Author: Erica Levi

Shazam Productions Limited v Only Fools The Dining Experience Limited and Others, 2022

30 October 2024 /

Shazam initiated legal action to stop the performance of an interactive dining show called “Only Fools The (cushty) Dining Experience.” This show featured Del Boy and other main characters from the comedy using their traits and backstories in an interactive pub quiz format. The defendants did not seek Shazam’s approval, leading to a lawsuit for copyright infringement and passing off, as many people might have believed the show was an authorised spin-off.

The claimant, Shazam, was a company owned by the family of John Sullivan (d.2011), the creator and writer of the award-winning British TV sitcom “Only Fools and Horses” (1980s and 1990s).

The defendants argued that their use was fair dealing, particularly for parody and pastiche.  Although this exception has been widely discussed, this case was the first time a UK court tested the defence.

Ibbetson, S and Ryan, M. (2022). Why do only fools and horses write original material? UK court finds copyright infringement of ‘Del Boy’ character. Kluwer Copyright Blog. Available from here.

The author takes no responsibility for the content of this page, which is not intended as binding legal advice. The views are about copyright in the UK Higher Education sector context.

TRIPS 1994

31 July 2024 /

International standards and then national laws of the World Trade Organisation are set. The TRIPS Agreement is an Annex of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, signed in Marrakesh, Morocco, on 15 April 1994.

The author takes no responsibility for the content of this page, which is not intended as binding legal advice. The views are about copyright in the UK Higher Education sector context.

Communication to other audiences

31 July 2024 /

In March 2009, the Waltrop Secondary School in North Rhineland-Westphalia in Germany provided access to a presentation by one of its pupils on its website, which included a photograph taken by Dirk Renckoff, a photographer. The photograph had initially been posted on an online travel portal with no restrictions on the ability to download the photograph, and the Waltrop pupil had downloaded the photograph from this portal and provided a reference to the portal in the presentation.

Although the student included a reference to the travel portal, the photographer sued the city where the school is located for copyright infringement. Renckoff believed he had been given the right to exclusive use of the photograph on the travel portal only. So, using the photograph on the school’s website was an infringement of his copyright (the Land of North-Rhineland-Westphalia was responsible for educational supervision and the employment of the teachers at the school).

The author takes no responsibility for the content of this page, which is not intended as binding legal advice. The views are about copyright in the UK Higher Education sector context.

Would a photographic reproduction of work in the public domain be protected by copyright?

31 July 2024 /

Several legal debates and court rulings in various geographical jurisdictions have considered whether an exact photographic copy of public domain images would be protected by copyright.

Deliberations have a significant impact on museums and archives that may seek to subsidise their services by selling reproductions of the original work within their collections. Would those reproductions themselves be protected by copyright?

Let’s take an example:  Leonardo Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa. The famous painting is no longer in copyright. The painting is hosted at the Louvre Museum in Paris. Are the posters sold by the museum’s tourist shop covered by copyright?

The crucial point in the discussion is the degree of skills that the ‘copier’ had to apply to create the reproduction.  In other words, how original is it?  If the reproduction required specialised photographic skills, such as reproducing Leonardo’s nuances and effects, avoiding reflections, etc., would the derivative work be protected by copyright? On the other hand, if the Mona Lisa photograph lacked originality, would it not be protected?

Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) was a decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which ruled that exact photographic copies of public domain images could not be protected by copyright in the United States because the copies lack originality. Even though accurate reproductions might require a great deal of skill, experience, and effort, originality is the key element in determining whether a work is copyrightable under US law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp

The author takes no responsibility for the content of this page, which is not intended as binding legal advice. The views are about copyright in the UK Higher Education sector context.

Test your knowledge of copyright exceptions and ‘fair dealing’

26 February 2024 /

You usually need permission or a licence to use copyright-protected materials (e.g. text, images, video). However, for specific purposes in the UK, you may also be able to rely on ‘copyright exceptions’ as defined in UK legislation.

Disclaimer: This quiz is for educational purposes only, to help you understand copyright exceptions and direct you to further resources. Your answers will not be used for any purpose, and your personal data will not be collected.

With permission from Christina Daouti from UCL

The author takes no responsibility for the content of this page, which is not intended as binding legal advice. The views are about copyright in the UK Higher Education sector context.

I found an incredible video for my lessons on YouTube. Can I use it?

21 March 2022 /

I found an incredible video for my lessons on YouTube. Can I use it?

As with any other copyright material, videos on YouTube can be used either with permission from the copyright owner (usually the creator of the video) or under copyright exceptions. The Standard YouTube Licence only allows users to watch or listen to the content for personal, non-commercial use. However, suppose you want to screen a YouTube video for educational purposes (for example, to prompt a discussion with your students on specific topics). In that case, copyright exceptions are likely to allow this.

Some videos on YouTube are distributed under Creative Commons licences, meaning anyone can reuse them under certain conditions.

Source: Europeana Pro https://pro.europeana.eu/post/exploring-reuse-of-audiovisual-content-for-education?fbclid=IwAR0uUZnmvjRYSR9-ORSpG5v76XDyJ9OVYJKOSGw4we3ugDhpy0RRp-BI5A0

The author takes no responsibility for the content of this page, which is not intended as binding legal advice. The views are about copyright in the UK Higher Education sector context.

What is a copyright infringement?

15 February 2022 /

The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 [s.16(2) and (3)] states that

Copyright in a work is infringed by a person who, without the licence of the copyright owner, does, or authorises another to do, any of the acts restricted by the copyright.

It applies to the work as a whole or any substantial part of it.

What are the copyright exceptions in UK law?

The author takes no responsibility for the content of this page, which is not intended as binding legal advice. The views are about copyright in the UK Higher Education sector context.

This website was created using Coventry.Domains, a service of the Coventry University Group. The information, views, opinions and discussion contained on this website are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the Coventry University Group. For more information on privacy, cookies, takedown requests and more, visit our policies page.