They are all copyright works. They were each created independently. None of them would be infringing works because none were copied from the other. Such a situation is a poor comparison to the facts of the case in the OP.
Except that none of those "works" would be protected by copyright in the first place. There is a minimum standard of "originality" to be met, where for copyright to subsist in a work the author must have exercised adequate "skill, labour and judgment" in producing said work. A note pack as described would not meet those minimum criteria, no copyright would subsist in them, and you couldn't accuse anyone of infringement.
There are quite a few specious arguments in this thread. This is another one.
Two works from a common source material cannot infringe each other because one *was not a copy of the other*.
Quite fittingly given the topic, Krisarts v Briarfine was a case concerning painted postcards of views of the Houses of Parliament and other London landmarks. Both artists' final works looked for similar; but there was no copyright infringement because they merely worked from common source material. This is directly comparable to your situation.
But this still misses the point: the judge found copyright infringement in this instance because there was a causative link between the infringing work and the claimant's work. They didn't have the same idea independently and independently created them from common source material. The defendant specifically set out to replicate the claimant's work to avoid having to license it. That is not independent creation. The circumstances are key.
There is significant precedent in UK law that if one takes a "significant portion" of the original work then it constitutes copyright infringement. This provision exists to prevent someone from circumventing infringement by making trivial differences and then claim they haven't directly copied a work.
This case absolutely does not extend to the protection of an idea. For copyright infringement to be found, one must demonstrate a causative link between the original work and the alleged infringing work; hence, independent creation of (in this case) a photograph wherein it can be demonstrated that the defendant was unaware of the original work is not an infringing act.
Those are not the circumstances of this case. The defendant was aware of the claimant's work; in fact, there had been a licensing disagreement concerning exactly that work which was claimed to be infringed.
The relevant case law for this type of thing is Bauman v Fussell, Krisarts v Briarfine, and for the "intellectual creation" reasoning (brought in to harmonize with existing EU law and somewhat overriding the previous "skill, labour and judgment" basis which used to be UK law), see the Infopaq cases.
Downloading copyrighted materials for your own use is a crime in the UK. There is no "fair use" clause in that respect.
As to whether or not hosting a website containing links directed towards copyright material constitutes secondary or contributory copyright infringement... well, that's the million pound question, isn't it? The case law isn't yet clear on that matter and is presently evolving. Sorry to give a cop out answer, but it's hard to be more precise at the moment.
They're not being sued because a law doesn't exist. They're being sued because they allegedly haven't implemented an EU-wide law which they are (allegedly) obliged to; such implementations are a condition of membership of the EU.
If you, as a citizen of an EU member state, have suffered harm from your nation's government not implementing an EU law which it has been obliged to, then yes, you can sue your own government. It's called a Francovich claim and is the basis of individual citizens ensuring that their own government can't shirk on their responsibilities to implement EU laws.
There is no such "100 year law extention [sic]" in the UK. I assume you're referring to the implementation of the EU (note: EU, not UK) Directive extending the copyright protection on recorded works from 50 to 70 years.
Hyperbole doesn't help your point, it just makes you look incredibly uninformed.
Formaldehyde and cyanide are only "the antithesis of life" because of their effects on modern, full-formed metabolisms. That is not applicable to the prebiotic synthesis of what are now considered biomolecules. They are simply small organic molecules, and are good "building blocks" for the synthesis of slightly more complex molecules - such as amino acids and nucleic acids, for example.
Slashdot Mirror
They are all copyright works. They were each created independently. None of them would be infringing works because none were copied from the other. Such a situation is a poor comparison to the facts of the case in the OP.
Except that none of those "works" would be protected by copyright in the first place. There is a minimum standard of "originality" to be met, where for copyright to subsist in a work the author must have exercised adequate "skill, labour and judgment" in producing said work. A note pack as described would not meet those minimum criteria, no copyright would subsist in them, and you couldn't accuse anyone of infringement.
There are quite a few specious arguments in this thread. This is another one.
I erred, that should read "substantial part".
Two works from a common source material cannot infringe each other because one *was not a copy of the other*.
Quite fittingly given the topic, Krisarts v Briarfine was a case concerning painted postcards of views of the Houses of Parliament and other London landmarks. Both artists' final works looked for similar; but there was no copyright infringement because they merely worked from common source material. This is directly comparable to your situation.
The judge's interpretation is completely consistent with the law as written and legal precedent as established.
Section 16(3) of the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988:
"(3)References in this Part to the doing of an act restricted by the copyright in a work are to the doing of it—
(a)in relation to the work as a whole or any substantial part of it, and..."
Note "substantial part". That is the basis of the judgment, along with the precedent established in cases I've mentioned up-thread.
But this still misses the point: the judge found copyright infringement in this instance because there was a causative link between the infringing work and the claimant's work. They didn't have the same idea independently and independently created them from common source material. The defendant specifically set out to replicate the claimant's work to avoid having to license it. That is not independent creation. The circumstances are key.
There is significant precedent in UK law that if one takes a "significant portion" of the original work then it constitutes copyright infringement. This provision exists to prevent someone from circumventing infringement by making trivial differences and then claim they haven't directly copied a work. This case absolutely does not extend to the protection of an idea. For copyright infringement to be found, one must demonstrate a causative link between the original work and the alleged infringing work; hence, independent creation of (in this case) a photograph wherein it can be demonstrated that the defendant was unaware of the original work is not an infringing act. Those are not the circumstances of this case. The defendant was aware of the claimant's work; in fact, there had been a licensing disagreement concerning exactly that work which was claimed to be infringed. The relevant case law for this type of thing is Bauman v Fussell, Krisarts v Briarfine, and for the "intellectual creation" reasoning (brought in to harmonize with existing EU law and somewhat overriding the previous "skill, labour and judgment" basis which used to be UK law), see the Infopaq cases.
Downloading copyrighted materials for your own use is a crime in the UK. There is no "fair use" clause in that respect. As to whether or not hosting a website containing links directed towards copyright material constitutes secondary or contributory copyright infringement... well, that's the million pound question, isn't it? The case law isn't yet clear on that matter and is presently evolving. Sorry to give a cop out answer, but it's hard to be more precise at the moment.
They're not being sued because a law doesn't exist. They're being sued because they allegedly haven't implemented an EU-wide law which they are (allegedly) obliged to; such implementations are a condition of membership of the EU. If you, as a citizen of an EU member state, have suffered harm from your nation's government not implementing an EU law which it has been obliged to, then yes, you can sue your own government. It's called a Francovich claim and is the basis of individual citizens ensuring that their own government can't shirk on their responsibilities to implement EU laws.
There is no such "100 year law extention [sic]" in the UK. I assume you're referring to the implementation of the EU (note: EU, not UK) Directive extending the copyright protection on recorded works from 50 to 70 years. Hyperbole doesn't help your point, it just makes you look incredibly uninformed.
Formaldehyde and cyanide are only "the antithesis of life" because of their effects on modern, full-formed metabolisms. That is not applicable to the prebiotic synthesis of what are now considered biomolecules. They are simply small organic molecules, and are good "building blocks" for the synthesis of slightly more complex molecules - such as amino acids and nucleic acids, for example.