Artistic works meaning

WaterRower (UK) Ltd v Liking Ltd (t/a Topiom) [2024] EWHC 2806 (IPEC) What are the practical implications of this case? The WaterRower ruling provides a practical touchstone for practitioners seeking to pursue claims that products qualify as works of artistic craftsmanship. Assessing the ‘craftsmanship’ element should remain comparatively straightforward: while CDPA 1988, s 4(1)(c) contains no express definition, the judge relied on Hensher, viewing ‘craftsmanship’ as presupposing particular skill, knowledge and training in producing the work—criteria the WaterRower satisfied. The ‘artistic’ requirement, however, remains as elusive as in Hensher. In addressing this aspect, the court undertook a detailed evaluation of the evidence, placing notable weight on the creator’s intentions at the moment of design. Mr Duke’s motivations were found to be essentially commercial and limited to achieving a business aim: to create a rowing machine with sensory impact. That aim was held insufficient to render the work ‘artistic’, underscoring that the designer’s purpose at inception can be decisive yet will not be met merely by commercial objectives directed at...

Court of Justice rules on Czech reference concerning omission of hotel occupancy in copyright royalty tariffs and possible breach of Article 102 TFEU The Court of Justice has delivered its judgment in Case C‑161/24, OSA, arising from a Czech reference seeking clarification on whether a collective management organisation’s failure to take account of hotel room occupancy when setting royalties for licensed works can amount to an abuse of a dominant position under Article 102 TFEU. The Court held that, depending on the particular circumstances, overlooking hotel occupancy may constitute an abuse within the meaning of Article 102 TFEU. Background In December 2019, the Czech Competition Authority (CCA) found that OSA, the Czech collective management organisation for musical and other artistic works, had abused its dominant position in the market for copyright licensing. Between 2008 and 2014, OSA applied flat‑rate royalties to hotel operators for audio and audiovisual works made available via in‑room television and radio equipment, without reflecting actual room occupancy. The CCA concluded that this pricing...

Edozo Ltd v Valos (UK) Ltd [2026] EWHC 93 (IPEC) What are the practical implications of this case? The practical consequences of this judgment are significant and noteworthy for practitioners pursuing copyright infringement actions, particularly where the subject matter is software and its source code. Although His Honour Judge Hacon determined that the Valos Steps were not protected by copyright within the Valos source code, he nevertheless pointed to alternative routes by which the intellectual originality invested in devising them might have been safeguarded through other legal regimes. In particular, Hacon J indicated that literary or artistic copyright could have subsisted in the Valos Steps as works in their own right and, moreover, that if the Valos Steps were sufficiently inventive, Valos might have sought patent protection, provided the invention did not fall foul of Article 52(2) and (3) of the European Patent Convention. The takeaway for practitioners is to exercise caution when drafting pleadings and to reflect carefully and comprehensively on both the precise species of copyright asserted...

Copyright is a proprietary right that grants the owner the exclusive ability to perform, and to permit others to perform, particular acts in relation to the work. Under UK law, as contained in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA 1988), there is a closed list of categories eligible for protection, namely: original literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works sound recordings, films or broadcasts the typographical arrangement of published editions To qualify, a work falling within one of these categories must be fixed in some form. For example, writing down or electronically saving a song’s notes and lyrics creates a record that is protected, provided the work otherwise meets the CDPA 1988’s qualification requirements. For comprehensive guidance on those requirements and on subsistence generally, see Practice Notes: Copyright—protectable works and Copyright—subsistence and qualification. It is not necessary to register a work for copyright to arise. Court of Justice judgments This Practice Note includes references to Court of Justice judgments....

This Practice Note explores the nuanced relationship between copyright and designs. For wider context on designs law and copyright, see: Design transactions and management—overview and Copyright & associated rights—overview. Before the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA 1988) took effect, copyright was the chief mechanism for safeguarding rights in industrial articles. A key aim of CDPA 1988 was to narrow copyright’s reach over designs exploited industrially and to create a UK unregistered design right (often called ‘design right’). For a visual outline of how the CDPA 1988 copyright provisions operate, see: Application of copyright law to designs—flowchart below. Creators of artistic works applied in industrial production may not be able to rely on copyright and may instead turn to design right or registered design(s). Nevertheless, copyright still protects: original design drawings rights in designs of three-dimensional objects that qualify as artistic works under CDPA 1988 surface decoration applied to industrial articles Relevant legislation and key cases CDPA 1988...

For a primer on art law aimed at Private Client practitioners, consult Practice Note: Art law-introduction for Private Client practitioners. Restitution is a nuanced field. For a detailed overview of the general law in England and Wales on this area, see: Unjust enrichment and restitution-overview. This Practice Note examines restitution within an art law frame. Although it centres on English law, it touches on several core restitution issues of relevance to practitioners. As the subject is global in reach, continually developing and bound up with varied ethical and public policy concerns, this introductory note aims only to flag key features, without attempting an exhaustive treatment of every element or complexity that may arise. Restitution in art cases Historical context War all too often brings widescale looting and pillage across territories caught up in the fighting. In earlier times, it was accepted that victors could take cultural and artistic objects-a so‑called ‘prize right’. Article 56 of the Hague Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War...

Case No. [ insert number ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND & WALES INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LIST (ChD) [ INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ENTERPRISE COURT ] Between [ insert full name of claimant ] (the Claimant) and [ insert full name of defendant ] (the Defendant) PARTICULARS OF CLAIM The Claimant The Claimant has, at all material times, been and remains [ insert details of claimant ]. The Claimant’s principal business activity is [ insert type of business carried out ]. In particular, the Claimant [ insert brief description of claimant’s business relating to the copyright work or works ]. The Claimant has, throughout all material times, owned and continues to own the copyright in the [ insert details of relevant work ] (the Work). Pursuant to section 1 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, copyright subsists in the Work as a [ insert type of copyright work, for example...