Educational purposes copyright defences – parents watch out, there’s an IPEC about

Educational purposes copyright defences – parents watch out, there’s an IPEC about

[caption id="attachment_4591" align="alignright" width="183"] ketrin1407: http://www.flickr.com/photos/65986072@N00/[/caption]

Taylor v Maguire [2013] EWHC 3804 (IPEC), [2013] All ER (D) 43 (Dec) is a High Court IPEC case. It shows interesting unsuccessful use of the educational defence.

The claimant was an artist working in the medium of papercutting. She exhibited and sold her works from a Facebook page and had been commissioned to produce marketing works for the US chain Pottery Barn. The defendant also produced various papercutting works that she exhibited and had sold from a Facebook page.

The claimant claimed that the defendant had infringed her copyright in various original artistic works. The defendant denied this, contending that the works complained of were original artistic works independently created by her and her minor daughter.  As well as claiming a lack of originality and substantial similarity, the defendant relied on the educational defence contained in the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA 1988).

The claimant successfully sought an injunction preventing further infringement and destruction of infringing works, among other remedies.

How did the court deal with subsistence of copyright?

The court continued with the emerging two pronged test (or are they parallel tests?) for copyright subsistence by covering both the ‘skill and labour’ and the ‘author’s own intellectual creation’ tests.   In the space of two paragraphs, the court stated: ‘an original artistic work is a work in which the author/artist has made an original contribution in creating it – for example by applying intellectual effort in its creation’ (para 6).  And “For an artistic work to be original it must have been produced as the result of independent skill and labour by the artist” (para 7)

We are told that the outcome should be the same using either test, by Mrs Justice Proudman who caused all the commotion in November 2010 in the High Court Newspaper Licensing Agency v Meltwater Holding BV [2010] EWHC 3099 (Ch) case (85 of the judgment) but who had pulled back from this approach by the time she heard Future Publishing Ltd v Edge Interactive Media [2011] EWHC 1489 (Ch) June 2011, in June 2011.

What should

Subscription Form

Latest Articles:

Already a subscriber? Login
RELX (UK) Limited, trading as LexisNexis, and our LexisNexis Legal & Professional group companies will contact you to confirm your email address. You can manage your communication preferences via our Preference Centre. You can learn more about how we handle your personal data and your rights by reviewing our  Privacy Policy.

Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.

Read full article

Already a subscriber? Login