ECJ (Opinion) Directive 2001/29 – Articles 2 and 5 – Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society – Reproduction right – Exceptions and limitations – Temporary acts of reproduction – Monitoring and analysis of the media – Extracts from newspaper articles composed of 11 words.
 EUECJ C-5/08 – O, C-5/08
Opinion – Infopaq International v Danske Dagblades Forening ECJ 17-Jul-2009
ECJ Copyright Information society – Directive 2001/29/EC Articles 2 and 5 – Literary and artistic works – Concept of ‘reproduction’ Reproduction ‘in part’ Reproduction of short extracts of literary works – . .
Cited – Football Dataco Ltd and Others v Brittens Pools Ltd (In Action 3222) and Others ChD 23-Apr-2010
The court considered what rights existed in the annual football fixture lists created by the claimants. The claimants said that the list was created only with a considerable effort applying certain rules. The defendants denied that any copyright . .
Cited – Meakin v British Broadcasting Corporation and Others ChD 27-Jul-2010
The claimant alleged that the proposal for a game show submitted by him had been used by the various defendants. He alleged breaches of copyright and of confidence. Application was now made to strike out the claim. . .
Applied – The Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd and Others v Meltwater Holding Bv and Others CA 27-Jul-2011
The defendant companies provided media monitoring services, automatically searching web-sites for terms of interest. The claimant newspapers operated a licensing system through the first claimant permitting the re-use of the content on its members . .
Opinion – Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening ECJ 17-Jan-2012
ECJ Copyright – Information society – Directive 2001/29/EC – Article 5(1) and (5) – Literary and artistic works – Reproduction of short extracts of literary works – Newspaper articles – Temporary and transient . .
Cited – Sheeran and Others v Chokri and Others ChD 6-Apr-2022
Insufficient Evidence to say Song was Copied
S sought a declaration that he had not copied the defendant’s song with his own. The court examined the musical details of both songs.
Held: The song was not copied. The defendant had not shown that the claimant knew anything of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 April 2022; Ref: scu.408856