“Copyright law protects foxes better than hedgehogs”. Per Lord Hoffmann in Designer Guild v Russell Williams [2000] 1 WLR 2416."
“Copyright law protects foxes better than hedgehogs”. Per Lord Hoffmann in Designer Guild v Russell Williams [2000] 1 WLR 2416. Discuss.”
Index
I. Introduction 3
i) Intellectual property 3 ii) Copy right 3
II. Case study 6
i) Facts of the case 6 ii) Decision of the chancery division and court of appeal 7 iii) Judgement of the House of Lords 9 iv) Lord Hoffman’s view on the case 9
III. Comparison of copyright to foxes and hedgehogs 10
IV. Conclusion 15
V. Bibliography 17
I. Introduction
i) Intellectual Property
“Intellectual property law is the creation of human mind, human intellect and hence it is called as intellectual property” CITATION Mat02 \l 16393 . It is a known fact that even an intellectual property faces diverse issues. It can be easily pirated by competitors. Piracy has become a serious threat to the protection of IP CITATION Mat02 \l 16393 . A product must arise out of the creativity and idea of a person CITATION Mat02 \l 16393 .
There are various divisions in the intellectual property - trademarks; patents; copyrights; rights in performances; registered designs; designs act CITATION Mat02 \l 16393 .
ii) Copyright
It is mentioned by the author Paul Torremans CITATION Mat02 \l 16393 that “Copyright has increasingly been used to protect the commercial exploitation of the work and new, more technological oriented, types of work have been protected by copyright”. The rule of copy right is essential as it protects the right of the artist and his creativity, which motivates him to work better and enjoy the fruits of his labour.
The author mentioned in his book CITATION Mat02 \l 16393 that copyright fulfils the ‘pro-competitive’ role that is filled, by the property right when it reaches the consumption and production level but an important distinction must be drawn; when compared to the property rights copyright is right which is
Index
I. Introduction 3
i) Intellectual property 3 ii) Copy right 3
II. Case study 6
i) Facts of the case 6 ii) Decision of the chancery division and court of appeal 7 iii) Judgement of the House of Lords 9 iv) Lord Hoffman’s view on the case 9
III. Comparison of copyright to foxes and hedgehogs 10
IV. Conclusion 15
V. Bibliography 17
I. Introduction
i) Intellectual Property
“Intellectual property law is the creation of human mind, human intellect and hence it is called as intellectual property” CITATION Mat02 \l 16393 . It is a known fact that even an intellectual property faces diverse issues. It can be easily pirated by competitors. Piracy has become a serious threat to the protection of IP CITATION Mat02 \l 16393 . A product must arise out of the creativity and idea of a person CITATION Mat02 \l 16393 .
There are various divisions in the intellectual property - trademarks; patents; copyrights; rights in performances; registered designs; designs act CITATION Mat02 \l 16393 .
ii) Copyright
It is mentioned by the author Paul Torremans CITATION Mat02 \l 16393 that “Copyright has increasingly been used to protect the commercial exploitation of the work and new, more technological oriented, types of work have been protected by copyright”. The rule of copy right is essential as it protects the right of the artist and his creativity, which motivates him to work better and enjoy the fruits of his labour.
The author mentioned in his book CITATION Mat02 \l 16393 that copyright fulfils the ‘pro-competitive’ role that is filled, by the property right when it reaches the consumption and production level but an important distinction must be drawn; when compared to the property rights copyright is right which is
Bibliography: Books I.Brainbridge, D., 2010 Torremans, P., 2013. Intellectual Property Law. 7th edition ed. s.l.:Holyoak & torremans. Wadehra, B., 1999. Law relating to Intellectual Property. fifth edition ed. new delhi India: Universal Law publishing Co. . Chacksfield, M., 2001. The Hedgehog and the fox, a substaintial part of the law of copyright?. European Intellectual Property Review, pp. E.I.P.R 259-262. Harris, M., 2002. Unregistered design right;nature of reproduction required for infringment-comparision with copyright-hedgehogs and foxes, s.l.: European Intellectual Property Report Review. Michael Spencer, T. E., 2005. Vagueness in the scope of copyright. Law Quaterly Review. Patry, W., 2008. Metaphors and Moral Panics in Copyright:the stepen stewart Memorial Lecture,November 13,2007. Intellectual Property Quaterly, pp. 1-13. Kenrick & Co. V. Lawrence & Co.(1890)25 Q.B.D.99. Berkey v. Third Avenue Railway Co 244 N.Y.84 at 94 (1926). Holmes v. Hurst 174 U.S.82 at 86(1899)