Intellectual Property Rights Infringement of TV Productions - Essay Example

?Intellectual Property Rights Infringement of TV Productions Intellectual property rights constitute transforming ideas into tangible products and services. The diversity in the ideas that give rise to products and services requires that there are different protections available for every different aspect of a product or service. Likewise, the concept of protection of these products and services was highlighted in 1886 and a treaty came into existence titled Berne Convention for the Protection of Copyrights and Artistic Works (Out Law 2012). They realized that the intellectual property in the form of literary, musical and artistic works requires protection globally, and all countries which are members of the World Trade Organization shall become members of the Berne Convention. The convention, however, clarified the nature, scope, powers and enforceability of the copyrights in general. However, it required that the member states need to amend their existing laws to give due recognition to the protection granted to the literary, artistic, musical, cinematographic, records and related rights. United Kingdom ratified the Convention and resultantly, the Parliament formed a new law titled Copyright Act 1911 denouncing the statutory law Statute of Anne 1709. Currently, United Kingdom has Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (CDPA) 1988 as its active legislation. Likewise, the protection of company names and brands that distinguish one product from the other are protected under the Trademark Act of 1944. The law recognizes that the trade dress of the product and service is protected under trademark law. Similarly, the product design can be protected under design law. In United Kingdom, CDPA, 1988 covers design protection for products. In this particular case, where Media Ltd. developed animated TV program series named as “The Zoo” and later on licensed the series for broadcasting to DBC Television has given rise to several rights. According to the CDPA, 1988, the literary, artistic, film, and sound recordings are all covered under the copyrights protection (Huylson 2012). It recognizes the author’s rights in the literary, artistic, cinematographic and record works. At the same time, it provides protection to the singers, broadcasters and producers to secure their rights under copyrights (Business Link, 2012). The UK law does not require copyright to be registered as trademarks, designs and patents. A copyright in UK is created automatically with the creation of the work. Therefore, it can be enforced in case of infringement without prior registration in UK. Conversely, the other member countries of the Berne Convention require that copyright should be registered to create evidence of original author of the work and the time of creation. This way it assists the courts in deciding copyright infringement cases. In UK, there is no such mandatory requirement to register for enforcement of copyrights in the courts. Likewise, the symbol © is not required by law in UK to be used on the literary, artistic, musical, cinematographic, records and related rights either. It is understood that these works are copyrighted and protected under CDPA, 1988. On the other hand, there are countries and people in UK who still use symbol © on their works to show that these are copyrighted works and in case of infringement can be fully enforced against the infringer. The law of copyright protection provides the exclusive protection to the author to make copies of the work, sell or license it and use it for any purpose whatsoever. It provides protection to the broadcasters and singers in the shape of exclusive rights to their broadcasted work to ensure that others do not infringe upon their rights. The law recognizes 50 years of protection to films and cinematographic works from the date of the manufacturing of the work (Copyright Service 2012). Likewise, the copyrights in the broadcast last for 50 years, starting from the end of the calendar year in which the broadcast was first made. The copyright in the work arises automatically as it is created with the work. It is not mandatory to register a copyright for a work. However, if registered, it can be easily proved in the courts of law in case any instance of infringement has occurred (Evershed 2012). According to the UK law on copyrights and related rights, the film and TV productions can be entirely covered under copyright protection. The copyright holder can either sell the rights in the film and TV production or license it to others to broadcast it. A person who does not have copyright in the film and TV production can use the copyrighted work for personal usage without prior authorization from the right holders. However, if the use of copyrighted works is for commercial gain and lacks an educational or personal use, it will fall under the copyright infringement clause of the CDPA, 1988. The law highlights that save for the copyright exceptions mentioned in the CDPA, 1988, all uses of copyrighted work without the prior authorization of the copyright holders will suffice as intentional copyright infringement. Importantly, the CDPA, 1988 recognizes broadcast rights as distinct from the literary or artistic rights that are in the content of the broadcast. The law provides additional protection to broadcasts through wireless or cable; however, it excludes some Internet transmissions. Furthermore, the law requires that the work should be original to contain copyright protection. Any work that is copied or a direct production of the prior copyright work existed in the world shall not be eligible for copyright protection as unoriginal or infringed work. In 2012, the UK High Court sought clarification from the Chief Justice of European Union (CJEU) regarding what constitutes communication to the public. The Court held that the website www.tvcatup.com actually infringes upon the copyrights of the broadcasters on the grounds that the free communication to the public of films and TV productions damages the broadcasters’ business (Evershed 2012). Therefore, the website offering free air time considerably damages the business of broadcasters and allows the public to have access to all the copyrighted work for free and without prior authorization of the copyright holder. Media Ltd is a well-known TV production company. It is responsible for the hit TV children animated TV series “The Zoo.” It is broadcast on DBC television. “The Zoo” features cartoon animated zoo animals with voiceovers by famous actors. In this case, Media Ltd. has a copyright on all of its animated TV series for 50 years from the date when the animated series was first made. Thus, Media Ltd. has exclusive rights in its work and can make copies, sell, license or use the work for any purpose whatsoever. In the case of infringement, Media Ltd. has the right to bring a legal action against the infringer, especially when DBC Television was granted the exclusive right to broadcast the animated series. Therefore, it has a copyright in the work for 50 years from the first time the work was broadcasted. In case of infringement, DBC Television can bring a legal suit against the infringer. One character in particular, the Lawrence Lion, becomes a particularly popular figure and Media Ltd licenses the copyright to third party producers to make Lawrence Lion books, dolls and children clothing. The Lawrence dolls include a special limited edition version which is handmade, has eyes made from semi-precious stones, a velvet waistcoat and sable fur for his mane. These dolls take on average a single worker some 10 hours to produce and only thirty are made. These instantly become collectors’ items and none are bought for children. In this situation, Media Ltd. has developed trademarks such as Lawrence Lion which is a brand name of Media Ltd. It is protected under the Trademark Act, 1944 that provides that any mark that distinguishes one product from another is a trademark and is subject to protection for 10 years and renewable for 5 years until not renewed (UKIPO 2012). Here, Media Ltd. has licensed third parties to manufacture different items under the brand name of Lawrence Lion. Media Ltd. has the exclusive rights in the trademark and can bring a legal suit against infringers. At the same time, Media Ltd. also required that special handmade dolls under the brand name Lawrence Lion should be produced that are exquisite and unique. These dolls come under the Design Law protection as it protects the design of the dolls that are unique and different from any other dolls in the market. The design law requires that the design should be novel, involve an inventive step in its production and could be industrially manufactured. In the United Kingdom, it has a life of 15 years. In this case, the design of the doll is the exclusive property of Media Ltd. and can be protected through courts. Carl and his family are “The Zoo” fans and have a complete collection of “The Zoo” taped from DBC broadcasts. He lends these to Sheila, his neighbour for her own young daughter. Sheila’s husband, David, takes these tapes and makes several thousand copies at a friend’s video production facility while he is away, and then starts to sell them at his market stall. Here, David had no rights to make copies of the animated film series as it was the exclusive property of Media Ltd. and DBC Television. After making thousand copies of the animated film series, David became infringer of copyrights held by Media Ltd and DBC Television. He is liable for a lawsuit against him for the illegal copying of the animated film series as well as commercially selling it. The copyright law has been created in order to protect the rights of the authors and related broadcasters from being illegally manipulated and exploited by others for their own benefits. The copyright law protects the royalties and revenue streams of the authors in their works which are exploited by others. Juan, a doll manufacturer in Spain, sees a Lawrence video at a friend’s house, forgets about it, but then a year later starts to produce the very Lawrence-like dolls, some of which are imported back into the UK by Import Ltd. Here, Juan began starting manufacturing Lawrence Lion dolls which are the exclusive design property of Media Ltd. In case they enter the UK market, they will tend to confuse the customers and give them the impression that they are buying the products of original Lawrence Lion by Media Ltd. This act is known as passing-off in trademark law. Under the passing-off doctrine, the goods of one producer are passed as others. This act is criminal and fraudulent one to reap benefits and financial gains attached to the original brand and the product (WIPO 2012). It is advised to Media Ltd. that it have a trademark right in its brand name Lawrence Lion and The Zoo. It has a design right in its Lawrence Lion handmade dolls and copyrights in its entire animated TV series. Regardless of the fact that these are not registered with UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO), it does not make Media Ltd. incapable to enforce the copyrights and related rights in the works. In UK law, there are no mandatory requirements to register the copyrights in the work as they arise automatically upon their creation. Therefore, Media Ltd. has rights to initiate legal proceedings in the court for the intellectual property rights infringement, passing-off, permanent injunction and damages against David, Juan and Import Ltd. The case for permanent injunction is recommended as it will ensure that the infringers are permanently stopped by the court from further selling of the product and passing-off their products as those of Media Ltd. The copyright infringement act is a criminal non-bailable act. Therefore, the court will determine a criminal liability on the infringer, David. Likewise, DBC Television has the exclusive rights to broadcasting of the animated TV series “The Zoo.” Therefore, when David illegally made several thousand of copies of the series and began to sell them commercially, he became intentional infringer of the copyrights that are vested with DBC Television. They have the remedy to bring a separate or collective lawsuit with Media Ltd. against David for the copyright infringement and ensure that full damages are recovered from him for the loss that they have suffered as a result of loss of sales, bad reputation and loss of goodwill. References Business Link, 2012. Publishing and broadcasting, [Online]. Available at: http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?itemId=1087182938&type=RESOURCES [Accessed 13 May 2012]. Copyright Service, 2012. UK copyright law, [Online]. Available at: http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p01_uk_copyright_law [Accessed 13 May 2012]. Copyright, design and patents act, 1988. London. Evershed, 2012. An overview of UK broadcasting, [Online]. Available at: https://www.eversheds.com/uk/Home/Articles/index1.page?ArticleID=templatedata%5CEversheds%5Carticles%5Cdata%5Cen%5CMedia%5CHigh_court_seeks_clarification_071211 [Accessed 13 May 2012]. Huyton, E., 2012. Music copyright in television production, Eye Fish [Online]. Available at: http://eyefish.tv/production-guide/music-copyright-television-production [Accessed 13 May 2012]. Out-Law, 2012. Swiss start-up re-broadcasting UK TV channels, [Online]. Available at: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/swiss_uk_tv_ripoff/ [Accessed 13 May 2012]. UK IPO, 2012. TV and Films, [Online]. Available at: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-applies/c-tvfilm.htm [Accessed 13 May 2012]. WIPO, 2012. Copyright and related rights, [Online]. Available at: http://www.wipo.int/copyright/en/ [Accessed 13 May 2012]. Read More