LexisNexis’ All England Direct subscription-only service has thrown up a short and sweet copyright and moral rights dispute, Anya v Wu and others (heard on 25 February by Mr Justice Lewison of the Chancery Division). Anya claimed that Wu and others infringed his moral right to be known as the author of two articles on the basis that, while Anya didn’t actually write those articles, they had nonetheless exploited his ideas. Lewison J struck out Anya’s claim: moral rights were there to benefit the author, not to provide credit for anyone providing an intellectual “assist”.
The IPKat understands that moral rights cases are pretty infrequent events. However, though Lewison J has only been an IP judge for a very short time, this is already the second moral rights case he has adjudicated (the other being the “shizzle my nizzle” rap case, Confetti Records v Warner Bros). So far he seems to have handled this sensitive area well.
Theft of ideas here, here and here
Moral rights here
Moral wrongs here
The IPKat understands that moral rights cases are pretty infrequent events. However, though Lewison J has only been an IP judge for a very short time, this is already the second moral rights case he has adjudicated (the other being the “shizzle my nizzle” rap case, Confetti Records v Warner Bros). So far he seems to have handled this sensitive area well.
Theft of ideas here, here and here
Moral rights here
Moral wrongs here
NO MORAL RIGHTS FOR NON-AUTHORS
![NO MORAL RIGHTS FOR NON-AUTHORS]()
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Thursday, February 26, 2004
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] EUIPO Second Board of Appeal refers case to Grand Board of Appeal following earlier refusal to register a photograph of a man’s head/face as an EU trade mark](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUj9v-k3DYaSVMR4lsmKDLHVB5nIoINuvZNbH2TQCelrfaAE9qmGSAQs-plzQ7HnZ7Svk_gRdrIODp0Nat5vpWajduit3xkArNhK76AHhX770RIJ62thfCVI5fnvcXU-5zH4NkUSfPY9FjRMFiK7OKJ7m7YSo2FzhyPSoA8ZWCsxaOXb0bBCoPQA/s72-c/Picture%201.png)
![[Guest post] Benelux Office rules on opposition proceedings prepared by ChatGPT](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi29VY0rNNP1Hqyz8RgB47r4q7fhqQfYHxsEbX_RKmT4KU5Y_vg7vB6dsAW91CidjMfJ38klTvD4mMtZb3QmwFPAHaGF88BPttWSbfYvo7UUg7MpFRTNtEjThmG0QaX2qZFFHSnN71i3YQZSBFC0SL7PgkAlme-XH8cSNWRFbOAOuLr_LMOGcImLQ/s72-c/Screenshot%202024-12-04%20at%2020.45.58.png)
Posts
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html