‘Writing a bad review online has always run a small risk of opening yourself up to a defamation claim. But few would expect to be told that they had to delete their review or face a lawsuit over another part of the law: copyright infringement.’
The Guardian, 23rd May 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Amongst the political noise of the Brexit campaign, the UK’s legislative plans set out in the Queen’s speech yesterday received less attention than usual. But there were some important points to note for the technology sector.’
Technology Law Update, 19th May 2016
Source: www.technology-law-blog.co.uk
‘The UK government will help rights holders to clamp down on online copyright infringement by explaining what evidence they will need to build up to win website blocking orders before the courts, according to new plans it has set out.’
OUT-LAW.com, 16th May 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
England and Wales Cricket Board Ltd and another v Tixdaq Ltd and another [2016] EWHC 575 (Ch)
‘The claimants owned the copyrights in television broadcasts, and in films incorporated within such broadcasts, of most cricket matches played by the English cricket teams in England and Wales. The defendants operated a website and various mobile applications (“Apps”) which used screen capture technology to copy clips of broadcast footage of sporting events and uploaded those clips to the Apps. The defendants’ uploaded a considerable number of clips of broadcasts of cricket matches, lasting up to eight seconds, to the Apps where they could be viewed by users. Users could also upload clips, together with commentary, on to the website and the defendants’ social media accounts. The claimants brought a claim for damages, alleging uploading the clips prima facie constituted breaches of sections 16, 17 and/or 20 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988. The 1988 Act did not require either broadcasts or films to be original in order for copyright to subsist in them. An issue arose as to the applicable test for substantiality in circumstances where there was no intellectual creation. The question went to both infringement, which required an act such as reproduction or communication to the public of the whole, or any “substantial part” of a work, and also to the applicability of the fair dealing defence in section 30(2) of the 1988 Act, on which the defendants relied.’
WLR Daily, 18th April 2016
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The act of posting a link to a website that features “freely accessible” copyright infringing content should not itself be classed as an act of copyright infringement, an advisor to the EU’s highest court has said.’
OUT-LAW.com, 7th April 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘A website and apps set up to enable the sharing of 8-second clips of broadcast cricket matches on a near-live basis has been found to infringe copyright.’
Technology Law Update, 4th April 2016
Source: www.technology-law-blog.co.uk
‘The recent decision of Arnold J. in (1) England & Wales Cricket Board Ltd, (2) Sky UK Ltd v (1) Tixdaq Ltd, (2) Fanatix Ltd [2016] EWHC 575 (Ch) is important not only for sports rights holders and broadcasters, but for all those involved and interested in the limits of copyright protection law in a fast moving world where developments in information technology constantly challenge the way we communicate and consume.’
Sports Law Bulletin from Blackstone Chambers, 31st March 2016
Source: www.sportslawbulletin.org
‘Are you sitting comfortably? Then lucky you. By the end of October – after a six-month “amnesty” for retailers – that luxury will cost you more, maybe 12 times more, than now. And it’s all thanks to the bloody European Union. ‘
The Independent, 15th February 2016
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘The UK government is to legislate to bring greater consistency to laws concerning the communications intellectual property (IP) rights holders send to alleged infringers of their rights.’
OUT-LAW.com, 1st February 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Henry Hadaway could be awarded more than £300,000 after High Court ruling.’
Daily Telegraph, 26th November 2015
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘The UK government has scrapped plans to legalise private copying in the UK, Out-Law.com has learned..’
OUT-LAW.com, 18th November 2015
Source: www.outlaw.com
‘A ruthless and salient reminder in procedure – make sure every page is in the bundle before the trial!’
Zenith PI Blog, 13th November 2015
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘A California judge’s ruling that Warner/Chappell can no longer collect royalties for Happy Birthday may not apply in England, says IP expert.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 23rd September 2015
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘US activists suing on behalf of Naruto argue the six-year-old macaque owns photos he snapped on David Slater’s camera.’
Daily Telegraph, 22nd September 2015
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘A party that accidentally omitted an important page from its trial bundle has failed in its attempt to persuade the judge to reconsider his ruling. The claimant in Absolute Lofts as West London Ltd v Artisan Home Improvements Ltd & Anor (No2) [2015] EWHC 2632 (IPEC) made the application the day after His Honour Judge Hacon handed down his decision.’
Litigation Futures, 18th September 2015
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘On 16 July 2015 my heads of chambers, Tim Straker QC and Robert Griffiths QC together with my colleagues, Richard Clayton QC, Charles Morgan, Christopher Forsyth and Lee Parkhill presented our chambers annual judicial review conference. By all accounts it was a great success.’
NIPC Law, 20th July 2015
Source: www.nipclaw.blogspot.co.uk
‘British Academy of Songwriters, Composers and Authors and others, R(on the application of) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and another [2015] EWHC 1723 (Admin) – read original judgment and [2015] EWHC 2041 (Admin), 17 July 2015. On 19 June 2015, Green J ruled that an exception to copyright infringement for private use was unlawful, at common law, because of flaws in the consultation process which had preceded its enactment.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 19th July 2015
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Online pirates could face jail terms of up to 10 years under plans being considered by the government.’
BBC News, 18th July 2015
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘In commercial negotiations you may have used the words “subject to contract” or something similar. But what does this actually mean?’
Technology Law Update, 9th July 2015
Source: www.technology-law-blog.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024