Presentation on theme: "Copyright Definition: Copyright protects the form of expression of ideas but not ideas themselves [Intellectual Property Law by Colin Goluan, 1992 at."— Presentation transcript:
Copyright Definition: Copyright protects the form of expression of ideas but not ideas themselves [Intellectual Property Law by Colin Goluan, 1992 at p.2] Branch of IP which protects the proprietary rights of authors in relation to their created works(Khaw Lake Tee, Copyright Law in Malaysia, p.1) P
Entitles the author to control the reproduction of his works Protects the economic and moral rights of the author
Categories of Copyright Works Literary Artistic Musical Derivative Works – the translation, adaptations, arrangements and other transformations of the works eligible for copyright (s8(1) Copyright Act 1987) Subject matter other than original works
Literary S3 Copyright Act 1987 – a non-exhaustive list Covers work expressed in print or writing or reduced to a material form regardless of quality or merit of literary Eg. Exam papers, advertisements, companies prospectus, dramatic works, tables & compilations, computer programs
Artistic S 10 Copyright Act 1987 – artistic craftmanship and artistic works S 7(2) CA 1987 – covers works which are artistic in nature though not of any artistic quality Eg. Drawings, maps, plans, charts and the like, photographs, sculpture Artistic craftmanship covers artistry as well as craftmanship and it must originates from the same person
Duration for Copyright Life of the author plus 50 years after the author’s death For works which remain unpublished at the time of death of the author, the duration shall expire 50 years after the publication- s 17(2) CA 1987
Subsistence & Qualification of Copyright Work is protected if the requirements set out in s10 CA 1987 are fulfilled Originality does not mean originality of ideas but of expression of thoughts – s 7(3)(a) CA 1987 It relates to input of effort into the creation of work Where there is sufficient effort and skill expended by the author to produce the work
Subsistence & Qualification of Copyright Lau Foo San v Government of Malaysia  1 MLJ 28, Federal Court held that engineering drawings and designs for the construction of classroom by a civil engineer were original works. University of London Press Ltd v University Tutorial Press  2 Ch 601- examination papers prepared by examiners were held to be original literary works
Subsistence & Qualification of Copyright The amount of effort is a question of fact – Macmillan & Co Ltd v K & J Cooper (1924). It was held in this case that study notes, in which the text consists of a reprint of selected passages, were entitled to copyright.
Subsistence & Qualification of Copyright Where the preparatory stage and the compilation stage cannot be separated the skill and effort expended at the former can be taken into account to determine originality – Football League Ltd v Littlewoods Pools Ltd  Ch 637 at 652. In this case a great deal of labour, skill and ingenuity was put in to prepare the football clubs list which was subsequently turned into a chronological fixture list.
Protection of Copyright Protection is also afforded under s42 CA 1987 – an affidavit or a statutory declaration by the owner or his agent annexing a copy of the copyright is prima facie evidence and is admissible in evidence in any proceedings under the Act.
Protection of Copyright The Berne Convention – Malaysia acceded to it in 1/10/1990 Applies to authors who are nationals of one of the Berne Union countries Authors who are not nationals of one of the Berne Union countries but their works are first published in one of the Berne Union countries, or simultaneously in a country outside the Union and in the country of the Union (within 30 days of its first publication in a non- Berne Union country).
Infringement The law of copyright practically restrict the copying in whole or a substantial part of the owner’s work either in its original or derivative form Lord Reid in Ladbroke (Football) Ltd v William Hill (Football) Ltd  1 WLR 273 stated that “substantiality” depended more on the quality than the quantity of what has been taken
Infringement Hawkes & Son v Paramount Film Service  1 Ch 593 – the defendant had reproduced a substantial part of the musical work when they played it for 20 seconds out of the normal 4 minutes play. The consideration was whether the amount taken could be recognised by any person as the musical work in question. If so, then a substantial part had been taken per Lord Hanworth MR.
Infringement in derivative form S8 CA 1987 –it covers the following:- Translation (to another language) Adaptation (of a book into a play) Arrangements (of musical work) Transformation Collection of works
Ways in which copyright may be infringed Reproduction into a material form includes the recording of a literary work from a book to tape or disc Reproduction of a work in two-dimensional form into a three-dimensional form amounts to infringement. See Peko Wallsend Operations & 3 Ors. V Linatex Process Rubber Bhd  2 CLJ 94
Ways in which copyright may be infringed King Features Syndicate Inc v Kleeman Ltd  AC 417 – the copyright in drawing of “Pop-eye the Sailor” had been infringed by reproductions of that drawing in the form of dolls and brooches. Performance, playing or showing of the work to the public
Ways in which copyright may be infringed Broadcasting Distribution to the public - once the owner has released his copyright work by sale he is taken to have consented to any future disposition. Rental and lending of books is not considered an infringement of copyright S 13(1) CA 1987
Infringement Direct infringement – where any one acts under s13 CA 1987 is done without the consent of the owner (infringement of the exclusive right of the owner) Indirect infringement (secondary infringement) – include the sale, distribution/ importation of works incorporating copyright works (s36(2) CA 1987)
Direct Infringement 1) Objective similarity – comparing the similarities and differences (either visually or aurally) between the original work and the infringing copy. Two computer programs which produces the same function/ output/ look and feel does not necessarily satisfy the objective similarity test.
Direct Infringement 2) Causal connection – sufficient objective similarities may raise the inference of a causal connection but the defendant may rebut this presumption 3) Infringement of the substantial part of the work
Remedies to Infringement Damages Injunction Anton Piller Delivery Restriction on importation
Damages Malaysia – s36(2) whether it includes exemplary damages remains open Singapore – s119(4) includes exemplary damages Australia – s115(4) includes exemplary damages
Offences Under CA 1987 S 41 CA – on conviction of any of the offences under s41(1)(a)-(f) CA, shall be liable to a fine of not less than RM2,000.00 and not more than RM20,000.00 and/or imprisonment of not exceeding 5 years. On conviction of the offence under s41(1)(g) CA, shall be liable to a fine of not less than RM4,00.00 and not more than RM40,000.00 and/or imprisonment not exceeding 10 years.
Offences Under CA 1987 On conviction of the offences under s41(1)(h), (i)&(j) CA, shall be liable to a fine not exceeding RM250,000.00 and/or imprisonment of not exceeding 3 years.
Fair Dealing Malaysia – s13(2)(a) the right to control does not include fair dealing for purpose of non-profit research, private study, criticism etc… Singapore s35(2) and Australia s40(2) lay down various factors to be taken into account when considering the question of fair dealing
Fair Dealing The factors are:- Purpose and character of the dealing The nature of the work The amount and substantiality of the parts taken The effect of the dealing The availability of the work in the market N