1	Copyright – news in brief Peter Wienand Chair, Museums Copyright Group Partner, Farrer & Co Royal Museum, National Museums of Scotland 27 January 2006
2	Topics Artist’s Resale Right (droit de suite) Gowers Review Cases round-up
3	Artist’s resale right Payable on resale of works of art by living EEA artists for €1,000 or more Exceptions: ‘bought as stock’ (bought from artist for €10,000 or less in last 3 years) Works by dead artists First sale by artist Art market professional must be involved Seller and AMP jointly liable to pay ‘Work of art’ – must be protected by copyright Compulsory collective administration Relevance for museums?
4	Gowers Review of Intellectual Property Background Costs of enforcement versus incentive to innovate Are provisions for “fair use” by citizens reasonable Evidence-based Call for evidence February 2006
5	Cases (1) – put it in writing! Clearsprings Management v Businesslinx C commissioned B to write database software to embody C’s operating procedures C argued implied obligation on B to assign or grant exclusive licence B said no because this would cover source code not embodying C’s operating procedures Held: No implied obligation to assign or grant exclusive licence Was an implied licence (non-exclusive) but no right to sub-license B under an implied restriction not to use C’s operating procedures
6	Cases (2) – Play it again, Sam . . . Sawkins v Hyperion Records S created modern performance editions of musical works by Lalande (1657 – 1726) H paid S to write these editions but no copyright fee S added or amended bass lines and corrected “wrong notes” Court of Appeal confirmed that S had copyright – the totality of the sounds produced by the musicians was affected by the information inserted by S
7	Cases (3) – criticise or be damned! Fraser-Woodward v BBC BBC broadcast 14 photos of a celebrity F-W claimed infringement of copyright BBC’s defence: ‘fair dealing’ for purposes of criticism and review Held: Criticism of journalistic style exemplified by the photos within the defence No need in criticising the style to make specific reference to the work No excessive use so dealing was ‘fair’ Sufficient acknowledgement can be implied and does not have to be express
8	Cases (4) – Bridgeman revisited? Mannion v Coors Brewing Co (US Dist) – Judge Kaplan Photo of basketball star Kevin Garnett – internal use of manipulated image permitted but Coors then used it on a billboard Originality – photographer’s choices of film, camera etc not relevant: what makes a photograph original is the features of the work, not the effort that goes into it UK position? Copyright also subsists in the subject of the photo “to the extent that the photo is original in the creation of the subject”