Copyright Law: Music as Creative Work

Music can be defined in various ways; it is said to be “vocal or instrumental sounds combined in such a way to produce beauty of form, harmony and expression of emotion”[1] or it could even be described as “the written or printed signs representing vocal or instrumental sound”[2]. In the United Kingdom the law that protects different types of works including music is regarded as copyright. This essay will analyse the copyright law in regards to the creativity of music as a musical work. It will also give arguments for and against the English law not addressing the creative aspect of music with the help of cases and legislation.

According to Bainbridge “copyright is a property right that subsists in certain specified types of work provided for by the Copyright Designs and Patent Act 1988.”[3] There are certain necessary preconditions that need to be fulfilled before copyright can exist in any type of work that was created[4].  One of the necessary conditions for copyright to subsist is subject matter[5]. When dealing with copyright the subject matter is very important; it protects (i) certain types of works done by the author, (ii) that are original to the author, (iii) that are fixed in certain forms and (iv) that are expressions of ideas and not ideas themselves[6].

Copyright looks at the authorship of the dramatic, literary, musical and artistic work[7]. It seeks to protect the rights of individuals that created the work. Section 9 of the Copyright Designs and Patent Act (CDPA) 1988 addresses the issue of authorship and it can be seen that it also lists out sound recording, film, broadcasting and typographical arrangement[8]. When new forms of authorship arise they are placed into one of the existing categories stated out in the CDPA 1988 by case law[9]. Lightman J explained in the case of Robin Ray v Classic FM plc[10] someone acting as a mere scribe producing the copyright expression accurately in accordance with instructions but without making any creative contributions whatsoever can never be an author or co-author of a work[11]. Lightman J was of the view that there must be an essential creative input to be regarded as an author or to satisfy the test of authorship.  

Authorship can be categorised as joint authorship and co-authorship. Joint authorship is simply when a “work is produced by the collaboration of two or more authors in which the contribution of each author is not distinct from that of the other author or authors.”[12] It is important to note that each author must contribute to the making of the work and the contributions must be significant and original.[13] This was illustrated in the case of Godfrey v Lees [1995].[14] The court described the test for joint authorship in a work of music which was ‘the claimant to joint authorship of a work must establish that he has made a significant and original contribution to the creation of the work and that he has done so pursuant to a common design. It is not necessary that his contribution to the work is equal in terms of quantity, quality or originality to that of his collaborators. Nor, in the case of a song, does it matter that his contribution is to the orchestral arrangement of the song rather than to the song itself.’[15] The case of Tate v Thomas[16] also applied the principle of joint authorship that was seen in Godfrey v Lees [1995][17] . Co-authorship on the other hand is when “a work produced by the collaboration of the author of a musical work and the author of a literary work where the two works are created in order to be used together”[18]. Co-authorship usually occurs in the production of musical works and this is as a result of the change in the EU legislation[19].

The CDPA 1988 has an extensive list of the specific types of creation automatically protected by copyright law[20]. The fact that the list is extensive has resulted in the exclusion from UK copyright law of ‘works’ which would otherwise be protected in other countries.[21] An example of this would be the case of Lancome Parfums v. Kecofa [2006][22]. The Dutch Supreme Court protected perfumes by copyright[23] which would not be possible under English law[24].

The second condition for copyright to exist is originality. This is one of the important factors when referring to copyright. Section 1 of the CDPA 1988 makes reference to the originality of literary, dramatic, musical and artistic work. According to Oxford dictionary originality is the ‘ability to think independently.’[25] In Walter v Lane[26] the House of Lords held that the reporters were authors under the Copyright Act 1842. They went on by saying that the effort, skill and time spent on the written speeches given by the Earl of Roseberry were enough to make them original; therefore the work was covered by copyright.[27] The test for originality in English law has customarily been a limited one[28]. The test shows that there is no need for the work to express original or inventive thought but the expression of the thought should originate from the author[29]; it should originate from the author in the sense that it should not be copied from another source[30]. This test can be seen in the judgement of Peterson J in the case of University of London Press Ltd v University Tutorial Press Ltd [1916].[31]

In addition to originality, fixation is also another condition that has to be satisfied before a work can be protected by copyright. When deciding the subject matter of any work the fixation of that particular work that has been created has to be looked at. ‘It must be fixed in a tangible medium of expression’[32]. Work is regarded as fixed when it is kept in a medium which can be perceived, reproduced and communicated[33]. For example, writing a song lyric on a piece of paper. In this case the paper would be the medium. Also, the song is fixed the moment the author records it on a voice recorder. Fixation brings about different benefits. One of such is that it produces certainty about the work that is being claimed[34] and it also encourages authors to produce works in a form that can be used by the society.[35] Another example of fixation would be a musician improvising a new tune while performing on stage, without ever writing it down or recording it[36]. Unless the improvised tune is fixed it will not be protected by copyright[37]. ‘UK copyright law expressly states that copyright will not exist in a literary, dramatic or musical work ‘unless and until it is recorded, in writing or otherwise’, although it does not matter whether the fixation is carried out by the author or by someone else; what matters is that the work is fixed’[38].

Other than fixation the final condition for a work to be protectable by copyright is the expressions of ideas and not ideas themselves. Copyright protects only the expression of the idea, and not the underlying idea, method, or process[39] hence there may be occasions where the originator of the information that forms the basis of the work in question will not be seen as the author of the work[40]. For example in the case of Springfield v Thame[41]the claimant, a journalist supplied newspaper with information in the form of an article[42]. The editor of the Daily Mail, from that information composed a paragraph which appeared in the newspaper[43]. It was held that the claimant was not the author of the paragraph printed in the newspaper[44]. Another example can also be seen in the case of Walter v Lane.[45]

In order for copyright to protect any work these four conditions have to be met. Looking specifically at musical works section 3(1) of the CDPA 1988 covers what a musical work consists of. According to s3(1) CDPA 1988 “musical work means a work consisting of music, exclusive of any words or action intended to be sung, spoken or performed with the music”[46]. In England there is a closed list system for copyright. A musical work does not necessarily give itself a clean split between the lyrics and the music itself as seen in the earlier paragraph regarding authorship.  A musical work can include lyrics which fall under literary copyright while dance and performances that go with music are classified as dramatic copyright[47]. Music may also include sound recording and soundtracks that are used in films.

An argument that could be made against the English courts having little regards towards creativity of music would be in relations to authorship. The case of Robin Ray v Classic FM plc[48] as previously mentioned shows that the English Courts pay some level of attention towards the creativity of musical works. This was evident in Lightman J’s judgement where he made reference to creative input being essential for a person to be regarded as an author or co-author.

In addition to this, the moral rights of an author can be said to protect creativity. Moral rights are described in article 6 of the Berne Convention for Protection of Literacy and Artistic Works 1886[49].  Works often mean more than just economic value; they can be very special to the author who had invested a lot in the work emotionally and intellectually[50]. Hence copyright works need to be protected in different ways compared to the traditional forms of property[51]. ‘Moral rights are only available for literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works and film, as well as some performances’[52]. There are four moral rights recognised in the UK which are (i) the right to attribution, (ii) the right to object to derogatory treatment of a work, (iii) the right to object to false attribution and (iv) the right to privacy of certain photographs and films[53]. For the purpose of the question, only two moral rights will be looked at.

The right to object to derogatory treatment of work can be used as evidence to show that the English courts consider creativity when it comes to music. Firstly this moral right covers musical works. Derogatory treatment is defined as any alterations made to the work that will amount to an alteration or damage of the work[54]; or is harmful to the reputation of the author[55]. It can be seen that this right preserves the idea of creativity and originality as well as protecting these key features from being abused in a way that could be offensive to the author of the work.

Furthermore, the right to object to false attribution is the right not to be named as the author of a work you did not create[56].  This would prevent, for example, a well-known author being named as the author of a story they did not write[57].  This right is infringed where copies of a work containing false acknowledgment are handed out to the public[58]. ‘The rights may be further infringed where a falsely attributed work is performed in public or broadcasted where a person knows or has reason to believe that the attribution is false’[59]. This moral right can also be said to protect the intellectual creativity of an author and it has been adopted by English law. A case that gives effect to this is Clark v Associated Newspaper [1998][60].

In rebutting these arguments the originality factor will be used. In Britain there have been some criticisms that the English courts tend to focus more on labour and skill without mush reference to intellectual effort or creativity.[61] ‘The approach to creativity is similar to that of originality. Even a small amount of creative labour will allow an individual to be treated as an author’[62]. An example of this can be seen in the case of Cummins v Bond [1927].[63]In this case a spiritualist said that she had taken down words from dictation at a séance in automatic writing[64]. The dictation came at great speed and the words had to be translated from an unknown tongue into archaic English. The medium had exercised sufficient skill to be an author of the resulting work[65]. In the UK, the courts have set a low standard for satisfying the originality requirement[66]. They have no expectations of the work to be innovative, creative or even useful. Nor do they judge the quality of the work[67].  As long as the creation of the work involves some labour, skill, judgement or effort, the work will be considered to be original[68].

However, not all types of labour, skill and judgement will be adequate in a copyright context[69]; if the effort involved in the creation of the work is trivial this will not be enough[70]. In this way, the original factor ensures that copyright protects only an author’s own intellectual creation[71].

 With regards to originality, musical works can include an adaptation or arrangement of existing musical work which may result in a separate musical copyright if it is sufficiently original[72].  In Sawkins v Hyperion Records Ltd[73] it was seen that a music editor named Lionel sawkins had created performing edition of Lalande’s works. These were held to be copyright works in their own right[74]. The corrections and additions necessary to allow the music to be played by modern performers were of sufficient audio and musical significance to attract copyright protection[75]. Originality required merely skill and labour, and was evident here[76]. Mummery LJ explained in this case that ‘the essence of music is combining sounds for listening to. Music is not the same as mere noise. The sound of music is intended to produce effects of some kind on the listener’s emotions and intellect…..’[77] This case shows how the English courts look more to originality rather than the creative aspect of musical works.

Other than this, the expression of an idea and not the idea itself factor can be used as an argument to support the notion that English Courts do not pay too much regard to creativity. This feature looks at the style of the idea; that is, more like an outer appearance of the idea and not the underlying technique or method that was used to achieve the idea itself which would reflect the creative aspect. As mentioned earlier the case of Springfield v Thame[78] is a good illustration of the English courts paying little regards to creativity but rather look to the expression of the idea.

Looking at the influence of the European Union (EU) on the English courts it can be seen that on some level the EU has had some impact on Britain. In Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening[79] the CJEU held that a work is only protected on the grounds of originality if it is the author’s own intellectual creation even though the Directive does not provide for originality and there was no need to seek to harmonise the concept.[80] The decision that was made in Infopaq[81] was considered and applied in the case of Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd v Meltwater Holding BV [2010][82] in the UK. It should be noted that Infopaq has influenced the UK courts relating to computer programs, database or photographs. All these works are protected by copyright only if they are original in the sense that they were formed from the author’s own intellectual creation[83]. This can be found under a number of EU Directives[84]. Another case whereby it can be seen that the EU has had some influence on English Law is Temple Island Collections Ltd v New England Teas Ltd [2012][85]. However the influence of referring to intellectual creativity has not yet extended to musical works in England.

In conclusion, English courts consider the subject matter of all works which covers authorship, originality, fixation and the expression of ideas as conditions to be satisfied for it to be protected by copyright. Originality is a major factor in which the English courts have adopted a test for. The test has a very low threshold whereby little innovation is needed to pass the test; based on the arguments and cases given the statement which make reference to English courts paying little regards to the creative aspects of music can be considered as true to a large extent.

---

[1] Oxforddictionaries.com, ‘Music’ https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/music accessed 23 April 2017

[2]  Oxforddictionaries.com, ‘Music’ https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/music  accessed 23 April 2017

[3] David Bainbridge, Intellectual Property, (9^th edn, Pearson Education Limited, 2012)p31

[4] Daniel Hunter and Dennis Patterson, The Oxford Introductions to U.S. Law: Intellectual Property, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012)

[5] Daniel Hunter and Dennis Patterson, The Oxford Introductions to U.S. Law: Intellectual Property, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012)

[6] Daniel Hunter and Dennis Patterson, The Oxford Introductions to U.S. Law: Intellectual Property, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012)

[7] Catherine Seville, Newnham College Cambridge, ‘Copyright: authorship’, (29 October 2015) https://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?&srguid=i0ad8289e0000015b9c43bf51850a8970&docguid=IC4B074A003FB11E384D0AEA3440C8C89&hitguid=IC4B074A003FB11E384D0AEA3440C8C89&rank=7&spos=7&epos=7&td=4000&crumb-action=append&context=12&resolvein=true accessed 23April 2017

[8] Copyright, Designs and Patent Act 1988 s9                    

[9] Daniel Hunter and Dennis Patterson, The Oxford Introductions to U.S. Law: Intellectual Property, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012)

[10] Robin Ray v Classic FM Plc [1988] ECC 488

[11] Robin Ray v Classic FM Plc [1988] ECC 488

[12] Copyright, Designs and Patent Act 1988 s10(1)

[13] Catherine Seville, Newnham College Cambridge, ‘Copyright: authorship’, (29 October 2015) https://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?&srguid=i0ad8289e0000015b9c43bf51850a8970&docguid=IC4B074A003FB11E384D0AEA3440C8C89&hitguid=IC4B074A003FB11E384D0AEA3440C8C89&rank=7&spos=7&epos=7&td=4000&crumb-action=append&context=12&resolvein=true accessed 25 April 2017

[14] Godfrey v Lees [1995] EMLR 307

[15] Godfrey v Lees [1995] EMLR 307

[16] Tate v Thomas [1921] 1 Ch. 503

[17] Godfrey v Lees [1995] EMLR 307

[18] Copyright, Designs and Patent Act 1988 s10A(1)

[19] Catherine Seville, Newnham College Cambridge, ‘Copyright: authorship’, (29 October 2015) https://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?&srguid=i0ad8289e0000015b9c43bf51850a8970&docguid=IC4B074A003FB11E384D0AEA3440C8C89&hitguid=IC4B074A003FB11E384D0AEA3440C8C89&rank=7&spos=7&epos=7&td=4000&crumb-action=append&context=12&resolvein=true accessed 25 April 2017

[20] Oxbridgenotes.co.uk, ‘Copyright Subject Matter Notes’, https://www.oxbridgenotes.co.uk/revision_notes/law-intellectual-property-law/samples/copyright-subject-matter accessed 23 April 2017

[21] Oxbridgenotes.co.uk, ‘Copyright Subject Matter Notes’, https://www.oxbridgenotes.co.uk/revision_notes/law-intellectual-property-law/samples/copyright-subject-matter accessed 23 April 2017

[22] Lancome Parfums v. Kecofa [2006] ECDR (26) 363 (Dutch Supreme Court)

[23] Lancome Parfums v. Kecofa [2006] ECDR (26) 363 (Dutch Supreme Court)

[24] Oxbridgenotes.co.uk, ‘Copyright Subject Matter Notes’, https://www.oxbridgenotes.co.uk/revision_notes/law-intellectual-property-law/samples/copyright-subject-matter  accessed 23 April 2017

[25] Oxforddictionaries.com, ‘Originality’, https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/originality accessed 23 April 2017

[26] Walter v Lane [1900] AC 539

[27] Walter v Lane [1900] AC 539

[28] Catherine Seville, Newnham College Cambridge, ‘Copyright: classification of works’, (30 October 2015) < https://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?&srguid=i0ad832f20000015b9c8439126d0005dc&docguid=IC4AFB15003FB11E384D0AEA3440C8C89&hitguid=IC4AFB15003FB11E384D0AEA3440C8C89&rank=6&spos=6&epos=6&td=4000&crumb-action=append&context=12&resolvein=true> accessed 23 April 2017

[29] Catherine Seville, Newnham College Cambridge, ‘Copyright: classification of works’, (30 October 2015) https://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?&srguid=i0ad832f20000015b9c8439126d0005dc&docguid=IC4AFB15003FB11E384D0AEA3440C8C89&hitguid=IC4AFB15003FB11E384D0AEA3440C8C89&rank=6&spos=6&epos=6&td=4000&crumb-action=append&context=12&resolvein=true accessed 23 April 2017

[30] Catherine Seville, Newnham College Cambridge, ‘Copyright: classification of works’, (30 October 2015) https://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?&srguid=i0ad832f20000015b9c8439126d0005dc&docguid=IC4AFB15003FB11E384D0AEA3440C8C89&hitguid=IC4AFB15003FB11E384D0AEA3440C8C89&rank=6&spos=6&epos=6&td=4000&crumb-action=append&context=12&resolvein=true accessed 23 April 2017

[31] University of London Press Ltd v University Tutorial Press Ltd [1916] [1916] 2 Ch. 601

[32]   Bitlaw, ‘Obtaining Copyright Protection’, http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/obtaining.html accessed 25 April 2017

[33]   Bitlaw, ‘Obtaining Copyright Protection’, http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/obtaining.html accessed 25 April 2017

[34] Daniel Hunter and Dennis Patterson, The Oxford Introductions to U.S. Law: Intellectual Property, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012)

[35] Daniel Hunter and Dennis Patterson, The Oxford Introductions to U.S. Law: Intellectual Property, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012)

[36] CopyrightUser.Org, ‘Case File #14: THE MISSING MANUSCRIPT’, http://copyrightuser.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/CU_CaseFile_14.pdf accessed 25 April 2017

[37] CopyrightUser.Org, ‘Case File #14: THE MISSING MANUSCRIPT’, http://copyrightuser.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/CU_CaseFile_14.pdf accessed 25 April 2017

[38] CopyrightUser.Org, ‘Case File #14: THE MISSING MANUSCRIPT’, http://copyrightuser.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/CU_CaseFile_14.pdf accessed 25 April 2017

[39]   Daniel Hunter and Dennis Patterson, The Oxford Introductions to U.S. Law: Intellectual Property, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012)

[40] David Bainbridge, Intellectual Property, (9th edn, Pearson Education Limited, 2012) p94

[41] Springfield v Thame (1903) 19 TLR 650

[42] Springfield v Thame (1903) 19 TLR 650

[43] Springfield v Thame (1903) 19 TLR 650

[44] Springfield v Thame (1903) 19 TLR 650

[45] Walter v Lane [1900] AC 539

[46] Copyright, Designs and Patent Act 1988 S3(1)

[47] Catherine Seville, Newnham College Cambridge, ‘Copyright: classification of works’, (30 October 2015) https://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?&srguid=i0ad832f20000015b9c8439126d0005dc&docguid=IC4AFB15003FB11E384D0AEA3440C8C89&hitguid=IC4AFB15003FB11E384D0AEA3440C8C89&rank=6&spos=6&epos=6&td=4000&crumb-action=append&context=12&resolvein=true  accessed 23 April 2017

[48] Robin Ray v Classic FM Plc [1988] ECC 488

[49] Berne Convention for Protection of Literacy and Artistic Works 1886 Article 6

[50] GOV.UK, ‘The rights granted by copyright’, https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-rights-granted-by-copyright accessed 25 April 2017

[51] GOV.UK, ‘The rights granted by copyright’, https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-rights-granted-by-copyright accessed 25 April 2017

[52] GOV.UK, ‘The rights granted by copyright’, https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-rights-granted-by-copyright accessed 25 April 2017

[53] GOV.UK, ‘The rights granted by copyright’, https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-rights-granted-by-copyright accessed 25 April 2017

[54] GOV.UK, ‘The rights granted by copyright’, https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-rights-granted-by-copyright accessed 25 April 2017

[55] GOV.UK, ‘The rights granted by copyright’, https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-rights-granted-by-copyright accessed 25 April 2017

[56]   GOV.UK, ‘The rights granted by copyright’, https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-rights-granted-by-copyright accessed 25 April 2017                    

[57]   GOV.UK, ‘The rights granted by copyright’, https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-rights-granted-by-copyright accessed 25 April 2017

[58] Mylawyer, ‘Moral Rights’, http://www.mylawyer.co.uk/moral-rights-of-a-work-a-A76063D76416/ accessed 25 April 2017

[59] Mylawyer, ‘Moral Rights’, http://www.mylawyer.co.uk/moral-rights-of-a-work-a-A76063D76416/ accessed 25 April 2017

[60] Alan Kenneth McKenzie Clark v Associated Newspapers Ltd [1998] 1 WLR 1558

[61] Catherine Seville, Newnham College Cambridge, ‘Copyright: classification of works’, (30 October 2015) https://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?&srguid=i0ad832f20000015b9c8439126d0005dc&docguid=IC4AFB15003FB11E384D0AEA3440C8C89&hitguid=IC4AFB15003FB11E384D0AEA3440C8C89&rank=6&spos=6&epos=6&td=4000&crumb-action=append&context=12&resolvein=true accessed 23 April 2017

[62] Catherine Seville, Newnham College Cambridge, ‘Copyright: classification of works’, (30 October 2015) https://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?&srguid=i0ad832f20000015b9c8439126d0005dc&docguid=IC4AFB15003FB11E384D0AEA3440C8C89&hitguid=IC4AFB15003FB11E384D0AEA3440C8C89&rank=6&spos=6&epos=6&td=4000&crumb-action=append&context=12&resolvein=true accessed 23 April 2017

[63] Cummins v Bond [1927] 1 Ch. 167

[64] Cummins v Bond [1927] 1 Ch. 167

[65] Cummins v Bond [1927] 1 Ch. 167

[66] CopyrightUser.Org, ‘Case File #14: THE MISSING MANUSCRIPT’, http://copyrightuser.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/CU_CaseFile_14.pdf accessed 25 April 2017

[67] CopyrightUser.Org, ‘Case File #14: THE MISSING MANUSCRIPT’, http://copyrightuser.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/CU_CaseFile_14.pdf accessed 25 April 2017

[68] CopyrightUser.Org, ‘Case File #14: THE MISSING MANUSCRIPT’, http://copyrightuser.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/CU_CaseFile_14.pdf accessed 25 April 2017

[69] CopyrightUser.Org, ‘Case File #14: THE MISSING MANUSCRIPT’, http://copyrightuser.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/CU_CaseFile_14.pdf accessed 25 April 2017

[70] CopyrightUser.Org, ‘Case File #14: THE MISSING MANUSCRIPT’, http://copyrightuser.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/CU_CaseFile_14.pdf accessed 25 April 2017

[71] CopyrightUser.Org, ‘Case File #14: THE MISSING MANUSCRIPT’, http://copyrightuser.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/CU_CaseFile_14.pdf accessed 25 April 2017

[72] Catherine Seville, Newnham College Cambridge, ‘Copyright: classification of works’, (30 October 2015) https://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?&srguid=i0ad832f20000015b9c8439126d0005dc&docguid=IC4AFB15003FB11E384D0AEA3440C8C89&hitguid=IC4AFB15003FB11E384D0AEA3440C8C89&rank=6&spos=6&epos=6&td=4000&crumb-action=append&context=12&resolvein=true accessed 23 April 2017

[73]Sawkins  v. Hyperion Records [2005] 1 W.L.R. 3281,

[74] Sawkins  v. Hyperion Records [2005] 1 W.L.R. 3281,

[75] Sawkins  v. Hyperion Records [2005] 1 W.L.R. 3281,

[76] Catherine Seville, Newnham College Cambridge, ‘Copyright: classification of works’, (30 October 2015) https://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?&srguid=i0ad832f20000015b9c8439126d0005dc&docguid=IC4AFB15003FB11E384D0AEA3440C8C89&hitguid=IC4AFB15003FB11E384D0AEA3440C8C89&rank=6&spos=6&epos=6&td=4000&crumb-action=append&context=12&resolvein=true  accessed 23 April 2017

[77] Sawkins  v. Hyperion Records [2005] 1 W.L.R. 3281, 3295

[78] Springfield v Thame (1903) 19 TLR 650

[79] Case C-5/08 Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening

[80] Case C-5/08 Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening

[81] Case C-5/08 Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening

[82] Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd v Meltwater Holding BV [2010]  EWHC 3099 (Ch)

[83] Catherine Seville, Newnham College Cambridge, ‘Copyright: classification of works’, (30 October 2015) https://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?&srguid=i0ad832f20000015b9c8439126d0005dc&docguid=IC4AFB15003FB11E384D0AEA3440C8C89&hitguid=IC4AFB15003FB11E384D0AEA3440C8C89&rank=6&spos=6&epos=6&td=4000&crumb-action=append&context=12&resolvein=true  accessed 23 April 2017

[84] Catherine Seville, Newnham College Cambridge, ‘Copyright: classification of works’, (30 October 2015) https://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?&srguid=i0ad832f20000015b9c8439126d0005dc&docguid=IC4AFB15003FB11E384D0AEA3440C8C89&hitguid=IC4AFB15003FB11E384D0AEA3440C8C89&rank=6&spos=6&epos=6&td=4000&crumb-action=append&context=12&resolvein=true  accessed 23 April 2017

[85] Temple Island Collections Ltd v New England Teas Ltd [2012]  EWPCC 1