An amazing decision of the Patents County Court — Temple Island v. New England Teas — that a person who stood in the same place as a previous photograph, and took a photograph which looks a bit similar, infringed the copyright in the original photograph.
The judge held that the defendant "cannot have ... a southbound Routemaster on Westminster Bridge before the Houses of Parliament at the same angle as the claimant's work on a greyscale background and a white sky, in circumstances where they have admitted seeing the claimant's work."
I am lost for words with this one...
This case reminded me of Ian's comment that English copyright law had its roots in the protection of economic interests, as opposed to the more European concept of protecting an author's moral rights to a work.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if the result would have been the same if the judge had asked himself whether the plaintiff could legitimately complain that the second work undermined the artistic integrity of the original? I suspect not, because to my mind the second work is a distinct work that perhaps copies an idea, but in no way impacts the original.
I did smile at the judge's care in pointing out that the evidence presented relating to "Another matter" had been ignored and not played a role in his decision. Really?
Interesting! The case reminds me in some respects of the Lotus v Paperback decision from the US which was the high water point of look and feel protection for software. It was widely criticised as bringing about the 'patentisation of copyright' and you could say much the same of this case.
ReplyDeleteI suspect, and perhaps someone more familiar with civil law systems could comment, that a case might lie under the law of unfair competition but this concept is alien to English Law. I wonder also why trademark protection had not been sought for the image?
It would be interesting to see what the Court of Appeal would make of the case.
ReplyDeleteto my mind the second work is a distinct work that perhaps copies an idea, but in no way impacts the original.
I would agree.
I think that Ian's reference to software GUIs is particularly apt here — and perhaps very worrying, as I sense a creeping trend towards the protection of GUIs and thus software interactions through copyright.