Section 5(2) of the 1956 Act provided that ‘Copyright in a . . work is infringed by any person who . . imports an article . . if to his knowledge the making of that article constituted an infringement of that copyright, or would have constituted such an infringement if the article had been made … Continue reading Infabrics Ltd v Jaytex Shirt Co Ltd: 1978
The defendants had imported and distributed a series of ‘study notes’ for students which the plaintiffs alleged infringed the copyrights in the works under discussion. Held: The defendants had been ‘fixed with knowledge’ 14 days after letters before action sent by the plaintiffs, that being a reasonable time in which to consider their position. The … Continue reading Sillitoe v McGraw-Hill Book Co: 1983
The author had executed an assignment of the reversionary copyright interests in his musical works. The parties sought a declaration as to whether such an assignment was capable of being effective in law. Held: The agreement was effective. Judges: The Honourable Mr Justice Patten Citations: [2004] EWHC 766 (Ch), Times 20-May-2004 Links: Bailii Statutes: Copyright … Continue reading Novello and Company Limited v Keith Prowse Music Publishing Company Limited: ChD 7 Apr 2004
The court asked about the history of the assignability of a copyright reversion: ‘The Act of 1911 was repealed by the Copyright Act 1956; and the Act of 1956 contains no provision comparable to the proviso to section 5(2) of the Act of 1911. However by virtue of section 50 and paragraph 28 of the … Continue reading Redwood Music Ltd v Francis, Day and Hunter: 1978
Where a party fails to preserve documents after the commencement of proceedings, the defaulting party risks ‘adverse inferences’ being drawn for such ‘spoliation’. Because the defendant had not preserved documents affecting the quantum of damage, the maxim ‘omnia praesummuntur contra spoliatorem’ was applied against it. It was not enough for solicitors merely to give instructions … Continue reading Infabrics Ltd v Jaytex Ltd: 1985
Section 2(2) of the 1911 Act, which provided that ‘Copyright in a work shall also be deemed to be infringed by any person who . . (c) by way of trade exhibits in public . . any work which to his knowledge infringes copyright.’ The plaintiff owned copyrights in fashion illustrations for men’s clothes. In … Continue reading Van Dusen v Kritz: 1936
The claimant rights holders sought an order to require the defendant broadband internet provider to deny access to its users to websites which were said to facilitate the distribution of infringing copies of their films. An earlier judgment had . .
