Report on Intellectual Property & Copyright Law, UK

Is the Mural depicting Greta Thunberg and authorized use of her image?

               It is important to know that when someone comes with an original design, and original design or idea is developed by someone, then he/she is the owner of that idea or design. It is absolutely fine to depict the moral of Greta Thunberg on the wall of building in Edinburgh. But it is important that permission is taken from Greta Thunberg, as it’s her image being used on the wall. The second issue with this situation could be between Cruz and Michael. It is evident that Cruz has made its digital sketch, so as per copyright law; he is automatically the owner of this design. This is approved with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 c 48, in Chapter I regarding the Subsistence, ownership, and also duration of copyright which included artistic works within the regulation that deserve for copyright (Legislation.gov.uk, 2019).

GWA utilize digital copy of mural, for which Cruz has the design and Michelle as the artist have own. They upload the file. They have also potentially violate Greta Thunberg’s Mural use

               It is mentioned earlier that Cruz was the one, who designed the digital sketch of the mural, which was painted on the wall, and its digital copy was available at YAK’s website. If GWA had to use this digital copy in any form, then they should have taken permission from the owner of digital design, Cruz telling the purpose to get the copy, as well as, they should have asked from YAK’s website as well to use the digital copy. By downloading the digital image, changing its design; GWA made copyright and intellectual property rights violations. Changing the image was another violation made by GWA. This case can be seen from the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 c 48, in Chapter II the Rights of Copyright Owner, no 23 which mentioned that it is included as the secondary infringement to possess or dealing with infringing copy (Legislation.gov.uk, 2019).

Can the font be registered or protected used in the neon?

               It is vital to understand that if neon, as well as its design along with font size, etc., has been registered as a copyright, then it is important to get permission before making any changes in the font size of neon. In this case, Angela came up with a new font size, which looks fine in the eyes of copyright laws, because if anything had to be intellectual property for the advertising, then they should have registered it as their own with all the elements including the font size. In the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 c 48, Chapter III Acts Permitted in relation to Copyright Works, description on no 51 has mentioned that “It is not an infringement of any copyright in a design document or model recording or embodying a design for anything other than an artistic work or a typeface to make an article to the design or to copy an article made to the design” (Legislation.gov.uk, 2019).

Our house is on fire mash up - is IPR and copyright infringed on Davin-cii. Whilst they have Femi, permission this may not be original work.

               The situation should be understood in detail to see what is actually happening in this situation. The song “Our house is on fire” is playing in the room, and Angela was given permission by Femi to play the music mash-up. This mash-up of the song was created by Femi by changing its design, loop, and adding more words in it. As far as mash-up is concerned, it is the copyright of Femi, because she is the creator of this mash-up. But the issue is with the original lines of the song “our house on fire, which is not the copyright of Femi, rather it is copyright of musician Daviin-cii’. Femi did not take any permission from the actual musician and owner of the rhythm, so, in overall terms, using that particular song with particular lines was not legal, and it was a copyright infringement because it was not the original work of Femi to allow anyone to play it in the room. This is aligned with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 c 48 in Chapter II the Rights of Copyright Owner, no 19 that clearly mentioned that, “Where copyright in a work is infringed by its being performed, played or shown in public by means of apparatus for receiving visual images or sounds conveyed by electronic means, the person by whom the visual images or sounds are sent, and in the case of a performance the performers, shall not be regarded as responsible for the infringement” (Legislation.gov.uk, 2019).

The music playing in the room maybe considered a broadcast of the Greta Thunberg speeches and the house is on fire

               It is critical to know what copyright law has to say in such a particular situation. It was true that the song was “our house is on fire”, and overall mash-up also included lines from the speeches of Greta Thunberg. But both of them would have been considered broadcast if both original contents would have been used separately. But in this case, both copyright materials were used with copyright infringement in the mash-up made by Femi. If Femi would have taken permission from copyright owners, then there was no copyright issue. This has mentioned on the This is approved with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 c 48, in Chapter I regarding the Subsistence, ownership, and also duration of copyright, no 75 that, “A recording of a broadcast or a copy of such a recording may be made for the purpose of being placed in an archive maintained by a body which is not established or conducted for profit without infringing any copyright in the broadcast or in any work included in it” (Lgislation.gov.uk, 2019).

Bojo has UK registered design for the bag, registered in March 2018 before sales commenced vs. Sea berry Community Design from Jan 2018. A community design is valid for any use other than what the design was registered. Has Hugh infringed Sea berry or Bolo, and has Bojo infringed Sea berry. Was there any protection via an unregistered design?

               The fact of the matter is that design used by Hugh in his replica was not his own, and he actually saw the design made by Bojo, because he never followed luxury brands such as Sea Berry, so he never saw the original design of Sea Berry. On the other hand, the design made by Bojo was registered in 2018, but this design was copied from the Community design of Sea Berry registered in Jan 2018. It means that original design actually belonged to Sea Berry, as they have got registration for the bag design, and Bojo made copyright infringement by copying the main elements of design with little changes. In overall terms, both Bojo and Hugh have violated copyright law by copying the design of Sea Berry. Hugh may not have known about this fact, but he has also made copyright infringement of the design of Sea Berry. Moreover, once the design is made, it has automatic protection as per copyright law of the UK, even if it is not registered. This case can be seen from the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 c 48, in Chapter II the Rights of Copyright Owner, no 23 which mentioned that it is included as the secondary infringement to possess or dealing with infringing copy (Legislation.gov.uk, 2019).

Is a leak considered "normally known" Copyright infringed by Edinburgh Express by releasing and internal document

               It is evident that Edinburgh Express is related to the field of news, because it is an online news portal, and it has used the video as well as leaked material on its website in the news article. It is vital to know that copyright law of the UK comes with fair dealing of copyright material, and as per this law, there are six aspects, where the copyrighted material can be used and it would not be covered under copyright infringement penalties. One of the aspects out of six elements is using the copyrighted material for reporting current news events. Edinburgh Express has used the material in the news article, which complies with the law of fair dealing of copyright. So, there are no legal issues associated with this scenario. This is approved with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 c 48, in Chapter I regarding the Subsistence, ownership, and also duration of copyright, no 75 that, “A recording of a broadcast or a copy of such a recording may be made for the purpose of being placed in an archive maintained by a body which is not established or conducted for profit without infringing any copyright in the broadcast or in any work included in it” (Lgislation.gov.uk, 2019).

Is the broadcast of Room 1, with music playing infringing on Yak, Femi or Daviin-cii and Greta Thunberg

               The music playing in the room 1 is infringing two individual owners, one is Daviin-cii, who is the original owner of the song, and the second one is Greta Thunberg, who is the owners of her speeches, and her words are being used from the speech without any permission. This is approved with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 c 48, in Chapter I regarding the Subsistence, ownership, and also duration of copyright, no 6 regarding the Broadcasts (Legislation.gov.uk, 2019).