 |
Pearson Education Limited v Morgan Adzei is one of the novel Ghanaian cases that discusses the extent of application and protection under the Copyright Act of Ghana, Act 690. [1] The primary focus of this case is on the works excluded from copyright eligibility under section 2 of the Copyright Act, Act 690. [2]
The respondent, who was the plaintiff in the trial court, is the one who wrote the novel Woes of the African Mother, which was first published in August 1982. This novel was then selected by the West African Examination Council as one of the prescribed texts for prose in the English Language paper for the academic years 2004 to 2006 for the Basic Education Certificate Examination for junior high schools in Ghana. The respondent, in his action, claimed that, following a meeting of the Directors of the Ghana Education Service on the literature component of the Basic School English Language examination, it was decided that Junior Secondary School I pupils should be examined for prose in, the respondent's novel. A recommendation was therefore made that 450,000 copies of respondent's novel at a unit cost of 20,000 Cedis be ordered. The appellant, the publisher of a work titled Gateway to English for Junior Secondary Schools Pupil’s Book 3 included, as Appendix 6, a summary of the respondent's novel which caused the respondent to be aggrieved as the act of the appellant caused him to lose a substantial amount of money. [3]
Whether or not there was copyright infringement by the publishers of Gateway.
Copyright protect does not extend to ideas, concepts, procedures, methods or other things of a similar nature. [4]
It has been considered an axiom of copyright law, as applied in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and many other jurisdictions, that copyright protects the expression of an idea, rather than the idea itself. This at any rate is clear beyond all question, that there is no copyright in an idea, or in ideas. A person may have a brilliant idea for a story, or for a picture, or for a play, and one which appears to him to be original but if he communicates that idea to an author or an artist or a playwright, the production which is the result of the communication of the idea to the author or the artist or the playwright is the copyright of the person who has clothed the idea in form, whether by means of a picture, a play, or a book, and the owner of the idea has no rights in that product. [5] Similarly, Copyright does not extend to ideas, or schemes, or systems or methods. It is confined to their expression and if their expression is not copied the copyright is not infringed. [6] Ghanaian law, as usual, has been influenced by this English law. Accordingly, the appellant has endeavoured to construct a case based on this axiom of English and Ghanaian law. [7]
Both parties offered compelling arguments with respect to the extent of Copyright application in Ghana.
The appellant submits that the judgment of the trial court failed to address the import of the provision in section 2 of Act 690 that copyright does not extend to ideas, and that the Court of Appeal erred in not setting aside the judgment on that ground. The plot of a novel, such as Woes, was an idea that had no copyright protection under Act 690. Therefore, the Summary could not constitute copyright infringement especially when it was neither alleged nor established that the Summary had plagiarized the plaintiff's linguistic style or presentation. The appellant argues that the Summary, published purposely for education, did not infringe the plaintiff's copyright in Woes. [8]
The appellant goes on to cite in support of his argument, ideas versus expression. In dealing with the question of copying, there should be borne in mind the well established principle that there is no copyright in mere ideas, concepts, schemes, systems or methods. Rather, the object of copyright is to prevent the copying of the particular form of expression in which these things are conveyed. If the expression is not copied, copyright is not infringed. Thus to be liable, the defendant must have made a substantial use of the form of expression; he is not liable if he has taken from the work the essential idea, for his own purposes. Protection of this kind can only be obtained, if at all, under patent law or the law relating to confidential information. This principle finds expression in many of the cases, to the effect, for example, that it is no infringement of the copyright on a literary or dramatic work to take its basic idea or plot...” [9]
The Summary was a substantial reproduction of Woes, particularized as general similarity of the plot characterization and incidents in the two works and upon the similarity or identity of the words and phrases. The main issue that fell for decision was whether Gateway merely summarized the plot of Woes or, whether in doing so, it plagiarized the literary presentation in Woes. Obviously the plaintiff did not establish the alleged similarity or identity of the words and phrases” because there was none. The grievance of general similarity of the plot characterization and incidents in the two works” also overlooked the position that there is no copyright in ideas. [10] No copyright in ideas. "Copyright is a property right. But copyright is concerned, in essence, with the negative right of preventing the copying of material. It is not concerned with the reproduction of ideas but with the reproduction of the form in which ideas are expressed. “Ideas, it has always been admitted…are free as air. Copyright is not a monopoly, unlike patents and registered designs, which are…The position is that, if the idea embodied in the plaintiff’s work is sufficiently general, the mere taking of that idea will not infringe. If, however, the idea is worked out in some detail in the plaintiff’s work and the defendant reproduces the expression of that idea, then there may be an infringement”. [11]
Since section 2 of the Copyright Act, has specifically excluded ideas, concepts among others from Copyright, the fundamental and core issue which a court engaged in a copyright case has to consider is whether the works alleged to be in breach of the Copyright Act, are not excepted under section 2 of the Act. Since the plaintiff has failed to clear that initial hurdle, the appeal herein succeeds. [12]
The idea–expression distinction or idea–expression dichotomy is a legal doctrine in the United States that limits the scope of copyright protection by differentiating an idea from the expression or manifestation of that idea.
A scène à faire is a scene in a book or film which is almost obligatory for a book or film in that genre. In the U.S. it also refers to a principle in copyright law in which certain elements of a creative work are held to be not protected when they are mandated by or customary to the genre.
Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191, was a decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which ruled that exact photographic copies of public domain images could not be protected by copyright in the United States because the copies lack originality. Even though accurate reproductions might require a great deal of skill, experience and effort, the key element to determine whether a work is copyrightable under US law is originality.
The copyright law of the United States grants monopoly protection for "original works of authorship". With the stated purpose to promote art and culture, copyright law assigns a set of exclusive rights to authors: to make and sell copies of their works, to create derivative works, and to perform or display their works publicly. These exclusive rights are subject to a time and generally expire 70 years after the author's death or 95 years after publication. In the United States, works published before January 1, 1928, are in the public domain.
Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communication Services, Inc., 907 F. Supp. 1361, is a U.S. district court case about whether the operator of a computer bulletin board service ("BBS") and Internet access provider that allows that BBS to reach the Internet should be liable for copyright infringement committed by a subscriber of the BBS. The plaintiff Religious Technology Center ("RTC") argued that defendant Netcom was directly, contributorily, and vicariously liable for copyright infringement. Netcom moved for summary judgment, disputing RTC's claims and raising a First Amendment argument and a fair use defense. The district court of the Northern District of California concluded that RTC's claims of direct and vicarious infringement failed, but genuine issues of fact precluded summary judgment on contributory liability and fair use.
Substantial similarity, in US copyright law, is the standard used to determine whether a defendant has infringed the reproduction right of a copyright. The standard arises out of the recognition that the exclusive right to make copies of a work would be meaningless if copyright infringement were limited to making only exact and complete reproductions of a work. Many courts also use "substantial similarity" in place of "probative" or "striking similarity" to describe the level of similarity necessary to prove that copying has occurred. A number of tests have been devised by courts to determine substantial similarity. They may rely on expert or lay observation or both and may subjectively judge the feel of a work or critically analyze its elements.
The Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison test (AFC) is a method of identifying substantial similarity for the purposes of applying copyright law. In particular, the AFC test is used to determine whether non-literal elements of a computer program have been copied by comparing the protectable elements of two programs. The AFC test was developed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 1992 in its opinion for Computer Associates Int. Inc. v. Altai Inc. It has been widely adopted by United States courts and recognized by courts outside the United States as well.
In Canada, the Copyright Act provides a monopoly right to owners of copyrighted works. This implies no person can use the work without authorization or consent from the copyright owner. However, certain exceptions in the Act govern circumstances where a work will not be held to have been infringed.
Ho v. Taflove is a Seventh Circuit case about the copyrightability of scientific data. In 2011, the Seventh Circuit affirmed a 2009 decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois holding that the expression of ideas can be copyrighted but not the ideas themselves.
Paraphrasing of copyrighted material may, under certain circumstances, constitute copyright infringement. In most countries that have national copyright laws, copyright applies to the original expression in a work rather than to the meanings or ideas being expressed. Whether a paraphrase is an infringement of expression, or a permissible restatement of an idea, is not a binary question but a matter of degree. Copyright law in common law countries tries to avoid theoretical discussion of the nature of ideas and expression such as this, taking a more pragmatic view of what is called the idea/expression dichotomy. The acceptable degree of difference between a prior work and a paraphrase depends on a variety of factors and ultimately depends on the judgement of the court in each individual case.
Roth Greeting Cards v. United Card Co., 429 F.2d 1106, was a Ninth Circuit case involving the copyright of greeting cards that introduced the "total concept and feel" standard for determining substantial similarity. Courts used this test in later cases such as Reyher v. Children's Television Workshop (1976).
Nutt v. National Institute Inc. was an early case in which it was found that copyright extended beyond the words of a work. The court found that "The infringement need not be a complete or exact copy. Paraphrasing or copying with evasion is an infringement, even though there may be little or no conceivable identity between the two."
See v. Durang (1983) was a case where the author of a play claimed that another playwright had based a second play on a draft script that the plaintiff had written, infringing on its copyright. The court refused to consider the process by which the second play had been created, but chose to simply compare the end results. The court found no infringement, coining the axiom, "Copying deleted or so disguised as to be unrecognizable is not copying."
Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc., 934 F. Supp. 2d 640 , is a case from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York concerning copyright infringement of digital music. In ReDigi, record label Capitol Records claimed copyright infringement against ReDigi, a service that allows resale of digital music tracks originally purchased from the iTunes Store. Capitol Records' motion for a preliminary injunction against ReDigi was denied, and oral arguments were given on October 5, 2012.
Delrina Corporation v. Triolet Systems Inc, 2002 CanLII 11389, 58 OR (3d) 339, also known as Delrina II, is a 2002 Ontario Court of Appeal case which established the existence of the merger doctrine in Canadian copyright law. The plaintiff, Delrina Corp., sued Triolet Systems Inc. and Brian Duncombe for infringing its copyright of the computer program Sysview by designing similar software, called Assess. The plaintiffs were awarded an interlocutory injunction but ultimately lost at trial. Delrina Corp.’s appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal was dismissed.
Navitaire Inc v Easyjet Airline Co. and BulletProof Technologies, Inc., is a decision by the England and Wales High Court of Justice. The case involved a copyright infringement claim brought by Navitaire Inc. ("Navitaire") against EasyJet Airline Company ("EasyJet") and Bulletproof Technologies, Inc. ("Bulletproof") with regards to software used to construct an airline booking system. Curiously, it was not claimed that Defendant had access to the original source code or that Defendant's source code resembled Plaintiff's in any way.
RG Anand v. Delux Films, is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India in the area of copyright law. The case deals with a copyright infringement suit against the movie New Delhi made by Mohan Sehgal in 1954. The plaintiff R.G. Anand, contended that it was modeled on the plot of a play Hum Hindustani written and produced by him. The judgment is remarkable for clarifying the concepts of idea-expression dichotomy and copyright infringement under the Indian copyright law.
Penguin Books Ltd. v. India Book Distributors and Others, was a 1984 Delhi High Court court case. Penguin Books Ltd. of England brought a suit for perpetual injunction against the respondents, India Book Distributors of New Delhi, to restrain them from infringing Penguin's territorial license in 23 books, the subject matter of the suit.
Paul Oliver v. Samuel K. Boateng was a ground-breaking case concerning copyright law in Ghana by the High Court of Justice. It reaffirmed the laws of Copyright relating to the requirements of copyright protection and the law relating to authorship in Ghana. This case elaborated the fact that the law of Copyright in Ghana is a creature of Statute and set out some major general principles in Copyright Law in Ghana.
The Copyright Act is the legal framework that protects the use of an individual's work once the idea has been physically expressed. It is a form of intellectual property that protects original works of authorship of literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works such as poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software and architecture. Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed. Ghana's current copyright law is Act 690 issued by the Parliament of the Republic of Ghana. It was enacted on 17 May 2005 and replaced Parliament's Act No. 110, the country's previous Copyright law from 1985. The Copyright law affords protection to a variety of works, grants Copyright holders rights to their work and defines the duration of that Copyright protection.