For offences that have more of a public policy angle, such as those involving counterfeit goods and piracy, it is possible to bring criminal as well as civil proceedings. The majority of infringements that are dealt with by criminal offences are systematic and repeated, with the objective of generating revenue through the infringing activity. There is also justification for criminalising these activities as those involved in them may use the proceeds to fund other, more serious organised crime. However, generally speaking, copyright owners are usually more likely to choose to bring civil than criminal proceedings, not least because the standard of proof is more of a hurdle for the prosecution in criminal cases (but note that if a permitted act is relied on as a defence, the balance of probabilities burden prevails on the defendant). A copyright owner must also prove knowledge or reason to believe in criminal claims even for primary infringements. It is for the copyright owner to decide which proceedings to bring and the court cannot re-allocate the claim after proceedings have been issued. It is

The question of who owns intellectual property in the designs, drawings, specifications etc, created in relation to a construction project is very important for all the parties involved. The party who owns the copyright in the designs produced will want to protect their rights in them and restrict the ways and extent to which they can be used by others and have rights of recourse where these rights are infringed. Those who need to reproduce or use the designs will want to make sure they have adequate rights to allow them to do so. In relation to construction projects, designs are typically created by the architect, civil and M&E engineers and also by the contractor itself and its sub-contractors. Clauses dealing with the ownership of copyright are therefore standard in professional appointments, building contracts, and collateral warranties. This Practice Note focuses on such clauses in a consultant's appointment. Copyright in designs Copyright arises automatically in any original artistic work; the author does not have to register its rights or apply for this protection. The

TMT analysis: The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court found that a character may be a protectable literary work under UK copyright law and addressed the little-used defences to copyright infringement of fair dealing for the purpose or parody or pastiche. The ruling concerned the character of Derek ‘Del Boy’ Trotter from the well-loved TV show Only Fools and Horses (OFAH). The defendants, who created the unofficial ‘Only Fools the Dining Experience’, was found to have infringed the copyright subsisting in the OFAH scripts and the character Del Boy. The judgment is only the second case to have applied both the UK and EU copyright tests for subsistence of copyright to a work which does not naturally fit within one of the UK’s closed lists of ‘works’ under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA 1988). It has potential to lead to more claims of copyright infringement in respect of well-known characters which have been used without consent across a wide range of different media. Written by Simon Clark, partner and Maria Ryan, trainee solicitor at Bristows LLP.

The question of who owns intellectual property in the designs, drawings, specifications etc created in relation to a construction project is very important for all the parties involved. The party who owns the copyright in the designs produced will want to protect their rights in them and restrict the ways and extent to which they can be used by others, and have rights of recourse where these rights are infringed. Those who need to reproduce or use the designs will want to make sure they have adequate rights to allow them to do so. In relation to construction projects, designs are created by the architect, civil and M&E engineers (sometimes also by other specialist engineers and designers), and can also be created by the contractor itself and its sub-contractors. Clauses dealing with the ownership of copyright are therefore standard in professional appointments, building contracts, and collateral warranties. This Practice Note focuses on such clauses in construction contracts. See also Practice Note: Copyright in a consultant's appointment. Copyright in designs Copyright arises automatically in any original artistic

Databases, especially electronic databases, have for some time now made up an important sector of digital economies around the world. Many jurisdictions see investment in and exploitation of databases to be a vital tool in the development of an information market. In the UK, the key legislation relevant to the protection of databases through IP are: • the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA 1988) • the Copyright and Rights in Databases Regulations 1997 (CRD 1997), SI 1997/3032, which implemented Directive 96/9/EC on the legal protection of databases (EU Database Directive) in the UK (now assimilated law, see: Databases and assimilated EU law, below) A database can be protected in different ways: • copyright can protect literary and artistic works including tables and compilations that form part of a database, provided that they are original works. The term ‘compilation’ could be interpreted as including what may be commonly referred to as ‘databases’ but CDPA 1988, s 3(1)(a) removed literary copyright for tables and compilations that are themselves databases (as defined by CDPA 1988), and

This Practice Note examines the complex relationship between copyright and designs. For more information about designs law and copyright law, see: Design transactions and management—overview and Copyright & associated rights—overview. Prior to the implementation of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA 1988), copyright was the principal means of protecting rights in industrial articles. One of the intentions behind CDPA 1988 was to limit the application of copyright to industrially commercialised designs and introduce an unregistered design right in the UK (often referred to as 'design right'). For a visual summary of the role of CDPA 1988 copyright provisions, see: Application of copyright law to designs—flowchart below. Authors of artistic works that are applied industrially may not be able to rely on copyright but instead may rely upon design right or registered design(s). However, copyright remains a means of protecting: • original design drawings • rights in designs of three-dimensional objects that are considered artistic works under CDPA 1988 • surface decoration applied to industrial articles Relevant legislation and key cases • CDPA 1988 (as amended by

This Practice Note considers film and television copyright issues relating to the underlying works encountered during the making of a film. It covers literary works such as scripts, biographies, characters, set design and location, photographs, music, and performances. This Practice Note also covers copyright permitted acts or exceptions that may apply when various works are included in a film—including fair dealing exceptions, incidental inclusion, reporting court proceedings, filming in a public place, and public interest. When making a new film or television programme, a number of individual different copyright works will comprise the film depending on the type of production being made, eg a drama or a factual documentary. This Practice Note looks at some of the common underlying works incorporated into film and television productions. Some of these works will not automatically belong to the production company making the film so it is essential to take either an assignment or a licence of those works created as part of the production process which grants

For the purposes of copyright law, the term ‘film’ means a recording, on any medium, from which a moving image may by any means be produced. A television programme is protected as a film for these purposes and the definition is intended to be technology neutral. This Practice Note looks at the copyright protection afforded to film and television programmes themselves as copyright works and Practice Note: Copyright in film and television: making a new film looks at some issues regarding the types of works (dramatic, literary, musical and artistic works) known as the 'underlying rights' which a producer may need to create or be required to license during the process of making a new film or television production. The legal issues relating to television formats are not addressed in this Practice Note; instead, see Practice Note: Television format rights. Copyright in films The general rule is that the subsistence of copyright in existing films depends upon the date of their creation and is determined by the law

This Practice Note examines whether copyright can subsist in music compilations as a database. In essence, this issue boils down to whether the contents of the compilation constitutes its author’s own intellectual creation (explained in detail further below). Copyright subsistence in a database (or database copyright) is distinct from the sui generis database right, which is also considered in this Practice Note. The sui generis database right concerns the legal protection of databases in any form and is derived from the Copyright and Rights in Databases Regulations 1997 (CRD 1997), SI 1997/3032. The existence or otherwise of a sui generis database right does not determine whether or not copyright might also subsist in the same database (and vice versa). A database may be protected by one or both of these rights, or by neither. Court of Justice judgments This Practice Note contains reference to judgments made by the Court. For guidance on whether judgments of the Court of Justice are binding on UK courts, see Practice Note: Assimilated law—Assimilated case law. Categorisation

The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA 1988) gives the copyright owner exclusive rights in the UK to carry out various acts in relation to the copyright work. Activities set out in CDPA 1988 carried out by those other than the copyright owner, without permission, may infringe the owner's exclusive rights. Status of EU copyright law in the UK As of 31 January 2020, the UK ceased to be an EU Member State. In accordance with the Withdrawal Agreement, the UK entered a transition or implementation period of 11 months ending on 31 December 2020 (IP completion day), during which it continued to be subject to EU law. EU law introduced, or implemented, after the expiry of this period is not binding on the UK. For pre-existing legislation, the legal position existing immediately before IP completion day was preserved for the purposes of legal continuity, by taking a snapshot of the EU law that applied in the UK at that point and (for the most part) bringing it

Stage 1—preparing to bring a claim and pre-action matters Claim preparation and pre-action matters—Practice Notes • Copyright―protectable works • Copyright—subsistence and qualification • Copyright—authorship and ownership • Copyright infringement • Interim and final injunctions—overview • Copyright—permitted acts and defences • Copyright—secondary infringement • How to run an IP dispute • Disclosure Scheme (Business & Property Courts)—overview • Types of dispute resolution • IP and mediation • IP and arbitration Claim preparation and pre-action matters—Precedent • Cease and desist letter—IP infringement Claim preparation and pre-action matters—Checklist • Disclosure Scheme timetable—checklist Claim preparation and pre-action matters—Forms • Application for injunction • Application notice • Notice of hearing of application Claim preparation and pre-action matters—News Analysis • The use of intellectual property insurance Stage 2—letter of claim alleging copyright infringement Letter alleging copyright infringement—Practice Notes • Copyright infringement • How to draft a letter of claim in an IP dispute • Unjustified threats of intellectual property right infringement • Intellectual property—remedies Letter alleging copyright infringement—Precedents • Letter of claim—copyright infringement • Letter of claim—peer-to-peer copyright infringement Stage 3—commencing proceedings Commencing proceedings—Practice Notes • Copyright infringement • Copyright—secondary infringement • Copyright—permitted acts and defences • Intellectual

TMT analysis: In a quantum hearing before new Deputy Judge Ian Karet, following the trial decision of His Honour Judge Hacon in April 2019, the claimant elected for damages on three bases: the loss of opportunity to license a third party to exploit Eminem’s first album, ‘Infinite’ (which was not a success at the time of its release in 1996); loss of licensing revenue from the defendant to the claimant if the defendant had exploited this work legitimately; or a reasonable royalty. There was also a fourth claim relating to the involvement in the making of a documentary concerning the 20th anniversary of the release of the original album and the new release. The decision reviews the principles to be followed (and applied), in considering how a claim to a loss of opportunity is to be considered generally, and in this case in a copyright context. Written by Paul A Harris, senior partner (IP litigation) at Venner Shipley LLP.