Implied Licences in Copyright Law
POORNA MYSOOR
Leverhulme Trust Early Career Fellow Faculty of Law, University of Oxford
3
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, United Kingdom
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries
© Poorna Mysoor 2021
The moral rights of the author have been asserted
First Edition published in 2021
Impression: 1
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above
You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer
Crown copyright material is reproduced under Class Licence Number C01P0000148 with the permission of OPSI and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Control Number: 2020947861
ISBN 978–0–19–885819–5
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198858195.001.0001
Printed and bound by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY
Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third party website referenced in this work.
For my father
Foreword
Many systems of laws, including state constitutions, operate with an underpinning of unspoken conventions or assumptions. The rationale for this is usually a combination of considerations of economy and efficiency—too many rules can impede the conduct of everyday life—and there is also the understandable desire to have a flexibility that will enable new cases to be resolved promptly without the need to engage in fresh law-making. Copyright laws provide a paradigmatic instance of this phenomenon: there are specific rules prescribing the exclusive rights to be granted to copyright owners, the limits on these rights in both substantive and temporal terms, and their enforcement. But there are many usages of protected works and subject matter not covered by the rules: while strictly infringing, users would mostly be surprised that this is so and, indeed, mostly assume that this is not the case. This is not a matter where guidance for national laws is to be found at the international level in the treaties to which the vast majority of countries are now bound, such as the Berne Convention, the WIPO Internet Treaties, or the TRIPs Agreement.
It is within the gaps between rights and uses that the device of the implied licence comes into play. In common law systems, at least, this flows from judicial decisions rendered on a case-by-case basis, although it is also true that in some instances it is assumed that an implied licence applies even in the absence of any court finding. For common lawyers, this may represent the genius of their legal tradition where judicial decisions in areas not directly covered by statute proceed incrementally by way of analogical reasoning and, over time, develop a body of case law that provides either binding or persuasive precedents for future courts to apply. Such developments, however, take time, particularly as the circumstances and uses to be addressed are themselves in flux and in the process of rapid evolution. This is no surprise to those involved in copyright law and practice: technological change and development are part of everyday life. It should also be no surprise that the case law concerned with implied copyright licences presents, at first sight, as a somewhat amorphous and disorganised body of jurisprudence that lacks the coherence that one finds in other, longer established common law areas such as the tort of negligence or the law of contract.
Providing a systematic study of this aspect of copyright law is the subject of this monograph by Dr Poorna Mysoor, and one that has been long overdue. She provides here an analytical framework for the examination of implied copyright licences in common law systems, with the object of formulating a workable methodology for courts to apply in future cases. For understandable reasons, her work is
confined to common law jurisdictions, apart from the USA (the latter presents its own peculiarities), while the position under civil law systems is clearly a promising subject for future investigations of a comparative kind. But even within common law systems such as the UK, Australia, and Canada, the body of material to be examined is large, and the distillation of clear principles is not always easy—judges have to decide the cases before them, and frequently do not have the time or the need to spell out the analytical framework within which they are making those decisions. In this regard, Dr Mysoor’s monograph will be invaluable in providing that framework and in making sense of the cases.
Beginning with the adoption of Wesley Hohfeld’s classification of rights and duties, privileges and no-rights, Dr Mysoor divides implied copyright licences into bare and contractual licences, which becomes of particular relevance in the context of revocability. She then investigates the various bases for implication: the consent of the copyright owner to the use in question, the role of custom and, most controversially, the role of policy. She then carefully examines how these matters have been dealt with in the case law. In relation to the first, it becomes clear that the issue of consent is better understood as an inquiry into the knowledge of the copyright owner of what was contemplated at the time the copyright work was made available (the ‘positive act’, in Hohfeldian terms) and the effect of the copyright owner’s subsequent conduct in relation to this (the ‘neutral act’, in Hohfeldian terms). In this regard, she argues that analogies drawn from implication of contractual terms (business efficacy and necessity) are not necessarily appropriate in the copyright licence context. In the second case of implication arising through custom, she examines the scope for this in various areas of copyright uses, noting that implication here becomes non-consensual in relation to the individual copyright owner or, rather, consent is imputed on the basis of a collective consent that has developed through the consistent and uniform practice of the relevant copyright community. This has particular resonance in the age of the internet, where it is often said that there are now well established customs of usage, although the challenges of proving custom will be far from straightforward.
In the third instance, that of policy-based implied licences, Dr Mysoor confronts a complex and often unwieldly beast, yet it is one that judges in several of the jurisdictions studied have embraced in differing ways. A clear methodology for implying licences in these cases, in the absence of some specific statutory limitation or exception, is required, and here Dr Mysoor deploys the three-step test (relevant to all of the common law systems studied by her, as a result of their international obligations) as a useful guide, as well as pointing to the application of fundamental rights under the European Convention on Human Rights in the particular case of the UK. Her analysis is crisp and well informed, and there is much food for thought here, as there is a fine line between judges providing workable solutions to practical problems or becoming judicial legislators. In her concluding chapters, Dr Mysoor
then applies her analytical framework to three particular issues in the online environment: browsing, linking, and indexing. There is much in this monograph to engage, challenge, and instruct the reader. Implied copyright licences provide the lubricant that oils the everyday usage of copyright materials, yet the theoretical bases for implication have never been systematically analysed. Dr Mysoor has done just that, and provides an important contribution to our understanding of the way in which courts in a common law jurisdiction can facilitate the smoother working of the copyright system. She is to be congratulated on her achievement.
Sam Ricketson Emeritus Professor of Law
Melbourne Law School
2 October 2020
Preface
The monograph is derived from my DPhil thesis submitted in April 2017. Since the time of submitting my thesis, the topic has grown on me and I have grown with it. My engagement with this topic has been enriched by every audience to whom I had the privilege to present. Although my core arguments and conclusions have remained the same, my approach to these arguments and the manner of presenting them to a wider audience has undergone significant changes.
When this topic was suggested to me in 2012 for a doctoral thesis, I had imagined that I would be writing a law and technology thesis. Implied licence seemed to be an interesting topic because of its application to the internet. However, starting a doctorate in Oxford on this topic made all the difference to the way I understood this topic. I soon realised that the internet is only an illustration of the application of implied licences. For implied licences to provide any meaningful support to judicial reasoning, one must understand what a ‘licence’ is, what one means by ‘implying’ a licence and finally, how one may go about implying a copyright licence. This brought me close to not only the private law subjects of contract law and land law, but also to private law methodology and values—the fine balance between guidance and flexibility, the strenghts and pitfalls of certainty, the idea of fairness, to name a few. The exposure to private law was a defining moment in my journey towards building my research profile and honing my niche at the intersection of private law and intellectual property law. This is my first monograph arising from this niche.
Characteristically, the audience for private law is different from the audience for intellectual property law. This monograph tries to address both these audiences. The underlying private law concepts will be immediately familiar to private lawyers, whereas their application to copyright law may speak to intellectual property lawyers more. This is the beginning of a conversation where an effort is made to more closely integrate copyright law with private law.
Acknowledgements
This work would not have been possible without the mentorship and continued encouragement of my doctoral supervisor, Professor Graeme Dinwoodie. For this, I will always be grateful. I thank Professor John Cartwright for his patience, empathy, and time in reading my earlier drafts and giving me detailed comments. I am grateful for all the feedback and guidance I have received from Professor Dev Gangjee and Professor Robert Burrell at the Law Faculty at Oxford.
I am deeply indebted to the Leverhulme Trust for supporting the completion of this monograph. The research visits made possible by the Trust during my Early Career Fellowship deepened my engagement with this topic and remarkably transformed the way I presented this book. I am deeply thankful to Professor Sam Ricketson and Professor Megan Richardson for their generosity with their time and for the helpful discussion we had when I was a Visiting Fellow at the Intellectual Property Research Centre of Australia in 2019. Many thanks are also owed to Professor Elise Bant and Professor Andrew Christie, whose comments were particularly helpful. I am also grateful to Professor David Tan and the EW Barker Centre for Business Law for hosting me at the Law Faculty, National University of Singapore. The discussions I had with Professor David Tan, Professor Wee Loon Loy, Professor James Penner, and Professor Umakanth Varottil were engaging and incisive. I am thankful to Professor Kung Chung Liu for inviting me to Singapore Management University to present my work to an enthusiastic private law audience. My particular thanks go to Professor Tham Chee Ho, who took time to discuss the finer aspects of private law with me, and to Professor David Llewelyn for his insightful comments. I am also grateful to Dr Pascale Chapdelaine for her generous invitation for me to visit Windsor Law School, Ontario. I learnt a great deal presenting to the audience at the LTEC Lab. Many thanks to Professor David Vaver for taking time to discuss and share Canadian copyright law resources with me. Many thanks also to Professor Lionel Bently for inviting me to present at CIPIL and to Dr Henning Grosse Ruse-Khan for his helpful suggestions. The feedback I received from the audience was influential in shaping my work. I extend my gratitude also to The Queen’s College, Oxford, for offering me a ‘home’ during my postdoctoral fellowship and to Professor Nicholas Bamforth for his support, encouragement, and friendship.
My special thanks to Jyothsna Gurumurthy for all her hard work, diligence, and excellent research assistance. This work was completed during the worst of the pandemic of 2020 when the Bodleian Law Library had been shut for months. Even through these difficult times, the unwavering support lent by the Bodleian
Law Library staff speaks volumes for their excellence and dedication. I would like to make a special mention of the help I received from Katherine Jackson, Margaret Watson and the Bodleian Law Librarian, Helen Garner. Many thanks also to my dear friends Dr Pascal Kesseli, a computer scientist, and Kalpana Sivabala, for her help with EU law. A big thank you to all my private law and IP law students who constantly challenge me and enrich my research.
Lastly, but most importantly, I cannot thank my parents enough for always believing in me, and Anup for looking after me.
Figure
A1P1
Table of Cases
UNITED KINGDOM
A&M Records Limited v Video Collection International Limited [1995] EMLR 25 107–8
American Cynamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396 .
Anglo-African Merchants Ltd v Bayley [1970] 1 QB 311
Armstrong v Sheppard & Short Ltd [1959] 2 QB 384
.219–20
148, 149
98
Ashdown v Telegraph Group Ltd [2001] Ch 685 203–4, 209, 227 [2002] Ch 149 .
Atelier Eighty Two v Kilnworx [2015] EWHC 2291 (IPEC)
Attorney General v Belize [2009] UKPC 10
Attorney General v Guardian Newspaper [1990] 1 AC 109
203–4, 220–21, 227–28
.114–15
101–2
217–19, 220–21
Banier v News Group Newspapers Ltd [1997] FSR 812 160, 161
Banks v CBS Songs Ltd [1996] EMLR 440 13, 65–66, 67–68, 72, 74, 77–78, 81, 82, 83, 89, 275, 290–91
Barrett v Universal Island Records Ltd [2006] EWHC 1009 (Ch)
. 76, 84–85, 106–7, 137
Beckingham v Hodgens [2002] EWHC 2143 (Ch) 69–70, 72, 79, 80–81, 84, 89, 93, 95–97 [2003] EWCA Civ 143 69–70, 79, 89
Beggars Banquet Records Ltd v Carlton Television Ltd [1993] EMLR 349 219–20
Beloff v Pressdram Ltd [1973] FSR 33
Betts v Willmott (1870-71) LR 6 Ch App 239
Blair v Osborne [1971] 2 QB 78
.201–2, 215
176, 177, 181–82, 184, 187
. . . . 13, 102, 105–6, 121–22, 123, 125–29, 130, 173–74
Bowden Brothers v Amalgamated Pictorials Ltd [1911] 1 Ch 386 134
BP Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd v Shire of Hastings (1978) 52 ALJR 20 108
Brighton v Jones [2004] EWHC 1157 (Ch) 68, 71–72, 75–76, 78, 83–84, 90, 92–93, 98, 236–37
Brigid Foley Ltd v Ellot [1982] RPC 433
139
British Leyland Motor Company Ltd v Armstrong Patent Company Ltd [1982] FSR 481 154–55 [1984] FSR 591 210–11 [1986] FSR 221; [1986] 1 All ER 850 182–83, 210, 211–12, 213
CBS United Kingdom Ltd v Charmdale Record Distributors Ltd [1981] 1 Ch 91 . . . . . . . 18–19
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Green Cartridge Co (Hong Kong) Ltd [1997] AC 728 . . . . . 212, 213, 214
Clearsprings Management Ltd v Businesslinx Ltd [2005] EWHC 1487 (Ch) 130–31, 140–41, 150, 163
Cobbe v Yeaoman’s Row [2008] UKHL 55 92
Coward v Phaestos Ltd [2013] EWHC 1292 (Ch) 115–16
Confetti Records v Warner Music UK Ltd [2003] EWHC 1274 (Ch) .
Cream Holdings Ltd v Banerjee [2005] 1 AC 253
Crossley v Faithful & Gould Holdings Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 293
102–3, 132–33
221
.170–72
Cunliffe-Owen v Teacher and Greenwood [1967] 1 WLR 1421 34, 40, 142–43, 144–45, 146–47, 148, 150
Danowski v Henry Moore Foundation [1996] EMLR 364 (CA)
Drabble (Harold) Ltd v Hycolite Manufacturing Co (1923-28) MCC 322
.164–66
107
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co v Neal (1899) 16 RPC 247 182
Dyson Ltd v Qualtex (UK) Ltd [2004] EWHC 2981 (Ch) 188
EMI Records Ltd v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd [2013] EWHC 379 (Ch) 226–27
Express Newspapers Plc v News (UK) Ltd [1990] 3 All ER 376
. 13, 142–43, 155–56, 157, 162–63, 168, 267–68
Fisher v Brooker [2006] EWHC 3239 (Ch) 69–70, 72, 79, 84, 93, 94–95, 96–97 [2008] EWCA Civ 287 93 [2009] UKHL 41 (HL) 47, 48, 79, 89, 93–94
Gabay v Lloyd [1825] 107 ER 927
Gardner & Sons Ltd v Paul Sykes Organisation Ltd [1981] FSR 281 .
Geys v Société Générale [2013] 1 AC 523
147
.185, 187
40
Glyn v Weston Feature Film Co [1916] 1 Ch 261 217, 218
Godfrey v Lees [1995] EMLR 307 69, 72, 76–77, 79, 81, 84, 89, 90, 93, 94, 96,96–97, 99
Goodwin v Robarts (1875) 1 App Cas 476 (HL) .
Grisbrook v MGN Ltd [2009] EWHC 2520 (Ch) .
.144–45
136–37, 140–41, 150 [2010] EWCA Civ 1399 137 Holden v White [1982] QB 679 39
HRH Prince of Wales v Associated Press [2006] EWHC 522 (Ch) .
Hubbard v Vosper [1972] 2 QB 84
Hunter v Fitzroy Robinson & Partners [1978] FSR 167
Hunter v Canary Wharf [1997] AC 665
Hyde Park Residence Ltd v Yelland [1999] EMLR 654
. 220–21, 228
201
.124–25
16
218n.82 [2000] EMLR 363
Infabrics Ltd v Jaytex Ltd [1981] 1 All ER 1057
Initial Services Ltd v Putterill [1968] 1 QB 396
.207–9, 218
Jennings v Rice [2002] EWCA Civ 159 90–91
King v David Allen [1916] 2 AC 54 16
Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Council [1999] 2 AC 349 144–45
Lion Laboratories Ltd v Evans [1985] QB 526
Liverpool City Council v Irwin [1977] AC 239
204–5, 215, 221
40, 56, 108, 170, 171, 172
Lucasfilm Ltd v Ainsworth [2008] EWHC 1878 (Ch) 111–13, 188n.67 [2009] EWCA Civ 1328 111–12 [2012] 1AC 208 [7] 111–12
Marks and Spencer v BNP Paribas [2015] UKSC 72
Mars UK Ltd v Teknowledge Ltd [2000] ECDR 99
Massine v de Basil [1936-45] MCC 233
37–38, 40, 101–2
213, 214
107
Muir Dorrans v The Shand Partnership 2003 Scot (D) 21/12 125–26, 130, 175 National Westminster Bank Plc v Morgan [1985] AC 686 149
Nelson v Dahl (1879) 12 Ch D 568 145, 146, 147, 150
Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd v Meltwater Holding BV CT114/09 (Copyright Tribunal)
272–73, 280 [2010] EWHC 3099 (Ch)
. 2–3, 247–48, 253–54, 262–63, 279–80 [2011] EWCA Civ 890 .247–48
Nickerson v Barraclough [1980] Ch 325 40
North and South Trust Co v Berkeley [1971] 1 WLR 470 148
Pasterfield v Denham [1999] FSR 168
Perry v Barnett (1885) 15 QBD 388
107
148
Philips Electronique v BSB Ltd [1995] EMLR 472 38–39, 108
Produce Brokers Co Ltd v Olympia Oil and Cake Co Ltd [1916] 2 KB 296 147
Public Relations Consultants Association Ltd v The Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd [2013] UKSC 18
. .243, 244–45, 248–49, 250–51, 253–54
R Griggs v Evans [2003] EWHC 2914 (Ch)
109–11, 112, 113–14 [2005] EWCA Civ 11 110
Redwood Music Ltd v Chappell & Co. Ltd [1982] RPC 109 134
Reid v Rush and Tompkins Group Plc [1990] 1 WLR 212 (CA) 170–72
Roberts v Candiware Ltd [1980] FSR 352
Robin Ray v Classic FM [1998] EWHC Patents 333
139
. 104, 105–6, 107–9, 110–11, 112, 113–14, 117–18, 130, 190–91
Robinson v Mollett [1874-75] LR 7 HL 802 147
Sagar v H Ridehalgh and Son Ltd [1931] 1 Ch 310 145–46
Saphena Computing v Allied Collection Agencies [1995] FSR 616 119–20, 188
Sawkins v Hyperion Records Ltd [2004] EWHC 1530 (Ch)
Scally v Southern Health and Social Services Board [1992] 1 AC 294
Schütz (UK) Ltd v Werit (UK) Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 303
135
.170–72
.182–83
Service Corporation International Plc v Channel Four Television Corporation [1999] EMLR 83 205–7, 208–9, 221
Shirlaw v Southern Foundries [1939] 2 KB 206.
101 [1940] AC 701
Sirdar Rubber Company Limited v Wallington, Weston & Co (1907) 24 RPC 539
101
182
Solar Thomson Engineering Co Ltd v Barton [1977] RPC 537 13, 183–84, 185–86, 187, 210–11, 246, 296
Springfield v Thame (1903) 89 LT 242.
Stovin-Bradford v Volpoint Properties Ltd [1971] 3 All ER 570
155
. 122–23, 126–27, 128–29, 175
Strathlorne Steamship Co Ltd v Hugh Bird & Sons Ltd [1916] SC 134 146, 149
Taylors Fashions Ltd v Liverpool Victoria Trustees Co Ltd [1982] QB 133 91–92, 97
The Moorcock (1889) 14 PD 64 101
Thomas v Sorrell (1672) Vaugh 330
Thorner v Major [2009] UKHL 18.
Tucker v Linger (1882) 21 Ch D 18
7–8, 15–16, 19, 20, 21, 154–55
91–92
150
Tumber v Independent Television News Limtied, [2017] EWHC 3093 (IPEC) 68–69, 73, 87, 158–59, 236–37
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation v British telecommunications Plc [2011] EWHC 1981 (Ch)
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation v Newzbin Ltd [2010] EWHC 608 (Ch) .
222, 226–27n.123
.251–52
Ultraframe UK Ltd v Alan Clayton [2002] EWHC 1964 (Ch) 188
United Wire Ltd v Screen Repair Services (Scotland) Ltd [2001] FSR 24 182–83, 184, 187
Walter v Lane [1900] AC 539 155–56, 157
Walter v Steinkopff [1892] 3 Ch 489 .
Warner Music UK Ltd v TuneIn Inc [2019] EWHC 2923 (Ch) .
156
. 236, 259–61, 263–64, 266–67, 272–73, 280–81, 285–86
Wayling v Jones (1993) 69 P & CR 170 (CA) 92
Weir Pumps Ltd v CML Pumps Ltd [1984] FSR 33 185–86, 187
Wheat v Google LLC [2020] EWHC 27 (Ch) .
Wilkinson v London Strategic Health Authority [2012] EWPCC 48
256n.3
.118–19
Willmott v Barber (1880) 15 Ch D 96 91–95
Wood v Wood (1823) 1 C & P 59 145
Wrenn v Landamore [2007] EWHC 1833 (Ch) .
[2008] EWCA Civ 496
COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION
Case C-275/06 Promusicae v Telefonica ECLI:EU:C:2008:54 . . .
Case C-5/08 Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening
196–97, 226–27
ECLI:EU:C:2009:465 243
Case C-403/08 Football Association Premier League Ltd v QC Leisure
ECLI:EU:C:2011:631 248
Case C-70/10 Scarlet Extended v SABAM ECLI:EU:C:2011:771 .
Case C-128/11UsedSoft v Oracle ECLI:EU:C:2012:407 .
. 196–97, 226–27
Case C-314/12 UPC Telekabel Wien GmbH v Constantin Film Verleih GmbH
177
ECLI:EU:C:2014:192 222, 226–27
Case C-466/12 Svensson v Retriever Sverige AB ECLI:EU:C:2014:76 258–59, 260–61, 264–65, 270, 280–81
Case C-201/13 Deckmyn v Vandersteen ECLI:EU:C:2014:2132 .
222, 225–26
Case C-279/13 C More Entertainment AB v Linus Sandberg ECLI:EU:C:2015:199 . . . . . . 265
Case C-348/13 Bestwater International GmbH v Michael Mebes ECLI:EU:C:2014:2315 265
Case C360/13 Public Relations Consultants Association Ltd v Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd ECLI:EU:C:2014:1195 248
Case C-30/14 Rynair Ltd v PR Aviation BV ECLI:EU:C:2015:10 .
Case C-484/14 McFadden v Sony Music ECLI:EU:C:2016:689
.238–39
222, 226–27
Case C-160/15 GS Media BV v Sanoma Media Netherlands BV ECLI:EU:C:2016:644 13, 225–26, 265–66, 270, 280–81, 282–83, 287
Case C-301/15 Soulier and Doke v Premier Ministre and Ministre de la Culture et de la Communication ECLI:EU:C:2016:878
Case C-527/15 Stichting Brein v Wullems
Advocate General’s opinion: ECLI:EU:C:2016:938
Judgment: ECLI:EU:C:2017:300
5–6, 259
250
250, 251–53, 282–83
Case C-610/15 Stichting Brein v Ziggo BV ECLI:EU:C:2017:456 272–73, 282–83
Case C-161/17 Land Nordrhein-Westfalen v Renckhoff
ECLI:EU:C:2018:634
Case C-469/17 Funke Meiden v Bundespublik
ECLI:EU:C:2019:623
Case C-476/17 Pelham v Ralf Hütter
ECLI:EU:C:2019:624
Case C-516/17 Spiegel Online GmbH v Volker Beck
236–37, 261
2, 196–97, 225–26
2, 196–97, 225–26
ECLI:EU:C:2019:625 2, 196–97, 225–26
Case C-263/18 Nederlands Uitgeversverbond v Tom Kabinet Internet BV
ECLI:EU:C:2019:1111
177
Joined Cases C-682/18 and C-683/18 Frank Peterson v Google and Elsevier v Cyando Advocate General’s opinion: ECLI:EU:C:2020:586 282–83, 284, 287–88
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Ahmet Yildirim v Turkey App no 3111/10 (ECtHR, 18 December 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . .224–25
Ashby Donald v France App no 36769/08 (ECtHR, 10 January 2013) 224–25
Balan v Moldova App no 19247/03 (ECtHR, 29 January 2008) 223
Dima v Romania App No 58472/00 (ECtHR, 26 May 2005) 223
Frederik Neij v Sweden App no 40397/12 (ECtHR, 19 February 2013) 224–25
Times Newspapers Ltd v UK (Nos 1 and 2) App nos 3002/03 and 23676/03 (ECtHR, 10 March 2009) .
Wojtas-Kaleta v Poland App no 20436/02 (ECtHR, 16 July 2009) . . . . .
AUSTRALIA
.224–25
.224–25
Achos Pty Ltd v RA Bashford Consulting Pty Ltd (1997) 144 ALR 528 . . . . . . . . . 131, 189–94, 195, 198–99, 207, 214–16, 296
Achos Pty Ltd v Ucorp Pty Ltd (2010) 86 IPR 492 193–94 (2012) 287 ALR 403 131, 189–92, 193–95, 214–16, 295
Anderson v Wadey (1899) 20 LR (NSW) 412
Andritz Sprout-Bauer Australia Pty Ltd v Rowland Engineering Sales Pty Ltd (1993) 28 IPR 29
.145–46
115
A-One Accessory Imports Pty Ltd v Off Road Imports Pty Ltd & King (no 2) (1996) 34 IPR 332 198–99
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd (2001) 185 ALR 1
Beck v Montana Constructions Pty Ltd [1963] FLR 298
206
. 121–22, 125–27, 128–29, 173–74, 190–91
Boyapati v Rockefeller Management Corporation (2008) FCA 995 157–58
Centrestage Management Pty Ltd v Riedle (2007) FMCA 1147 119–20, 188 (2008) 77 IPR 550
Collier Constructions Pty Ltd v Foskett Pty Ltd (1990) 97 ALR 460
. .119–20
. .58, 198–99
Commonwealth v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd [1980] 147 CLR 39 . . . . . . . . 201–3, 204, 205, 207
Computermate Products (Aust) Pty Ltd v Ozi-Soft Pty Ltd (1988) 83 ALR 492 179–80
Concrete Pty Ltd v Parramatta Design and Developments Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 1312.
120–21, 126–27, 130, 174–75 (2005) 144 FCR 264
.126–27 (2006) 231 ALR 663
4–5, 67, 80, 120–21, 126–28, 129, 130, 141, 173–75, 195
Con-Stan Industries v Norwich Winterthur Insurance (Aust) Ltd (1986) 64 ALR 481 143–44, 145–47
Copyright Agency Ltd v New South Wales (2008) 233 CLR 279
De Garis v Neville Jeffress Pidler Pty Ltd (1990) 95 ALR 625
Devefi Pty Ltd v Mateffy Perl Nagy Pty Ltd (1993) 113 ALR 225
George Defteros v Google LLC [2020] VSC 219
186
140, 158–59
. 120–21, 126, 173–74
.255–56
Gold Peg International Pty Ltd v Kovan Engineering (Aust) Pty Ltd (2005) FCA 1521 113–14 (2006) 234 ALR 241
Gruzman v Percy Marks (1989) 16 IPR 87
Hexagon Pty Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Commission (1975) 7 ALR 233 .
.113–14
87–88, 104–5
.112–13
Intelmail explorenet Pty Ltd v Vardanian (No 2) (2009) FCA 1018 114–15
Interstate Parcel Express Co v Time-Life International (1977) 138 CLR 534 67, 179–80
JWH Group v Kimpura, [2004] WASC 39 126
Kalamazoo (Aust) Pty Ltd v Compact Business Systems Pty Ltd (1985) 5 IPR 213. . . . .198–99
Larrikin Music Publishing Pty Ltd v EMI Songs Australia Pty Ltd (2009) 179 FCR 169
133, 136 [2011] FCAFC 47 136
Lorenzo & Sons Pty Ltd v Roland Corporation (1992) 23 IPR 376 179–80
Majeau Carrying Co Pty Ltd v Coastal Rutile Ltd (1973) 1 ALR 1 145–46, 150
Ng v Clyde Securities [1976]1 NSWLR 443 87–88, 104–5
R&A Bailey & Co Ltd v Boccaccio Pty Ltd & Pacific Wine Co Pty Ltd (1986) 77 ALR 177
Rebeschini v Miles Laboratories (1982) 1 IPR 159
.179–80
70, 72–73, 80
Sanofi-Aventis Australia Pty Ltd v Apotex Pty Ltd (2011) 281 ALR 705 161, 162, 168, 216 [2012] FCAFC 102 162, 216
Tamawood Limited v Habitare Developments [2013] FCA 410 .
.70, 72, 79–80, 85, 88 (2015) 112 IPR 439
72
TS & B Retail Systems Pty Ltd v 3Fold Resources Pty Ltd (2007) FCA 151 115, 142–43, 164
Trumpet Software v OzEmail Pty Ltd (1996) 34 IPR 481 65–66, 70–71, 73, 79–80, 85–87, 88–89, 99, 163, 164 Wilson v Weiss Art (1995) 31 IPR 423 .
CANADA
Allen v Toronto Star Newspapers Limited [1995] OJ No 3473 .
106
142–43, 159, 160, 161 [1997] OJ No 4363
Bishop v Stevens [1990]2 SCR 467 138
Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. SODRAC 2003 Inc. [2015] 3 SCR 615
CCH Canadian Ltd v Law Society of Upper Canada [2004] SCC 13 37–38
Cojocaru v British Columbia Women’s Hospital and Health Centre [2013] 2 SCR 357
Euro-Excellence Inc v Kraft Canada Inc [2007] 3 SCR 20
John Maryon International Ltd v New Brunswick Telephone Company Ltd, [1982] NBJ No 387
Katz v. Cytrynbaum [1983] B.C.J. No. 2421
Marek Machtinger v HOJ Industries Ltd [1992] 1 SCR 986.
Netupsky v Dominion Bridge Co. [1971] SCJ No 117; [1972] SCR 368
Nicholas v Environmental Systems, (International) Ltd. [2010] FCJ No 892
119
Pinto v. Bronfman Jewish Education Centre [2013] 115 CPR (4th) 245 105
Pizza Pizza Ltd v Gillespie, Chicken Chicken Inc [1990] OJ No 2011 167
Robertson v Thomson Corp [2006] 2 SCR 363
Silverson v Neon Products Ltd [1977] BCJ No 1029
Strother v 3464920 Canada Inc [2007] 2 SCR 177
Théberge v Galerie d’Art du Petit Champlain Inc [2002] 2 SCR 336
167
58
Tremblay v Orio Canada Inc [2014] 3 FCR 404 116–17 [2014] 4 FCR 903
Wayne Crookes v Newton [2011] 3 SCR 269
GERMANY
Vorschaubilder I Federal Supreme Court, 2010 GRUR 628 . . . 2–3, 5–6, 276–77, 278, 287–88
Vorschaubilder II I ZR 140/10 of 19 October 2011
Vorschaubilder III (Case No. I ZR 11/16)
2–3, 5–6, 286–87
266–67, 286–87
IRELAND
Ryanair Ltd v Billigfluege.de GmbH [2010] IEHC 47 238–39
NEW ZEALAND
Sky Network Television Ltd v My Box NZ Ltd [2019] 2 NZLR 411 252
SINGAPORE
Creative Technology Ltd v Aztech Systems Pte Ltd [1997] 1 SLR 621 184
UNITED STATES
Field v Google 412 F Supp 2d 1106
2–3, 274, 276–77, 278
Ringold v Black Entertainment Television 126 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 1997) 151–52
WTO PANEL REPORT
Panel Rep. of 15 June 2000, United States-Article 110 (5) of the US Copyright Act WT/DS160/R 199–200
Table of Statutes and Treaties
UNITED KINGDOM
Consumer Rights Act 2015 149
s 1(1) .
s 2(3) . .
s 57 .
s 87(1)
s 87(4)
s 87(2)
138–39
138–39
149
Consumer Credit Act 1974 149
Copyright Act 1911 5
s 5(2) proviso .
Copyright Act 1956
s 2(5)(b) .
s 3(5)(b) . .
134
5, 107, 212, 213
. 179
179
s 19 18–19
s 36(4) 18–19
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988
s 1(1) .
6–7
6–7
6–7
s 90 31, 32–33
s 90(1) 102
s 90(3) 49–50, 107–8
s 90(4)
s 92
s 92(1) and (2)
102
102
18–19
s 226-227 188
s 101 109
s 101(1) and (2) .
s 101A(1)-(5)
s 102
s 102(1).
5
. 31
s 1(3) 157
ss 3-8 31
s 10(1) 74–75
s 11(1).
s 16 .
s 16(2). . . . .
74, 103
29
. . . . . . 1, 17, 26, 30, 74–75
s 18 178
s 18(2) 178
s 20 255–56
ss 22-24 .
s 23
s 23(d)
18–19
18–19
18–19, 109
. 110–11
s 116(2) 17–18
s 116(3) 17–18
s 118(3).
s 119(3).
s 120(3).
s 125(3).
17–18
17–18
17–18
17–18
s 126(4) 17–18
s 127(3) 17–18
s 135A
s 143
s 144
17
17, 250–52
268–69
s 28A 11, 243, 252, 253–54
s 30 203–4
s 30(2) 160
s 45(1)
s 50A-50C
s 50A(2) .
36–37
36–37
36–37
s 145 36–37
s 149 36–37
s 171(3) 10–11, 27, 57–58, 196–98, 203–4, 206, 208–9, 227–28
s 173(2).
s 182
166–67
214
188
s 50A 188
s 50B 188
s 50BA(1) 188
s 50C
s 51
s 66
74–75
17
s 213(3)(b)(i) 188, 214
s 213(3)(b)(ii) 188, 214
ss 226–227 188
s 296ZA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .240, 251–52
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020
188
188, 212
36–37
s 73 (repealed) 36–37
s 39(1) 5–6, 59
European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 297
s 2
59, 197–98
xxxii Table of Statutes and Treaties
s 3 197–98
s 4 197–98
s 5(4) 221
s 5(5)
s 6(4)(a) .
s 6(4)(b)
59
59, 197–98
197–98
s 6(5) 197–98
s 6(5A) 297
s 7 59
Freedom of Information Act 2000
197–98
Human Rights Act 1998 203, 221, 227–28
s 6(1) 222
s 6(3)(a) 222
s 12 .
Law of Property Act 1925.
s 1(1)-(3) .
221
33
16
s 62 130
Occupiers Liability Act 1957
s 2(6) .
Official Secrets Act 1911
Patents Act 1977
s 60(1)(a)
Sale of Goods Act 1978
s 38(1) 17
s 44A 180
s 44BA 216
s 44C
s 44D. . . .
s 44E
180
180
s 44F 180
s 47D 188
s 47E 188
s 101(1).
s 102(1).
s 103(1). .
17
17
17
s 115 198–99
s 116 198–99
s 119(a) and (b) 18–19
s 120 .
s 132AD-132AM
Pt VI
22
218
. 181–82
s 2 read with 61(1) 177
ss 12-14
s 14
Town and Country Planning Act 1990
18–19
36–37
s 136 17–18
s 136(1) 17–18
s 137
ss 148-162
ss 149-153
s 193(3).
40
181
s 75 130
Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977
s 2
s 3 .
s 6
17–18
17–18
17–18
107–8
s 195AW(2) 6–7
s 195AWA(2) 6–7
s 196(1).
s 196(4).
s 196(3).
149
149
149
s 7 149
Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002 276–77 Reg 18 .
31
18–19
49–50
s 248G 17
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
s 78A
130
National Occupational Health and Safety Commission Act 1985
s 38(1) 189–90
Trade Practices Act 1974
s 52 113
AUSTRALIA
Copyright Act 1968
s 10(1)
271
271 Reg 19
CANADA
Canadian Copyright Act 1985 6, 160
s 3(1)(j). .
6
18–19
s 35(2) 103
s 35(5) 103
s 36(1) 1, 17, 30
s 37
s 37(1)
s. 37(1)(a)
17, 67
17
179
s 13(4). . .
s 13(7).
177, 179
18–19, 49–50, 107–8
18–19
s 14.1(4) 6–7
s 27(1) 1, 17, 30
s 27(2) 180
Pt VII .
s 66
Pt VII.1.
36–37
36–37
36–37
ss 67-76 17–18
s 67(3) 17–18
s 70 17–18
s 71 .
s 76 .
HONG KONG
Hong Kong Copyright Ordinance (Cap. 528) 1997
17–18
17–18
s 13 103
s 15 103
s 22(2) 17
s 30 . . .
s 31(1).
s 32(1).
Directive 2000/31/EC on Electronic Commerce
art 14 282–83
Directive 2001/29/EC on the Harmonisation of Certain Aspects of Copyright and Related Rights in the Information Society (Infosoc Directive)
Recital 3 225–26
Recital 31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196–97, 225–26
Recital 32
Recital 33 .
17
17
17
s 101(3) 49–50
s 101(4) 18–19
s 103(1) 18–19
s 103(2).
s 112(1)-112(2) .
s 113
59
243
art 3(1) 255–56, 258–59, 266
art 3(3) 256
art 5(1) 243, 248, 249, 250, 250, 253–54
arts 5(1) to 5(4) .
art 5(5)
18–19
18–19
18–19
s 145-168 17–18
s 145(2) 17–18
SINGAPORE
Singapore Copyright Act 1987
s 30(2) 103
s 31(1). .
s 32-33 .
s 103(1).
59–60
59–60, 250
INTERNATIONAL TREATIES AND INSTRUMENTS
Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works
art 9(2) 198
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
art 11
art 16
17
17
17
s 104(1) 17
s 105(1) 17
s 123 18–19
s124
ss 149-150 .
ss 156A-170
221
196–97, 225–27, 265–66
226–27
art 17 225–26
art 17(2) 225, 226–27
art 52(1) 225
art 52(3)
art 53
18–19
17–18
17–18
s 194(3) 49–50
s 194(4) 18–19
EUROPEAN UNION
Directive 2019/790 on Copyright and Related Rights in the Digital Single Market art 15
art 17(1) .
280
284
art 17(4) 284
Directive 96/9/EC on the Legal Protection of Databases
art 6(2)(d) .
225
. 225
European Convention on Human Rights
Protocol 1, Article 1 223–24, 227, 228, 252–53, 269, 283–84, 286 art 10 221, 224–25, 227, 252–53, 269, 285–86
art 10(1)
art 10(2)
art 11
224
.224, 252–53
Treaty on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)
art 13
WIPO Copyright Treaty
198
art 10 198
WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty
art 16
. 214
198
