Introduction This document contains quick links to the Precedents relevant to copyright litigation. These include the main statements of case to start and then run copyright proceedings. Precedents Letter of claim—copyright infringement See Precedent: Letter of claim—copyright infringement. This is a Precedent letter of claim (also referred to as a letter before action or a cease and desist letter) for use when there is an alleged copyright infringement. A letter of claim is a letter that puts an alleged infringer on notice that court proceedings may be brought against them. The courts take the view that litigation should be a last resort, therefore, parties are encouraged to resolve their disputes at an early stage by communicating with each other and exchanging information and documentation. A letter of claim gives the opportunity for communication between the parties and for resolution of the dispute often without the need to issue proceedings. Following an exchange of letters, the infringement may stop, and the copyright

A copyright notice is a statement placed on a work to identify the copyright owner, the year of first publication and the existence of copyright protection, for example: “© [Owner] [Year]. All rights reserved.” In practice, it is used on documents, websites, software, artwork, films and other copyright works to signal ownership, manage risk, and support enforcement.In the UK and Ireland, copyright arises automatically and does not depend on including a copyright notice. The term “copyright notice” is not exhaustively defined in legislation, but is recognised in practice and referred to in UK and Irish copyright statutes in related contexts (for example, false copyright notices and rights management information).Lawyers commonly use copyright notices in contracts, publishing agreements, software licences and website terms to evidence chain of title, assist in proving subsistence and ownership, and deter infringement. They also support compliance, by indicating licensing terms and permitted uses.Usage is broadly consistent across England & Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland, although specific statutory provisions on offences involving false or misleading copyright notices and rights management information differ slightly between the UK and Irish regimes.

The copyright owner is the person or entity that holds the bundle of economic rights in a copyright work (to copy, issue copies, perform, communicate to the public, adapt, authorise others, and sue for infringement).The term is used descriptively in practice. Statute sets the ownership rules: in the UK, the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988; in Ireland, the Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000. In both systems, the author is generally the first owner. Key exceptions include employer ownership for works made in the course of employment, Crown/Parliamentary copyright (UK), and any transfer by written assignment. Commissioning alone does not transfer ownership; in Ireland there are limited statutory exceptions (notably for certain commissioned photographs), so the 2000 Act should be checked.An exclusive licence can give the licensee standing to sue alongside, or in place of, the owner. Co-ownership can arise; co-owners typically must act together to grant assignments or exclusive licences and to enforce. Ownership is distinct from physical possession of copies and from moral rights.Usage and core principles are broadly consistent across England & Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland, with differences in specific statutory exceptions and litigation standing.

IP analysis: Sprint Electric Limited (SEL) claimed copyright infringement against a former director, Dr Potamianos, via his service company Buyer’s Dream Limited, (BDL) for use of source code. Dr Potamianos, as original author, counterclaimed ownership of copyright in the source code and associated documents. The Court decided that as Dr Potamianos received a wage, performed services only for SEL, did not provide his own equipment and was treated as an integral part of the company, he was an employee. Consequently, SEL was owner of copyright in the documents and source code according and was entitled to delivery up of source code and associated documents. Written by Joanne Frears, solicitor at Lionshead Law.

Introduction The purpose of this copyright policy is to provide guidance to employees and other personnel about copyright as a right, to provide guidelines and procedures for obtaining copyright permission to use company and third party works and to provide a framework for reporting misuse of copyright works. This policy provides practical advice and procedures on copyright-related matters. It is not a substitute for legal advice, and proper legal advice should be obtained when necessary. Copyright officer, [Name] may be able to assist you with any questions you may have. [Name] may be reached at [telephone number or email address]. What is copyright? Copyright recognises the intellectual creation expended by an author in creating a work. Where copyright subsists in a work, the copyright owner has exclusive rights to carry out various acts in relation to the copyright work. Activities, such as copying, set out in legislation (the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988) carried out by those other than the copyright owner, without permission, may infringe the owner's exclusive rights. If you are not the copyright holder

IP analysis: The Court of Justice has held that a product whose shape is, at least in part, necessary to obtain a technical result may be protected by copyright where it is an original work resulting from the author’s own intellectual creation in that, through its shape, the author expresses their creative ability in an original manner by making free and creative choices in such a way that that shape reflects their personality. The assessment of originality is to be made by the national court which must take into account all relevant aspects of the dispute that existed when that subject matter was designed, irrespective of the factors external to and subsequent to the creation of the product.

EU Law analysis: Francesco Banterle and Andrea Schettino of Hogan Lovells consider the EU Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act and copyright and related rights.

Copyright registration refers to the formal recording of copyright in a work with an official body, usually to evidence ownership and the date of creation or first publication. In UK law (England & Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland), there is no state-run copyright registration system: copyright arises automatically on creation of an original qualifying work under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Any references to “registering copyright” in UK practice usually concern private copyright registers, contractual notice mechanisms or recording copyright licences or assignments at the UK Intellectual Property Office in connection with related rights, none of which create or confer copyright itself.In Ireland, copyright similarly subsists automatically under the Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000 and there is no official copyright registry. Practitioners in both jurisdictions may nevertheless use copyright registration services (often overseas, such as with the US Copyright Office) to obtain evidential support for enforcement, priority, chain of title and due diligence.The expression “copyright registration” is therefore descriptive rather than a defined statutory concept in the UK and Ireland, and its legal effect depends on the specific registry or evidential mechanism used.

MLex: EU officials say copyright rules may not need overhauling to address Artificial Intelligence (AI) challenges, but a focus instead put on enforcement and licensing. While licensing markets are emerging, they remain uneven, as regulators and courts shape how copyrighted content is used for training and AI-generated outputs.

Copyright theft Theft of copyright is criminalised by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA 1988), the Trade Marks Act 1994 (TMA 1994) and the Video Recordings Act 1984 (VRA 1984). It may also be prosecuted under the Fraud Act 2006 (FrA 2006) or as a conspiracy under the Criminal Law Act 1977 (CLA 1977) or under the common law conspiracy to defraud. See Practice Notes: Conspiracy and Conspiracy to defraud. Copyright theft may be prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service or trading standards. Investigations may involve local police forces, HM Revenue and Customs, Border Force and the National Crime Agency. Most offences under CDPA 1988 (those in CDPA 1988, s 107(1)(a)–(b), (d)(iv) and (e)) are either-way offences, ie they may be tried both in the magistrates' court and the Crown Court. These are viewed as more serious offences as they involve making, importing for rental or sale, or distributing items through a business or otherwise, that would affect the owner of the copyright prejudicially. The offence of infringing copyright in a work by communicating

IP analysis: This analysis provides an outline of the key copyright implications of the first English judgment on generative AI. The judgment has been eagerly awaited by the creative and technology industries, as well as the government which, so far, has been unsuccessful in resolving the tension arising from the use of copyright works by AI developers. While the decision did not deliver a decisive victory to either party, it has revived the discussion around secondary copyright infringement in the digital age. The judgment ends for now (while an appeal is being considered) a three-year legal battle between Getty Images and Stability AI (Stability) in the UK. Getty’s Images’ case against Stability continues in the USA, alongside other high profile cases against generative AI developers, and will be looked at to offer judicial thinking on primary infringement albeit in a different jurisdiction. Written by Anna Skurczynska, partner at Open Plan Law.

Law360: Ruling on the fairness of training generative artificial intelligence with copyrighted works without permission, two federal judges faced the same question—can machines replace human creators?