The defendant had a cuttings service, and distributed selected articles amongst its staff. The Agency complained that this amounted to copying a substantial part of the editions from which the cuttings were taken. There was no typographical copyright infringed as the layout had changed, and the work referred to was the entire paper edition, and the question of what was a substantial part of the edition was a matter of impression. The statutory definition of a ‘published edition’ meant that copyright could subsist in the typographical arrangement of the newspaper as a whole.
Judges:
Lord Justice Mance Lord Justice Chadwick Lord Justice Peter Gibson
Citations:
Times 15-Jun-2000, Gazette 22-Jun-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 179, [2001] Ch 257
Links:
Statutes:
Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 30(2)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – The Newspaper Licensing Agency Limited v Marks and Spencer Plc PatC 19-Jan-1999
The daily circulation within a large company of press cuttings was outside the scope of the reporting of current events defences to copyright infringement. Ownership of the typographical arrangement of a newspaper article sufficed to found a claim. . .
Appealed to – Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd v Marks and Spencer Plc HL 12-Jul-2001
The respondent company subscribed to a cuttings service, but redistributed the cuttings within its offices. The cuttings agency claimed that the re-distribution infringed their rights in the typographical arrangement. The cuttings did not give any . .
Cited by:
Appealed to – The Newspaper Licensing Agency Limited v Marks and Spencer Plc PatC 19-Jan-1999
The daily circulation within a large company of press cuttings was outside the scope of the reporting of current events defences to copyright infringement. Ownership of the typographical arrangement of a newspaper article sufficed to found a claim. . .
Appeal from – Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd v Marks and Spencer Plc HL 12-Jul-2001
The respondent company subscribed to a cuttings service, but redistributed the cuttings within its offices. The cuttings agency claimed that the re-distribution infringed their rights in the typographical arrangement. The cuttings did not give any . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property, Media
Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147212