Overlap With Copyright Uk Vs Eu.
OVERLAP WITH COPYRIGHT: UK vs EU
Context:
Copyright law protects original works (literary, artistic, musical, films, software, etc.). The UK historically aligned closely with EU law due to EU directives, but Brexit created some divergence. Many principles, however, still overlap.
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK
United Kingdom
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA)
Updated to incorporate EU directives (InfoSoc Directive 2001/29/EC, Database Directive 96/9/EC)
Post-Brexit: retained most EU-aligned provisions
European Union
InfoSoc Directive 2001/29/EC
Software Directive 2009/24/EC
Term Directive 2006/116/EC
Harmonization principle: ensures minimum protection and some exceptions across member states
Key Areas of Overlap:
Exclusive rights: reproduction, communication to the public, distribution, adaptation
Exceptions: private copying, quotation, educational use, libraries
DRM/Technological protection measures
PART A: UNITED KINGDOM – CASE LAW ON COPYRIGHT
1. Designer Guild Ltd v Russell Williams (Textiles) Ltd (2000)
Facts:
Designer Guild claimed copyright infringement against a competitor who made similar fabric designs.
Issue:
Whether the designs were substantially similar and original under UK law.
Judgment:
Court emphasized skill and labour in original works.
Infringement found due to copying of core elements, even if minor differences existed.
Significance:
Aligns with EU notion of originality (intellectual creation of author, not mere labour).
2. British Horseracing Board v William Hill (2005)
Facts:
BHB sued William Hill for copying horseracing data from their database.
Issue:
Whether database copyright existed under UK law.
Judgment:
Court recognized database rights under UK law (implemented from EU Database Directive 96/9/EC).
Substantial investment in obtaining and verifying data was protected.
Significance:
Shows direct influence of EU directives on UK copyright law.
3. Lucasfilm Ltd v Ainsworth (2009)
Facts:
Concerned the copyright in Stormtrooper helmets and whether reproduction was infringement.
Issue:
Copyright in artistic works vs functional items.
Judgment:
UK Supreme Court distinguished artistic work from industrial design.
Helmets were functional objects; copyright protection limited.
Significance:
Mirrors EU Court of Justice (CJEU) approach to copyright vs industrial design.
4. Infopaq International v Danske Dagblades Forening (2009, UK courts implementing ECJ)
Facts:
Infopaq extracted 11-word snippets from newspapers.
Issue:
Whether temporary reproduction constituted copyright infringement.
Judgment:
UK courts followed ECJ: even short extracts can be protected if they reflect intellectual creation.
Significance:
Confirms UK adoption of EU originality standards.
5. Football Dataco Ltd v Yahoo! UK (2012)
Facts:
Football Dataco claimed copyright in football fixture lists.
Issue:
Whether facts/statistics can be copyrighted.
Judgment:
UK Supreme Court emphasized creative selection and arrangement (following EU Database Directive).
Raw facts not protected; compilations with skill/labour are.
Significance:
Shows UK database rights mirror EU Database Directive.
PART B: EUROPEAN UNION – CASE LAW
1. Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening (C-5/08, 2009, ECJ)
Facts:
Same as above, but before UK adoption.
Issue:
Does temporary copying of 11-word snippets require authorization?
Judgment:
Any reproduction with intellectual creation qualifies as infringement.
Significance:
Sets EU standard for originality and temporary copies.
2. Football Dataco v Yahoo! (CJEU Influence)
Facts:
Similar facts, EU-wide relevance.
Issue:
Protection of databases consisting of sports fixtures.
Judgment:
Facts themselves not protected, but investment in obtaining/structuring them is.
Significance:
Directs member states to protect substantial investment, a principle UK mirrored.
3. L’Oréal v eBay (C-324/09, ECJ 2011)
Facts:
L’Oréal challenged eBay over sale of counterfeit goods.
Issue:
Liability of online intermediaries and copyright/trademark overlap.
Judgment:
Platforms may be liable if they knowingly facilitate infringement.
Significance:
Influenced UK intermediary liability laws and online copyright enforcement.
4. Svensson v Retriever Sverige AB (C-466/12, 2014)
Facts:
Linking to copyrighted articles on a website.
Issue:
Whether hyperlinking constitutes communication to the public.
Judgment:
Hyperlinking is not direct infringement if public is not a new audience.
Significance:
UK adopted similar reasoning for online linking and copyright.
5. Padawan v Springer (ECJ, 2015)
Facts:
Concerns copyright in e-books and temporary storage by online libraries.
Issue:
Temporary caching and private use exceptions.
Judgment:
Reproductions that are transient/technical do not infringe copyright.
Significance:
UK CDPA s28A adopted similar approach post-Brexit.
PART C: KEY OVERLAPS AND TAKEAWAYS
| Aspect | UK | EU | Overlap / Divergence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Originality standard | “Skill, labour, and intellectual creation” | “Intellectual creation of author” | UK aligns with EU post-Infopaq |
| Database rights | Substantial investment protected | Directive 96/9/EC | Directly implemented in UK |
| Temporary copies | Limited exceptions | Allowed if technical/temporary | UK follows ECJ approach in CDPA s28A |
| DRM & TPM | Protected with proportionality | Protected under InfoSoc Dir | Broad alignment, but UK courts more user-sensitive |
| Online linking | Not infringement if no new public | ECJ standard in Svensson | UK courts adopt similar standard |
| Intermediary liability | Considered | ECJ approach influences | UK law mirrors EU principles |
CONCLUSION
UK copyright law mirrors EU law in most substantive areas, especially originality, database protection, DRM, and temporary copying.
Brexit has not substantially changed substantive overlap, though future divergence may appear in enforcement, exceptions, and digital policy.
Leading UK cases frequently implement or follow ECJ jurisprudence, ensuring alignment with the EU harmonization principle.
RELATED Blog
comments