Copyright in the artwork
(ii) the Copyright ,Designs and Rules 1995 (as amended in 1999 and 2001) and lastly the Registered Design (Fees) Rules 1995 (amended 200l) Looking at the above legislation we see the laws on copyright have really developed and that copyright protection has been designed to provide a harmonised threshold for protection: thus databases which by reason of selection or arrangements of contents constitute the author's own intellectual creation shall be protected as such by copyright. In my opinion justice was done in Designer case, referring to the reward theory, where a person invests labour irrespective of their ulterior motives or the pleasure of pain, referring to Lord Bingham who commentary that: “[t]he law of copyright rests on the very clear principle that anyone who by his own skill and labour creates an original work of whatever character shall, for a limited period, enjoy an exclusive right to copy that work.
No one else may for a season reap what the copy right owner has sown”. This is to say that Copyright protection is granted because it is right and proper to do and that it is right to recognise a property in intellectual production because such production emanate from the mind of an individual author's. I also think that Designer increased the chance of justice being done in the future because it was from this case many legalisations have evolved, although the principle may be different from the case of Designer.
Conclusion
Copyright law should be about the general principle and it must be seen as a legal expression of gratitude to an author for doing more than what the society expects or feels they are obliged to do. Looking at it also in terms of natural right theory we find it on the idea of intellectual labour, where this draws the idea that a person has a natural right over the products of their labour. In which case it is argued an author should also have a natural right over the production of their intellectual labour.
Bibliography
Books
J, Holland and J, Webb, Learning Legal Rules (6th Oxford 2006) J, Phillips and A, Firth, Introduction to Intellectual Property Law (4th Butterworths Lexis)
Journals
R, Deazley, 2004, “Copyright in the House of Lords: Recent cases, judicial reasoning and academic writing”, Intellectual Property Quarterly, pp. 121-137 M, Chacksfield, 2001, The hedgehog and the fox a substantial part of the law of Copyright? European intellectual property Review, pp 259-262. EU Directive (2005/C 286/03)
Statute
Copyright Act 1988 s.16 (3). Copyright Designs protection 1988 s.16 (3) s 16(3). Registered Designs Act 1946
Websites
http://www.lawteacher.net/copyright law infringement .htm http://www.intellectual-property.gov.uk/faq/qwuestion1.htm http://www.intellectual-property .gov.uk/faq/pantents/what.htm
Table Of Cases
Designer Guild Ltd v Russell William (Textiles Ltd) [2001] Kenrick v.Lawrence [1890] Ladbroke (Football) Ltd v. William Hill (Football) Ltd (1964) Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd v Marks & Spencer [2002] Norowzian v Arks Ltd [2000] See Pro Sieben Media A.G.v. Carlton U.K Television Ltd [1999]
Article name: Copyright in the artwork essay, research paper, dissertation