Introduction
A copyright is a legal restriction granted by law to a creator of an original work that gives that creator exclusive rights to it for a given period of time. This essay will highlight the issues that have been raised in the case study regarding copyright usage. The essay will analyze the legal situation that exists and suggest the best direction that Media Ltd and the DBC can take regarding the matter.
Duration of Copyright Issues
According to sections 12-15 of the CDPA, the possible authors have been alive for the past 70 years. According to sections 154 and 155 of the CDPA, a work qualifies for copyrights protection if it was first published in the UK or if the author was living in the UK at the time it was made publicly available. Therefore, the works qualify by right to be referred to as a work that was published in the UK because the party that authorized the manufacture of these dolls is a British company (Colston & Galloway 2010, p. 57).
The dolls were first manufactured by the third-party producers licensed to make the Lawrence Lion dolls, books and children clothing by Media Ltd. The items are, therefore, protected trademarks and Media Limited has the sole right to allow how these items should be reproduced (Colston & Galloway, 2010 p. 62). The copyright law restricts the manufacture of the products by any person who is not authorized to do so by the copyright owner.
Import Limited, the company that imports the dolls from Spain to the UK, is, therefore, liable for the infringement. The continued importation of the products by the company is likely to cause a big loss to Media Ltd and its third-party producers. Import Limited’s actions are likely to threaten the commercial well-being of the copyright owner’s interests in the UK Market (Colston & Galloway 2010, p. 65). The company’s operations are adversely exposed as a result of the actions of Juan and Import Ltd, which could threaten the commercial value of its products.
Media Ltd must institute legal proceedings against Import Company Limited and Juan for contravening the law and selling products, which are protected by the copyright law in the UK. Media Ltd must take action against the harm done to its brand by the actions of Juan and Import Ltd and must seek compensation from the two parties. This compensation will cover the damage that has been done to the company’s brand by the infringement (D’Agostino 2010, p. 144). The company should also seek the court to compel the two parties to stop selling the products.
Identity of the Works under Copyright
The Lawrence Lion books are considered to be published work, which is protected by the copyright law under Section 3 (1) of the CDPA act. The book is recognized as a form of written work and as such, it is recognized copyright of the company. Therefore, any reproduction of the book or any material that is related to the character in the book is a violation of the copyright established for that published work. Under this law, Media Ltd has the sole right to publish the book, and any other third party that seeks to reproduce it must have its consent first (D’Agostino 2010, p. 148).
The Lawrence Lion dolls are recognized as artistic works under section 4 of the CDPA and Media Ltd has a right to contest its privileges and the way they are being violated by Juan. The reproduction of the Lawrence Lion dolls was a copyright violation of Media Ltd’s rights by Juan and the import company. The copyrights are registered in the UK and the commercial usage of it by the importing company and Juan is a contravention of the set laws (Lambert 2009, pp. 87-90). The issue that is faced by Media Ltd as the owner of the copyright can be helped further by the application of the Phillip versus Eyre case precedent. The copyright infringement holds validity because it was carried out on British territory, which applies the set law and as such, the British legal authorities have the mandate to review the case.
The company’s copyrights are registered in the UK and the principles of the law that govern copyright law application are observed under the UK law. The importation of the dolls into the UK means that Juan and Import Ltd had the intent to gain commercial benefits from the sale of the products in the country (Lambert 2009, p. 93). The company can therefore seek orders from the court to stop Import Ltd and Juan from infringing on its registered copyrights. This would require the court to issue an injunction stopping the production of the dolls and their commercial usage by the company in the UK. Financial damages can also be sought by the company to recover the losses that were experienced as a result of the copyright infringement.
Ownership of Copyright
The owners of the copyrights are Media Ltd as the primary copyright owner because it is the party that produced the Zoo program. According to section 9(2) of the CDPA, the author, in this case, is assumed to be the person producing the broadcast footage that was transmitted through another broadcast platform, which is the DBC TV station. The company, therefore, has the authority to use the product that is protected by copyright for its own benefits, and any other party that reproduces the product must first gain its consent (Davies & Cheng 2011, p. 65). Such a party can also be considered to be claiming joint ownership with Media Ltd and DBC because both parties can take credit for the program under section 10 (2) of the CDPA.
Media Ltd and DBC TV can use the provisions in the CDPA to contest the right to have their authorship of the copyrights honored. This is the foundation of the case that the Media Ltd and DBC TV can adopt in their argument as stipulated in Section 90 (1) (Davies & Cheng 2011, pp. 69- 72). The production of Lawrence Lion dolls, clothing and books was sanctioned by the company to third-party producers who are given partial rights to the products. Therefore, Media Ltd, DBC TV, and the third-party producers have a say on how the copyrights of the Lawrence Lion are to be used in the products that they have produced.
Juan and Import Ltd may contest through the Moçambique rule that claims of foreign copyright infringement cannot be tried and resolved in the UK. This can, however, be rejected given that Brussels 22(4) recognizes the validity of copyrights registered within the member states. Therefore, the reproduction of the Lawrence King dolls by Juan does not grant him the necessary legal protection because both the UK and Spain are member states of the EU. This view was adopted in the Pearce v Ove Arup Partnership Ltd (2000) case where Mr. Pearce contested the infringement of his copyrights in drawings that were used to design a town hall in Rotterdam in the Netherlands. The court applied the law according to the issue both within the Dutch and the British contexts (Cornish &Llewelyn 2003, p. 121).
Media Ltd, DBC TV and the third-party producers can liaise to challenge the actions of Juan and Import Ltd regarding their intent to reproduce and sell the dolls to the UK. The commercial motive of the company places them at risk of losing out on the revenue of their products within the UK market. It can be argued that the defendants sought to acquire revenues through the usage of the registered copyrights. The validity of the copyrights and registrations is recognized under both the British and European contexts (Cornish &Llewelyn 2003, p. 124).
Copyright Infringement Provisions
The provisions on primary infringement of copyright expressly state that the copyright owner has the right to grant it to another party for use. Section 16 (2) states that copyright infringement is carried out by a person who does or makes another person do any action that is restricted by the copyright without the license of the copyright owner. Section 17(4) continues to affirm that copying an artistic work in a broadcast material contravenes the law and infringes on the copyright forming part of that film (Senftleben 2006, pp. 110-113). Section 18(2) of the CDPA prohibits the issuing of copied material to the public both within and outside the European Economic Area (EEA).
Section 21(3) goes on to specify that adaptation of any aspects of a dramatic work into a non-dramatic work is clearly restricted and can only be allowed by the copyright owner. Therefore, Juan contravened the provision when he produced the dolls that were similar to a character in the animated series, which was protected copyright. These provisions as outlined in the CDPA show that the primary infringement has been done by Juan and Import Ltd. The two parties have violated the provisions as outlined in the act without any consent from the copyright owner (Senftleben 2006, p.115).
Section 22 clearly restricts the importation of a work that infringes on registered copyright in the UK. Section 23 (a) and (b) and Section 24 of the CDPA outlaw possessing or selling the copy of any patented product to other people as a form of income-generating activity, such as the incident by Juan and Import Ltd. Section 27 outlines the meaning of an infringing copy more clearly and goes on to state that reproduction can be found to be infringing if it is found to be breaching the exclusive license that is granted to the original work. The two parties, therefore, contravened the established laws regarding the usage of these copyrights because they had sought to sell the copied products in the UK. The two parties have imported the copied work into the UK without getting the necessary approval from the legally recognized owners of the copyright (MacQueen, Waelde & Laurie 2007, p. 43).
Defence to Copyright Infringement
The defense can turn to section 28 (A) to claim that the copied work was not for commercial purposes and was only temporary and accidental. The defense can also argue that the reasons for the importation of the copied work to the UK was only for purposes of research as outlined under section 29 of the CDPA. The defense can also argue that the copied work was being used for the purpose of coming up with a review of the work and it was acknowledged so from the beginning. This is outlined in section 30, which mandates the reviewing and criticism of any copied work to be done in the open where the public is made aware of the purpose beforehand. Section 30(2) and (3) go on to argue that if the purpose is to report current events, then it cannot be termed to be a contravention of the existing copyright law (McQueen, Waelde & Laurie 2007, p. 47).
The defense can also argue under section 31 (1) that the similarities that occurred in the final product were merely incidental and were not intended to contravene the existing copyright. The defense can also take the stand that the product was made for the personal use of a visually impaired person (Golvan 2007, pp. 77-81). The defense can further argue that the commercial gain that was to be obtained from producing the work was not more than the cost that was incurred in producing it. This is as outlined in section 31(5) with respect to the copy being made on behalf of a visually impaired person. The defense can argue that their intentions were for the good of the community.
Conclusion
The Media Ltd and DBC TV can follow the outlined plan of action to pursue legal ways through which they can solve the arising conflict. This will help them stop Juan and Import Ltd from commercial usage of the copyright without their consent.
References
Colston, C & Galloway, J 2010, Modern intellectual property law, 3rd edn, Routledge, Oxford.
Cornish, WR & Llewelyn, D 2003, Intellectual property: patents, copyright, trade marks and allied rights, 5th edn, Sweet& Maxwell Publishers, London.
D’Agostino, G 2010, Copyright, contracts, creators: new media, new rules, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham.
Davies, C & Cheng, T 2011, Intellectual property law in the United Kingdom, Kluwer Law International, London.
Golvan, C 2007, Copyright law and practice, The Federation Press, Sydney, NSW.
Lambert, J 2009, Enforcing intellectual property rights: a concise guide for businesses, innovative and creative individuals, Gower Publishing Limited, Surrey.
MacQueen, HL, Waelde, C & Laurie, GT 2007, Contemporary intellectual property: law and policy, OUP, Oxford.
Senftleben, MRF 2006, Copyright, limitations and the three-step test: an analysis of the three-step test in international and EC copyright law, Kluwer Law International, London.