请输入您要查询的百科知识:

 

词条 Temple Island Collections Ltd v New English Teas Ltd
释义

  1. Defence

  2. Judgment

  3. Controversy

  4. References

  5. External links

Temple Island v New English Teas was a case in the England and Wales Patents County Court, heard on 28 November 2011, in which Temple Island Collections Ltd. sued New English Teas Ltd. and Nicholas John Houghton over copyright infringement for using a monochrome image of the Houses of Parliament and London Bridge with a colour picture of a red London bus on the Westminster Bridge.

Defence

The defence turned largely on the fact that similar works had been pre-existent and seen by the defendants before the creation of the image at issue. Some of these images pre-dated the work the claimant had created; some did not. The defence also drew attention to differences between the images.

Judgment

Judge Birss QC, found for the claimant, as he found "the defendants' work does reproduce a substantial part of the claimant's artistic work."[1]

Birss held that, while some aspects of the claimants' work were absent from the offending image, sufficient aspects were present to constitute copyright infringement, conversely he held that the claimant's submission of what would constitute an infringing work was over-broad saying "I am sure there are many things satisfying the claimant's definition which would not infringe."[1]

Birss held that defence argument of prior works was irrelevant, since there was on the one hand no claim that the claimants work was influenced by these works, and on the other hand, there was a causal link between the defendants' desire to use an image like the claimant's image and the production of the offending image, that was not disturbed by the search for similar images.[1]

Controversy

The case caused some controversy, as appearing to widen the scope of copyright protection in the composition of visual images.[2] Intellectual property barrister Jane Lambert expressed unease at the decision, over the move towards protection of idea rather than expression of an idea.[3]

References

1. ^Judgment
2. ^{{Cite web|url=http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/latest/photo-news/photographers-face-copyright-threat-after-shock-ruling-14134|work=Amateur Photographer|title=Photographers face copyright threat after shock ruling}}
3. ^{{Cite web|url=http://news.techeye.net/software/uk-copyright-law-wades-in-on-photoshopping|title=UK copyright law wades in on photoshopping: Could end up before the beak|author=Nick Farrell}}

External links

  • The full text of the decision
  • [https://web.archive.org/web/20120202065831/http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/photographers_face_copyright_threat_after_shock_ruling__news_311191.html Amateur Photographer]
{{Case-law-stub}}

3 : United Kingdom copyright case law|2012 in British law|2012 in case law

随便看

 

开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识,基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识,是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。

 

Copyright © 2023 OENC.NET All Rights Reserved
京ICP备2021023879号 更新时间:2024/9/21 1:36:23