The purpose of this essay is to advise Liz, Ricco’s family, Dave and Music Masters
as to their rights and potential liabilities under the CDPA 1988. In this essay, they will
be assessed individually.
Re: Liz
In the current case, Liz will first be advised as to the potential rights of being
protected under the CDPA 1988 which would subsist in six of her works, and then
her potential liability for infringement if she do not own any right under the CDPA
1988 in some of her works.
In dealing with the issue on whether or not Liz’s works will be protected under
the CDPA 1988, it is required to first identify the type of work in issue. In the current
case, the works fall within the categories of a musical work defined in Hyperion
Records Ltd v Sawkins as sounds which are intended to produce emotional effects in
potential consumers, and recordings under Section 5A CDPA 1988. And in dealing
with the issue on whether or not Liz’s works would fall under the scope for protection
under the copyright law, four requirements must be satisfied:
1) Fixation;
2) Originality;
3) Connection; and
4) Public policy requirement.
In the current case, there would be no issue for the requirements of fixation,
connection and public policy to be established. As it was clearly stated in the facts
that the work in issue were in recorded form, hence its material form is not in dispute.
In relation to the requirements of connection and public policy, it would be safe to
infer that the works of Liz were made in the United Kingdom, hence the works share
a connection with United Kingdom and thus will be protected within the jurisdiction of
United Kingdom. In relation to the public policy requirement, there would be no issue
for the work to qualify as it does not fall under the category of works which is illegal,
immoral or indecent as illustrated in Glyn v Western Film Feature and AG v
Guardian (No.2).
In relation to the requirement of originality, the case of Ladbroke v William Hill
states that it must be shown that labour, skill and judgement were involved in the
as to their rights and potential liabilities under the CDPA 1988. In this essay, they will
be assessed individually.
Re: Liz
In the current case, Liz will first be advised as to the potential rights of being
protected under the CDPA 1988 which would subsist in six of her works, and then
her potential liability for infringement if she do not own any right under the CDPA
1988 in some of her works.
In dealing with the issue on whether or not Liz’s works will be protected under
the CDPA 1988, it is required to first identify the type of work in issue. In the current
case, the works fall within the categories of a musical work defined in Hyperion
Records Ltd v Sawkins as sounds which are intended to produce emotional effects in
potential consumers, and recordings under Section 5A CDPA 1988. And in dealing
with the issue on whether or not Liz’s works would fall under the scope for protection
under the copyright law, four requirements must be satisfied:
1) Fixation;
2) Originality;
3) Connection; and
4) Public policy requirement.
In the current case, there would be no issue for the requirements of fixation,
connection and public policy to be established. As it was clearly stated in the facts
that the work in issue were in recorded form, hence its material form is not in dispute.
In relation to the requirements of connection and public policy, it would be safe to
infer that the works of Liz were made in the United Kingdom, hence the works share
a connection with United Kingdom and thus will be protected within the jurisdiction of
United Kingdom. In relation to the public policy requirement, there would be no issue
for the work to qualify as it does not fall under the category of works which is illegal,
immoral or indecent as illustrated in Glyn v Western Film Feature and AG v
Guardian (No.2).
In relation to the requirement of originality, the case of Ladbroke v William Hill
states that it must be shown that labour, skill and judgement were involved in the
