1. Temple Island Collection V. New English Teas The case of photograph infringement

2. In November 2011, Temple Islands Collections, a souvenir retailed, brought an action for copyright infringement against New English Teas limited, for having created an image which allegedly infringed the claimants copyright. A copyright on “artistic work” of the Copyright designs and Patents act 1988 was awarded to the claimant in 2006. Where a photograph is to be considered photographic work if they are the result of the photographer’s personality which is reflected in the arrangement of the photographic work. Case Overview

3. Photograph being disputed Above image 1: Claimant’s work Above image 2: Defendant’s work Images obtained from:http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWPCC/2012/1.html

4. Temple Island Collections Here claims are made that the defendant’s image infringes their copyrighted work. They claim that it reproduces a substantial part of their work as the way in which the bus is portrayed in front of the houses of parliament is inappropriately based on the claimants work. New English Teas Infringement is denied as they argue that the claimant’s rights lie in the originality of the work. Hence, they believe that an infringement has taken place only if a substantial part of the originality of the photograph has been reproduced. The claimant cannot use copyright law to give the monopoly over the black and white image of the Houses of Parliament with a red bus in it. The Arguments

5. Central Dispute The main issue in this matter is what exactly is the scope of photographic copyright? Reference is made to 3 aspect in which there is room for originality: 1.Specialities in shot angle, light/shade. Exposure and effects due to filters or other techniques used in developing 2.Creation of photographed scene 3.Being at the right place at the right time

6. Trademark According to His Honour Judge Birss: The photograph is “the result of Mr Fielder's own intellectual creation both in terms of his choices relating to the basic photograph itself: the precise motif, angle of shot, light and shade, illumination, and exposure and also in terms of his work after the photograph was taken to manipulate the image to satisfy his own visual aesthetic sense”.

7. Court Decision On January 12 th 2012, the court ruled in favour of Temple Island Collections Limited. His Honors Judge Colin Birss ruled that “on the question of copying, I find that the common elements between the defendant’s work and the claimant’s work are causally related. In other words, they have been copied… I have decided that the defendants’ work does reproduce a substantial part of the claimant’s artistic work. Hence, infringement has taken place, with no permission to appeal for New English Teas.

8. Source The information depicted in this presentation is obtained from http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWPCC/2012/1.html

9. About IPR Plaza IPR Plaza is a web-based platform that bridges the gap between IP law, accounting, tax, transfer pricing and valuation by providing general and profession-specific information on intangibles, as well as, quantifiable valuation models. IPR Plaza is empowered by different leading IP advisory firms. IPR Plaza is headquartered in the Netherlands with representation in other major countries.