A film whose defining and innovative characteristic was the editing which produced stylised jumps in the action, which were incapable of performance by the actor, was not a dramatic work protected by copyright. A film per se cannot be a dramatic work within the meaning of the 1988 Act, though it can be a recording of such a work for the purpose of section 3(2).
Judges:
Rattee J
Citations:
Times 27-Jul-1998, Gazette 16-Sep-1998, [1999] EMLR 67, [1998] EWHC 315 (Ch), [1999] FSR 79
Links:
Statutes:
Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 1(1)(a)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Mehdi Norowzian v Arks Ltd and Guinness Brewing Worldwide Limited (No 2) CA 11-Nov-1999
The claimant film artist showed a film to an advertising agency, who did not make use of it, but later appeared to use techniques and styles displayed in the film in subsequent material sold to third parties.
Held: A film was protected as a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Media, Intellectual Property
Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.136091
