Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
[caption id="attachment_4591" align="alignright" width="183"] ketrin1407: http://www.flickr.com/photos/65986072@N00/[/caption]
Taylor v Maguire  EWHC 3804 (IPEC),  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  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  EWHC 1489 (Ch) June 2011, in June 2011.
Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.
Read full article
Already a subscriber? Login
0330 161 1234