: Updates to IP/it Update Website
I have updated and transposed two pages from the old Kingsgate website:
(1) a case note on the decision of the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Lotus Development Corporation v Borland International Inc. [1997] FSR 61 which I first wrote in June 1998; and
(2) an article on moral rights which I first wrote just over 2 years ago.
The Lotus case exemplifies the US distinction between copyrightable and non-copyrightable matter which does not really exist in England. In this country, however, the idea of substantiality often reaches the same result albeit by a different route. It is instructive to compare a case like Lotus with such cases as Warwick Film Productions Ltd. v Eisinger [1969] 1 Ch 508 or Ladbroke (Football) Limited v William Hill (Football) Ltd [1964] 1 WLR 273.
The article on moral right has been updated to tale account of art 5 of the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty which is implemented in the UK by The Performances (Moral Rights, etc.) Regulations 2006 as from 1 Feb 2006.
(1) a case note on the decision of the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Lotus Development Corporation v Borland International Inc. [1997] FSR 61 which I first wrote in June 1998; and
(2) an article on moral rights which I first wrote just over 2 years ago.
The Lotus case exemplifies the US distinction between copyrightable and non-copyrightable matter which does not really exist in England. In this country, however, the idea of substantiality often reaches the same result albeit by a different route. It is instructive to compare a case like Lotus with such cases as Warwick Film Productions Ltd. v Eisinger [1969] 1 Ch 508 or Ladbroke (Football) Limited v William Hill (Football) Ltd [1964] 1 WLR 273.
The article on moral right has been updated to tale account of art 5 of the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty which is implemented in the UK by The Performances (Moral Rights, etc.) Regulations 2006 as from 1 Feb 2006.
Comments