Hubbard v Vosper

Last updated
Hubbard v Vosper
Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom.svg
Court Court of Appeal of England and Wales
Full case nameHubbard and another v Vosper and another
Decided17-19 November 1971
Citation(s)[1972] 2 Q.B. 84
Court membership
Judges sitting Lord Denning
Lord Megaw
Lord Stephenson
Keywords

Hubbard v Vosper, [1972] 2 Q.B. 84, is a leading English copyright law case on the defence of fair dealing. The Church of Scientology sued a former member, Cyril Vosper, for copyright infringement due to the publication of a book, The Mind Benders , criticizing Scientology. The Church of Scientology alleged that the books contained material copied from books and documents written by L. Ron Hubbard, as well as containing confidential information pertaining to Scientology courses. Vosper successfully defended the claim under the fair dealing doctrine, with the Court of Appeal deciding unanimously in his favour. The judgment given by Lord Denning clarified the scope and content of the fair dealing defence.

Contents

Background

On 9 September 1971 The Mind Benders, a book critical of Scientology written by Cyril Vosper, a former scientologist of 14 years, was published by Neville Spearman. The Church of Scientology obtained an interim injunction on the same day to restrain publication of the book. [1]

The book contained many extracts from the works of L. Ron Hubbard, including books such as Axioms and Logics and Introduction to Scientology Ethics. These extracts were often accompanied by criticism and explanations in Vosper's book. Also included in the book was information obtained by Vosper through Scientology courses, which the Church of Scientology claimed was confidential by virtue of a declaration signed by Vosper not to divulge any of the information to outsiders - specifically to those who were not "Clear".

At issue was whether the extracts in The Mind Benders constituted copyright infringement, and whether the information published in the book amounted to an actionable breach of confidence.

The lower court granted the injunction to prevent publication of the book, finding that there was a strong case for infringement. [2]

Reasons of the court

A panel of three judges in the Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the appeal, and lifted the injunction against publication of the book.

Fair dealing defence

Lord Denning, writing the leading judgment for the court, found that the defence of fair dealing applied to Vosper's book under section 6(2) of the Copyright Act 1956, which said:

No fair dealing with a literary, dramatic or musical work shall constitute an infringement of the copyright in the work if it is for purposes of criticism or review, whether of that work or of another work, and is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgment.

In clarifying the doctrine of fair dealing, Lord Denning considered previous case law, and described a legal test for determining what would constitute a valid use of the defence:

It is impossible to define what is "fair dealing." It must be a question of degree. You must consider first the number and extent of the quotations and extracts. Are they altogether too many and too long to be fair? Then you must consider the use made of them. If they are used as a basis for comment, criticism or review, that may be fair dealing. If they are used to convey the same information as the author, for a rival purpose, that may be unfair. Next, you must consider the proportions. To take long extracts and attach short comments may be unfair. But, short extracts and long comments may be fair. Other considerations may come to mind also. But, after all is said and done, it must be a matter of impression. As with fair comment in the law of libel, so with fair dealing in the law of copyright. The tribunal of fact must decide. In the present case, there is material on which the tribunal of fact could find this to be fair dealing. [3]

Upon consideration of the evidence, Lord Denning found that the book was a fair dealing of the source material, rejecting the argument that Vosper was criticizing not the works per se, but was instead criticizing the underlying subject matter. He found that criticism of the book and criticism of the subject matter were indistinguishable, and that this would not in itself cause the fair dealing defence to fail. [3]

Lord Megaw agreed, and added in his concurring judgment that it may be possible to invoke the fair dealing defence even if a substantial part or the entirety of the original work was reproduced, noting that the proportion of the work taken must be weighed against the nature and purpose of the reproduction. [4]

Breach of confidence

The Court of Appeal rejected the argument that confidential information was unfairly used in Vosper's book. Lord Denning noted that there was very little evidence pointing to the use of such confidential information, but that even if the information was used, there may be some circumstances such as these where the public interest may outweigh the confidentiality of the information.

Aftermath

A further attempt by the Church of Scientology to appeal the case to the House of Lords was dismissed on 9 February 1972. [5]

The hardcover edition of the book was released after the ruling, while a paperback edition, titled The Mind Benders: The Book They Tried to Ban was published in 1973, including a reference to the litigation in the appendix. [6]

The Church of Scientology also attempted to ban the book in Canadian libraries by threatening the sue for libel. [7] Several libraries were subsequently sued when they refused to remove the books. [8]

Significance

The case, and especially the judgment of Lord Denning, has been frequently cited as the leading interpretation of the fair dealing defence in the United Kingdom. [9] [10] [11]

In Canada, Denning's test for fair dealing was substantially adopted and expanded by the Supreme Court of Canada in CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada . [12] [13] Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin separated the fair dealing test into six factors based on Denning's judgment: [12]

  1. The purpose of the dealing
  2. The character of the dealing
  3. The amount of the dealing
  4. Alternatives to the dealing
  5. The nature of the work
  6. The effect of the dealing on the work

See also

Related Research Articles

Fair use is a doctrine in United States law that permits limited use of copyrighted material without having to first acquire permission from the copyright holder. Fair use is one of the limitations to copyright intended to balance the interests of copyright holders with the public interest in the wider distribution and use of creative works by allowing as a defense to copyright infringement claims certain limited uses that might otherwise be considered infringement. Unlike "fair dealing" rights that exist in most countries with a British legal history, the fair use right is a general exception that applies to all different kinds of uses with all types of works and turns on a flexible proportionality test that examines the purpose of the use, the amount used, and the impact on the market of the original work.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Disconnection (Scientology)</span> Severance of all ties from someone deemed to be antagonistic towards Scientology

Disconnection is the severance of all ties between a Scientologist and a friend, colleague, or family member deemed to be antagonistic towards Scientology. The practice of disconnection is a form of shunning. Among Scientologists, disconnection is viewed as an important method of removing obstacles to one's spiritual growth. In some circumstances, disconnection has ended marriages and separated children from their parents. The Church of Scientology has repeatedly denied that such a policy exists, though as of February 2012 its website acknowledged the practice and described it as a human right. In the United States, the Church has tried to argue in court that disconnection is a constitutionally protected religious practice. However, this argument was rejected because the pressure put on individual Scientologists to disconnect means it is not voluntary.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Scientology and law</span>

The Church of Scientology has been involved in court disputes in several countries. In some cases, when the Church has initiated the dispute, questions have been raised as to its motives. The Church of Scientology says that its use of the legal system is necessary to protect its intellectual property and its right to freedom of religion. Critics say that most of the organization's legal claims are designed to harass those who criticize it and its manipulative business practices.

In English and English-derived legal systems, an Anton Piller order is a court order that provides the right to search premises and seize evidence without prior warning. This is intended to prevent the destruction of relevant evidence, particularly in cases of alleged trademark, copyright or patent infringements.

<i>CCH Canadian Ltd v Law Society of Upper Canada</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

CCH Canadian Ltd v Law Society of Upper Canada, [2004] 1 SCR 339, 2004 SCC 13 is a landmark Supreme Court of Canada case that established the threshold of originality and the bounds of fair dealing in Canadian copyright law. A group of publishers sued the Law Society of Upper Canada for copyright infringement for providing photocopy services to researchers. The Court unanimously held that the Law Society's practice fell within the bounds of fair dealing.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fair Game (Scientology)</span> Actions of the Church of Scientology towards perceived enemies

The term Fair Game is used to describe policies and practices carried out by the Church of Scientology towards people and groups it perceives as its enemies. Founder of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard, established the policy in the 1950s, in response to criticism both from within and outside his organization. Individuals or groups who are "Fair Game" are judged to be a threat to the Church and, according to the policy, can be punished and harassed using any and all means possible. In 1968, Hubbard officially canceled use of the term "Fair Game" because of negative public relations it caused, although the Church's aggressive response to criticism continued.

<i>Bare-faced Messiah</i> Posthumous biography of L. Ron Hubbard

Bare-faced Messiah: The True Story of L. Ron Hubbard is a posthumous biography of Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard by British journalist Russell Miller. First published in the United Kingdom on 26 October 1987, the book takes a critical perspective, challenging the Church of Scientology's account of Hubbard's life and work. It quotes extensively from official documents acquired using the Freedom of Information Act and from Hubbard's personal papers, which were obtained via a defector from Scientology. It was also published in Australia, Canada and the United States.

Cyril Ronald Vosper was an anti-cult leader, former Scientologist and later a critic of Scientology, deprogrammer, and spokesperson on men's health. He wrote The Mind Benders, which was the first book on Scientology to be written by an ex-member, and the first critical book on Scientology to be published.

<i>The Mind Benders</i> (book)

The Mind Benders was written by Cyril Vosper, a Scientologist of 14 years who had become disillusioned, Published in 1971 and reprinted in 1973, it was the first book on Scientology to be written by an ex-member and the first critical book on Scientology to be published. It describes the lower levels of Scientology and its philosophy in detail and also includes the story of Vosper's expulsion from the Church.

<i>A Piece of Blue Sky</i> 1990 book about Scientology and Dianetcs

A Piece of Blue Sky: Scientology, Dianetics and L. Ron Hubbard Exposed is a 1990 book about L. Ron Hubbard and the development of Dianetics and Scientology, authored by British former Scientologist Jon Atack. It was republished in 2013 with the title Let's sell these people A Piece of Blue Sky: Hubbard, Dianetics and Scientology. The title originates from a quote of Hubbard from 1950; an associate of Hubbard's noted him saying that he wanted to sell potential members "a piece of blue sky".

<i>Scientology: The Now Religion</i> Non-fiction book on Scientology by George Malko

Scientology: The Now Religion is a book on Scientology, written by George Malko. The book was the first full-length analysis of the history surrounding the founding of the Church of Scientology, and L. Ron Hubbard. The author conducted interviews with members, and provides analysis about certain practices. The book was published in 1970 in Hardcover format by Delacorte Press, and then in a paperback edition in 1971, by Dell Publishing. The Church of Scientology fought to prevent the sale of the book.

In regards to copyright on religious works, it is not always clear who the rightsholder is. Under the provisions of the Berne Convention, copyright is granted to the author on the creation of the work. Several religions claim that all or some of their works were authored by their god or gods.

Fair dealing is a limitation and exception to the exclusive rights granted by copyright law to the author of a creative work. Fair dealing is found in many of the common law jurisdictions of the Commonwealth of Nations.

<i>Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communication Services, Inc.</i>

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.

<i>Greene v Associated Newspapers Ltd</i> UK ruling on defamation cases

Greene v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 1462 is a case of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales that governs the use of injunctions against publication in alleged defamation cases. Greene, a businesswoman, sought an injunction against Associated Newspapers Ltd to prevent them publishing alleged links with Peter Foster; while they claimed to have emails showing links, she asserted that they were false. The test at the time for a preliminary injunction in defamation cases was Bonnard v Perryman, where it was established that the applicant has to show "a real prospect of success" at trial. The Human Rights Act 1998 established that judges should consider whether applicants are "more likely than not" to succeed at trial, a test applied to confidentiality cases in Cream Holdings Ltd v Banerjee and the Liverpool Post and Echo Ltd. Greene claimed that the Cream test should be applied rather than the Bonnard test.

<i>Pro Sieben Media AG v Carlton UK Television Ltd</i>

Pro Sieben Media v Carlton Television [1999] 1 WLR 605 was a decision by the Court of Appeal of England and Wales over the fair dealing exception to United Kingdom copyright law. ProSieben had broadcast an interview on Taff with Mandy Allwood, a woman who was pregnant with octuplets. Carlton Television produced a current affairs program that used a 30 second extract from this interview, and had copied the entire program for the purposes of selecting the extract to be used. Pro Sieben Media sued Carlton, alleging copyright infringement, while Carlton argued that the use of the extract constituted fair dealing, as it was for the purposes of criticism or review, or for reporting current events.

Fair dealing in United Kingdom law is a doctrine which provides an exception to United Kingdom copyright law, in cases where the copyright infringement is for the purposes of non-commercial research or study, criticism or review, or for the reporting of current events. More limited than the United States doctrine of fair use, fair dealing originates in Sections 29 and 30 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, and requires the infringer to show not only that their copying falls into one of the three fair dealing categories, but also that it is "fair" and, in some cases, that it contains sufficient acknowledgement for the original author. Factors when deciding the "fairness" of the copying can include the quantity of the work taken, whether it was previously published, the motives of the infringer and what the consequences of the infringement on the original author's returns for the copyrighted work will be.

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.

Fair dealing is a statutory exception to copyright infringement, and is also referred to as a user's right. According to the Supreme Court of Canada, it is more than a simple defence; it is an integral part of the Copyright Act of Canada, providing balance between the rights of owners and users. To qualify under the fair dealing exception, the dealing must be for a purpose enumerated in sections 29, 29.1 or 29.2 of the Copyright Act of Canada, and the dealing must be considered fair as per the criteria established by the Supreme Court of Canada.

<i>Civic Chandran v. Ammini Amma</i>

Civic Chandran v. Ammini Amma is a landmark case in Indian copyright law decided by Kerala High Court in which the judgment held that even substantial copying of copyrighted work is permissible under the fair dealing exception; if the copying is in public interest.

References

  1. Hubbard v Vosper, [1972] 2 QB 84 [Vosper] at 91
  2. Vosper at 96
  3. 1 2 Vosper at 94
  4. Vosper at 98
  5. Vosper at 101
  6. Vosper, Cyril (1973). The Mind Benders: The Book They Tried to Ban. Mayflower Books. ISBN   978-0583122498.
  7. "Libraries Face Libel Threat", Winnipeg Free Press , June 27, 1974
  8. "Anti-Scientology Books Targets of Lawsuits", The Library Journal , November 1, 1974.
  9. Colston, Catherine (1995). "Fair Dealing: What is Fair?". Denning Law Journal. 10: 91.
  10. Fair dealing in the UK, Canadian Heritage, retrieved November 30, 2010
  11. Bradshaw, David (1995). ""Fair Dealing" as a Defence to Copyright Infringement in UK Law: An Historical Excursion from 1802 to the Clockwork Orange Case 1993". Denning Law Journal. 10: 67.
  12. 1 2 CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada, [2004] 1 SCR 339
  13. Vaver, David (2011). Intellectual Property Law: Copyright, Patents, Trade-Marks (2nd ed.). Toronto: Irwin Law. ISBN   978-1-55221-209-7.