An implied licence is limited to what is in the joint contemplation of the parties at the date of the contract, and does not extend to enable the Client to take advantage of a new unexpected profitable opportunity.
Uthwatt J said: ‘It was contended on behalf of the defendants that there could not be a separate copyright in a building as distinct from a copyright in the plans on which the building was based, and that, if there were a separate copyright in the building, the copyright was in the builder. In the present case, neither of these contentions is material, except in so far as the correctness of either of them may affect the quantum of damages. Upon the first contention, it is argued that the originality lies in the plan, and that, therefore, there can be none in the building which reproduces the plans. Upon the second contention, it is said that , wherever originality may lie, the author, for copyright purposes, is the builder who has built the building, and not the architect responsible for the plans. In my opinion, neither contention is well-founded. As regards these contentions, an architectural plan finds its meaning and purpose in the use to which it is put. The point of the architect’s activities is not the making of plans as such, but the embodiment in the building of artistic and other ideas which he has in mind and which are contained in his plan. The plan is a means to an end, and not an end in itself. To deny originality to the artistic design embodied in a building by attributing originality only to the plans which led to the building would be to give reality to the shadow and refuse it to the substance.’
Judges:
Uthwatt J
Citations:
[1941] 3 All ER 144
Cited by:
Cited – Robin Ray v Classic FM Plc PatC 18-Mar-1998
Contractor and Client Copyrights
The plaintiff had contributed a design for a system of classifying and selecting tracks to be played on a radio station. He did so under a consultancy contract.
Held: A Joint authorship claim required that the contributor had made some direct . .
Cited – R Griggs Group Ltd, R Griggs and Co Ltd, Airwair Ltd v Evans, Raben Footwear Pty Ltd, Lewy, Lewy CA 25-Jan-2005
The claimants distributed Doc Marten footwear. They asked an agency to prepare a logo. The agency paid an independent contractor to prepare it, but did not take an assignment of copyright to it. The contractor sold the rights in the logo to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property
Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.188604