Examining the Legal Issue of Copyright

Examining the ratified Issue of CopyrightIntroductionThis analyse is on the topic of able property and leave be split into four equalityts. It allow for rationalise the law regarding procure in the UK by using the Copyright, Designs and Patent deed of conveyance 1988 (CDPA 1988), it will begin by discussing the legal terminology accredited pretend and why copyright exists and the regulations of copyright in detail with regards to fixation and originality, the rendering of fixed in line with the current law, the skill, fatigue and judgement behindvas including cases to support the claims and economic rights that an confesser has. Secondly by explaining the 3 master(prenominal) types of original construct that argon granted protection by this come and in addition, it will shed light on what consists of copying of the ca-ca and alternatives to copyright including adaptation of the go and what the copyright infringes. The source hired to induce this information is from Contemporary Intellectual Property Law and form _or_ system of government, By ballyrag L. MacQueen, Charlotte Waelde, Graeme Laurie and Abbe Br experience. The third part of this render will critically evaluate the refer of internationalism in monetary value of digital technologies. It will assess the new challenges this presents Intellectual Property (IP) in terms of new innovations that will chance upon the consumers and industry. unless much, it will discuss the imp pr phone numberise this has on Intellectual property by using the Gowers Review of Intellectual Property to source the k without delayledge. Lastly the essay will examine the case on Liam and Aleesha in terms of copyright and explain what infringements of copyright have occurred using relevant cases to reinforce the arguments that argon do.Main bodyCopyright in its early stages was implemented to tally the out erect of printers once the technology was invented and recognised in the 15th century. orig inally the era of printing, writing could only be duplicated by the process of manually copying out the live 1. The UK formed the Copyright, Designs and Patent make believe 1988 to fade creators of literary, dramatical, unisonal comedy and artistic tempt ranging from sound recordings, films and broadcasts 2 protection and the right to pose the way their treat is used.For copyright to exist in cypher it moldiness be original and fixed. The fixation or fixed term operator that the work essential be recorded in writing or otherwise 3 this includes and form or nonion of code, either by sink or otherwise and regardless of the method by which or strength in which it is recorded 4. Original or originality is non defined by the CDPA 1988, it is required that the work was originated from the author and non copied from another work. The work does not have to be different, it depends on the way the work was created. For example, a peregrine phone application that embodies the homogeneous idea as another further has a different look and feel to the user is considered as original work.For copyright to exist in terms of literary, musical, dramatical, or artistic work, it moldiness(prenominal) qualify as work. Work is goaded by the amount of skill, comprehend and judgement that has gone into creating it. This means that the author of the work is the individual who has put the about skill, repulse and do the most judgements on the work. Howalways thither have been some discrepancies in this as there are differences in opinion on how much skill, labour and judgement is required. In terms of case law for work one must look at the case of Hyperion records v Sawkins. Sawkins (S) had created new performing editions of four of his whole shebang. In get along this work took 300 hours and that involved S making 3000 editorial interventions to the works. In October 2002, Hyperion Records (H) produced a CD featuring performances of the four performing editio ns that Sawkins created. H tell that S was not entitled to copyright in these editions as editor should not obtain copyright in non-copyright work. It was held that the skill and time that S invested in making the works was enough to make them original, H had infringed S as he did not identify him as author.There are 8 types of original work recognised by the CDPA 1988. Literary works, dramatic works, musical and artistic works, sound recordings, films, broadcasts and typographical arrangements of published editions but for this essay we will only be explaining the main 3.Literary work is any work other than a dramatic or musical work, which is written, spoken or sung 5. Literary works discharge consist of technological work such as software, databases and computer programs. In Anacon Corp Ltd v environmental look for Technology it was found that circuit diagrams from which circuit boards are made into literary work as well as artistic work as the writing on the diagram is meant to be read and not just to be appreciated by eye.Dramatical work includes a leap or a mime 6. However, there is debate on whether this includes television and films for example in Norowzian v Arks Ltd (N0 2) where N had created a film called delight which includes a man dancing with a plain backdrop, which was edited heavily. The defendants produced an disturb for Guinness called anticipation that used a man dancing in a similar fashion and was edited similarly. It was held that the work couldnt be dramatic work as it bottomlandnot be performed in front of a live audience. melodic work consists of music, exclusive to any words or action think to be sung spoken or preformed with the music 7. A itty-bitty number of notes and chords are enough for copyright protection as seen in Lawson v Dundas the four-note theme is enough to be protected by The CDPA 1988. erst original work is present, one must then determine piece of writing and ownership of the work. Authorship is the pers on who creates the work.8 In the case of Walter v thoroughfare (1900) it was said that the author is the individual who has extended the necessary effort, skill and labour in creating the work. There is in like manner a possibility of joint paternity where two or more authors have collaborated and the contribution of the authors fagnot be distinguished.9 willpower of the work generally falls to the author who is in most cases the offset printing owner of a copyright work. A clear example of this can be seen in Griggs group v Evans (2005) where Griggs who are the manufacturers of the footwear atomic number 101 Martens they hired an ad agency to create a logo which would have two of their existing trademarks Airwair and Dr Martens, Evans was hired by the agency to create the logo. Evans appoint copyright to a Australian company who used it on their own products. It was held that the right to use the logo and to exclude others from using it belonged to the belonged to the clie nt and not the designer.The CDPA 1988 states that the copyright owner has the only right to copy the work, issue copies of said work, rent out or lend the work to the humankind, preform, show or play the work in public, communicate the work in public and to make an adaptation of the work.10Copying the work comprises of the reproduction of the work in any natural form and storing of the work in any rugged suit by electronical means for instance taking a picture or scanning a document or recording live music to a digital format equates to copying. On the other hand, similar works do not infringe copyright as there must be a connective that the work is derived from the claimants. In Francis Day huntsman v Bron the defendant had produced a song called Why the claimant argued that the first 8 bars in the song were catd from their son called in a exact Spanish town. The courts held that there must be a causal tie between the works and that the similarity must be sufficient and o bjective. variation in terms of copyright differs from copying as it only applies to the literary, dramatical and musical works. This includes dramatisations and translations. Although there is a connection with copying, it is not as specific as adaptation. In Harman pictures v Osborne the claimants argued that the film created by Osborne copied a historical book, though there were parts that were different it was held that the similarities of incidents and situations suggested that they were both based on the same historical event.Impact of internationalism of digital technologiesAs we know the laws on copyright are outdated and are not up to par with this time as technology grows and we approach the age of online information, where ideas are splay internationally and very quickly. It is important that the IP laws are adequate to serve with the ever-growing digital technology as there are more slipway to share goods and services. For example, the effect on the film and music ind ustry collectible to growing technologies is having a great impact as films and music are pirated online and are accessed very easily and shared. This is causing a great overtaking for the industry as much as 20% of their annual turnover11. This creates challenges as it will affect jobs in addition it will have a detrimental effect on the industry in the UK as it is cheaper to reproduce this work using the internet which does not require cost. An argument made by Andrew Gowers in Gowers Review of Intellectual Property is that the infringement on IP in the digital world need to be more stern as the penalties are softer for digital cases then civil cases12. This will prevent IP infringement digitally where it is most common also we can give the power to enforce IP infringements to trading prototypes.Since the mankind of the CDPA 1988 there have been numerous technological advancements, the problems this creates for IP are that it is easier now to copy or reproduce work and share i t then it has ever been making it easier for the circulation of reproduced or counterfeit goods like songs in the form of MP3 files without the owners permission. In addition, new technologies do not fit into the scope of original work that is stated by the CDPA 1988 this causes confusion as it is not alike standard definitions of work, for example genetics or medicine.Copyright for Liam AleeshaFirstly, originality and fixation must be established in the work for copyright to exist, it can be rigid that Liams work is fixed as he records the music and has it uploaded to the bands website to share to his fans, it can also be determined that the work is original as Liam writes his own music and lyrics.Secondly, the work is determined by the Skill, labour and judgement test. In terms of Liam he has put his skills of writing the music and lyrics for the band and has shown that he put is the labour as well as he writes all the bands songs, only a small portion is provided by the other m embers which includes Aleesha. From this information, it is determined that Liam is the author of the work as he is putting in the most effort, skill, labour and judgement into it. As seen in the case of Walter v highroad (1900) where it was said that the author of a work is one who extends the necessary effort, skill, labour and judgement in the work. Aleesha would not be a joint owner as her contribution is distinguished as a small portion. From this It can easily be decided that Liam is the owner of the music and lyrics.Thirdly it must establish whether there has been a copying of the work. In this case Robbie, has copied Liams work as he has digitally sampled his music without the right of the owner (Liam) it states in the CDPA 1988 that copying of the work includes the reproduction of the work in any material form. It can be said that there is a casual connection as the music is sampled directly from Musik set offs work. In addition, the case of Lawson v Dundas further reinfo rces the argument as it was established that as little as 4 chords or notes are sufficient for copyright.Also from the information gathered it can establish that the owner (Liam) has not effrontery consent to Robbie or Aleesha for them to use or sample his music as it doesnt state otherwise. From this information, a strong argument is made that an infringement of copyright has occurred.ConclusionIn conclusion, this essay has thoroughly clarified on what copyright is in terms of the CDPA 1988 and given relevant cases to illustrate points made demonstrating legal knowledge. It has explained legal terminologies and defined them in junction with the CDPA 1988 and has clearly described what copyright infringes. Furthermore, it has discussed the growing impact of internationalism in digital technologies. In summary from the research conducted the law regarding IP needs updating in terms of new technological advancements to solemnize up with the protection of work as It would affect sect ors such as the film and music industry negatively. Finally, the essay has examined the case of Liam v Aleesha and Robbie and has reason that Aleesha and Robbie have infringed copyright by sampling music by Musik Dynamite without the right of Liam who is the author and owner of the music.BibliographyBooksGowers A, Gowers Review of Intellectual Property, HM exchequer 2006MacQueen H, Contemporary Intellectual Property 2nd edition Law and Policy 2010Patterson, L. R., Copyright in Historic Perspective, Vanderbilt University Press, 1968CasesAnacon Corp Ltd v Environmental Research Technology 1994 FSR 659Francis Day Hunter v Bron 1963 Ch. 587Griggs group v Evans 2003 EWHC 2914 (Ch)Harman pictures v Osborne 1967 1 WLR 723Hyperion records v Sawkins 2005 EWCA Civ 565Lawson v Dundas 1985 The Times 13Norowzian v Arks Ltd Anor (No. 2) 1999 EWCA Civ 3014Walter v Lane 1900 AC 539LegislationThe Copyright, Designs and Patent act 19881 Copyright in Historical Perspective, p. 136-137, Patterson, 19 68.2 The Copyright, Designs and Patent act 1988 s.1(1)(a)3 The Copyright, Designs and Patent act 1988 s.3 (2)4 The Copyright, Designs and Patent act 1988 s.1785 The Copyright, Designs and Patent act 1988 s. 36 The Copyright, Designs and Patent act 1988 s. 3(1)7 The Copyright, Designs and Patent act 1988 s. 38 The Copyright, Designs and Patent act 1988 s.9 (1)9 The Copyright, Designs and Patent act 1988 s.10 (1)10 The Copyright, Designs and Patent act 1988 s.1611 Andrew Gowers, Gowers Review of Intellectual Property p.312 Andrew Gowers, Gowers Review of Intellectual Property p.4