INTRODUCTION
Copyright is one of the most important part of Intellectual Property Laws. World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) defines copyright as
“Copyright (or author’s right) is a legal term used to describe the rights that creators have over their literary and artistic works. Works covered by copyright range from books, music, paintings, sculpture, and films, to computer programs, databases, advertisements, maps, and technical drawings.”
Copyrights give the protection to the author with respect to various things. These things will vary from country to country and are the subject to the statute of the place or law of the land. The conditions relating to the rights, their term, validity etc . depends on the statute and jurisprudence
…show more content…
Skill
c. Judgment
This doctorine has been applied from time to time in UK case laws. One of the earliest case law in this regard is Walter v. Lane . The brief facts of the case are that The Earl of Roseberry who was a prominent politician gave speeches. Reporters from the Times Newspapers took the shorthand notes of the speeches, transcribed them into their own words and published in the newspaper. The respondent in this case i.e. Lane took the pieces of these articles and published them in a book. The main question of Law in front of House of Lords was whether the reporters could be considered authors in this case or not.
The house of Lords with the decision of 4-1 said that the reporters were authors in the ambit of Copyright Act 1842 as their works involved skill of writing while writing the reports, judgment and labor of writing is involved. Thus the reporters were considered to be authors in this
…show more content…
In this case the court had to consider whether what could be included in the category of original work under the Copyright Act, 1911. The case dealt with examination papers which were written for the University of London back in 1915. Under the University of London's senate's decision all examination papers created by appointed examiners would belong to the University, aside from drawings, and the University reserved all rights to reproduce those exams without any extra compensation to the examiners who had written them. Subsequently examiners were appointed for the exam period held in September of that year, among which were Mr. Jackson and Professor Lodge who were in charge of creating the exam papers for mathematics. After the exam papers had been created, the University entered into a contract with University of London Press, assigning it the copyrights and rights of publication to any specific exams for a fixed period of 6 years. University of London Press were then issued the rights to publish the exams written in the previous year, which were then published by University of London Press in early 1916. In the same month University Tutorial Press published exam from the previous year as well, containing 16 out of 42 exams from January 1916, which were attained from students rather than the published copies made by the University Press.
v. Wood, 2007). The first issue, was took from the position of the Appellant, as well as the Crown on the DRE and if it should have been heard. The Appellant went to state, the trial judge failed to analyze the admissibility of the DRE evidence in accordance with the tests enunciated in R. v. Mohan, 1994, and the DRE evidence should be excluded (R. v. Wood, 2007). The Crown argues that, even though the trial judge’s Reasons for Judgement did not specifically specify the Mohan analysis, her overall ruling shows she followed the guidelines with Mohan. Furthermore, adding the she considered the DRE protocol, ascertained Sergeant Moschansky’s qualifications, and examined the uses of the evidence (R. v. Wood, 2007).
The Court drew from several cases in order to arrive to the final decision. The Court stated that the expert evidence was admissible if “the subject-matter of the inquiry must be such that ordinary people are unlikely to form a correct judgment about it, if unassisted by persons with special knowledge" (R v. Lavallee, [1990] 1 SCR 852). The Court reasoned that the use of expert evidence in this case, which dealt with self-defence and battered woman syndrome, was relevant and necessary in order for the court to understand the mental state of
Such facts and events were produced from interviews outside of the trial, unsworn statements – hearsay. The case could not be decided solely on these facts that were not sworn or first-handedly heard. Lavallee was a very important source of Shane’s information and her failure to testify weakened the credibility of his testimony. The Abbey (R. v. Abbey, 1982) decision offers the appellant to solely allow the expert witness psychiatrist to give his testimony, with little to no weight being held on the facts, or for the appellant themselves to take the stand and confirm the liability of facts in the expert witness’ testimony to ensure greater weight is given to such facts (Ottawa L. Rev., 1985). With Lavallee as one of Shane’s main sources for information, he would have to completely reassess his position in the case that she had been untruthful.
The judgement of this case was
More importantly, he was not alone. “Editors and publishers, and their lawyers, spoke of ‘the First Amendment privilege’ against
They had the right to publish it because it was protected under the 1st
Right to life, liberty and personal security, and Article 26 Right to
This Charter guaranteed many rights and freedoms. some of the rights and freedoms guaranteed include: democratic rights (like every citizen 's right to vote); Fundamental freedoms (e.g. conscience, religion, thought, expression, peaceful assembly, association); mobility rights (such as the right to remain in, leave, and enter Canada; and the right to move into, and earn a living in, any province [subject to certain limitations]); equality rights (the right not to be discriminated on basis of sex, race, national or ethnic origin, mental or physical disability, age, or race); official language rights; minority-language education rights in certain circumstances; legal rights (a lengthy list of rights including the right for an individual to be given the reason for their arrest or detention and the right to be given a fair trial within reasonable time); and many more rights. To sum it up, these many rights and freedoms helped make Canada a much better, more free, safe, and comfortable place to live
These rights are not given by government and they can’t take any of it away from the people either. For example freedom of speech, and freedom to practice any type of religion. They heave these
As mentioned in the introduction, a handful of implied and express rights were included nonetheless. One example is Section 80 of the Australian constitution,
In this case, SEAB would want to sue the website owners, for copyrights but, Celine Loi would argue back by stating she did not post any question or papers of their examination papers but only the answer they solved by themselves thus making it a strong argument. Also the defendants, can use Copyright Act’s fair-dealing provisions for research and study as her counter argument if she is sued to have copyrighted the exams paper. “fair dealing” in copyright act, Chapter 63, section 35, of the Singapore Statutes, means that there is a certain amount of copying for legitimate purposes, such as, education and researches. So as long as it is permitted it is fair dealing. CONCEPTS IN THE COPYRIGHT ACT
“Every civil right has for its foundation some natural right pre-existing in the individual, but to the enjoyment of which his individual power is not, in all cases, sufficiently competent. Of this kind are all those which relate to security and protection.” (465) “That every civil right grows out of a natural right; or, in other words, is a natural right exchanged.” (Paine 465) In least difficult terms, the contrast between a human and common right is the reason you have them.
[5] Common law works in a different way, the judges rather than the Parliament make common law or ‘judge-made law’. Considering criminal and civil cases, the judges take decisions based on the stare decisis principle (Latin “to stand by things decided”, the legal principle of determining points in litigation according to precedent [4]), deliver rulings and create precedents, thus applying the law to real life situations. Therefore, the value of the precedent is very high in the English Common Law system. The strengths of common law
This idea is what is deemed to be a property; an idea so unique and personal, that any person with such an idea is its owner and has certain rights over it. This is what is referred to as Intellectual Property Rights, and the area of law governing it is known as Intellectual Property Law (I.P. Law). This essay restricts itself to the discourse of Copyright Law field of I.P. Law and the effects
In the article entitled ‘Determining the Ratio Decidendi of the Case’ by Arthur L. Goodhart, I underwent a roller coaster-like journey on exploring the science behind the nature of a precedent in English law. Goodhart started with the attempt to explain the full meaning of ratio decidendi in the simplest terms. He referred to Sir John Salmond’s definition in which I have interpreted ratio decidendi as the principle of law that is found in a court decision and possesses the authority to be binding. Ratio decidendi should be distinguished from a judicial decision, as the latter is a wider concept and contains the ratio decidendi, whereas the former is a principle that carries the force of law. In another reference, Professor John Chipman Gray