NIPC Law

The "Denver" claimed as a work of artistic craftsmanship  in Hensher v Restawhile   [1976] AC 64 Source  Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law, Virtual Museum Despite the submissions of Sir Robin Jacob , leading academic lawyers, the IP Federation , the IP Bar Association  and the other intellectual property professions HM government seems determined to force through criminal sanctions for registered design and registered Community design infringement. Why HMG has set and indeed held to this course in the face of almost unanimous opposition from those who know most about intellectual property is a mystery but there it is. Governments do silly things sometimes of which the Dangerous Dogs Act is but one example. What happens next I have done all that I can as a citizen to persuade HMG to think again by   explaining in this blog why this proposal is a very bad idea ,  lobbying my MP  and even  remons...

As everyone knows, copyright restricts the acts listed in s.16 (1) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988  ( "CDPA" ) in relation to a work in which copyright subsists ( "a copyright work" ). Those acts include copying, issuing copies, renting, lending or communicating the work to the public etc. Anyone who does any of those acts without the owner's licence  infringes that copyright. He or she may be sued or in an extreme case prosecuted. Clearly, if you want to broadcast, perform or otherwise make use of a copyright work it is a good idea to get a licence. As all those lovely artists, choreographers, composers. dramatists, novelists, poets, song writers and other authors need to live it is only right that they get paid a reasonable fee for their trouble. But therein lies the rub because what may seem reasonable to you and me as consumers may not feel reasonable to an artist in his garret or, more importantly, his agent in his BMW. As I argued...