IPKat event announcement: (Re-)discovering the copyright basics – Originality after THJ v Sheridan

IPKat copyright event on 14 March:
you can attend in person ...

In late 2023, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales issued its judgment in THJ v Sheridan [2023] EWCA Civ 1354.

Ruling on whether copyright would subsist in certain graphic user interfaces (GUIs), Lord Justice Arnold pointed out that section 1(1)(a) of the UK Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act must be interpreted in accordance with Article 2(a) of the EU InfoSoc Directive. As such:
[…] What is required is that the author was able to express their creative abilities in the production of the work by making free and creative choices so as to stamp the work created with their personal touch […] This criterion is not satisfied where the content of the work is dictated by technical considerations, rules or other constraints which leave no room for creative freedom […]
Commenting on the decision, The IPKat inter alia noted that the judgment is relevant because, despite Brexit and the power of senior courts to ‘depart’ from CJEU case law, lacking a statutory reform, the effects and relevance of CJEU case law on UK law remain very visible and relevant. Furthermore, criteria other than originality do not appear allowed and – importantly – the test for originality is a thorough and objective one.

The judgment in THJ v Sheridan appears to have already had a tangible impact, including on the art and cultural heritage sector. An editorial published on The Art Newspaper, for example, has questioned the possibility for UK cultural heritage institutions to claim that simple reproductions of public domain artworks warrant their own copyright protection. Recently, the British Association of Picture Libraries and Agencies (BAPLA) has also issued a statement reacting to the judgment.

In all this, it is worth noting that questions regarding the meaning and assessment of the originality criterion are still in need of an answer outside of the UK too: the pending CJEU referrals in Mio, USM Haller, and Institutul G. Călinescu are testimony to all of this.

In light of the above, it is clear that when, how, and at what conditions copyright protection arises are still very very (very!) relevant issues.

The IPKat is thrilled to announce that, in the evening of 14 March 2024, a stellar panel has been gathered to discuss all this in person at London School of Economics (LSE) thanks to the hospitality of the Law, Technology and Society Hub at LSE Law School, with also the possibility of remote participation!


The panellists are (in alphabetical order):
  • Richard Arnold, Lord Justice of Appeal (Court of Appeal of England and Wales)
  • Patrick Goold, Reader (City Law School)
  • Bendor Grosvenor, Art Historian, Writer and Former Art Dealer
  • Eleonora Rosati, PermaKat (IPKat), Professor of Intellectual Property Law (Stockholm University), Of Counsel (Bird & Bird)
  • Andrea Stern, Visual Content Consultant (Andrea Stern Associates)
... but also online

The Chair is Luke McDonagh, Assistant Professor of Law (LSE).


17:30 – 19:30: Panel discussion

19:30 – 20:30: Networking drinks

How to attend

See you in London or on Zoom!
IPKat event announcement: (Re-)discovering the copyright basics – Originality after THJ v Sheridan IPKat event announcement: (Re-)discovering the copyright basics – Originality after THJ v Sheridan Reviewed by Eleonora Rosati on Friday, February 09, 2024 Rating: 5

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

Powered by Blogger.