header-logo header-logo

09 October 2014
Issue: 7625 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Parody, but only if the judge is laughing

Lawyers have predicted a rise in copyright disputes as new rules on parody came into force this month.

From 1 October, parodies of copyright-protected work are exempt from legal action. Paul Joseph, RPC partner, said: “Creative works that make the zeitgeist like Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, and Breaking Bad are likely to be a hugely popular source of further parody.”

Joseph predicts an increase in disputes in the short term as content owners test the limits of “parody”. “A key requirement for a publisher to claim that the parody exception protects their use of someone else’s copyright is that the new work is funny.

This means that UK judges will be asked to decide whether new creative arts are funny. If the judge isn’t laughing, the creator of the new work may end up on the losing side of a copyright infringement case.”

Issue: 7625 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hugh James—Jonathan Askin

Hugh James—Jonathan Askin

London corporate and commercial team announces partner appointment

Michelman Robinson—Daniel Burbeary

Michelman Robinson—Daniel Burbeary

Firm names partner as London office managing partner

Kingsley Napley—Jonathan Grimes

Kingsley Napley—Jonathan Grimes

Firm appoints new head of criminal litigation team

NEWS
Personal injury lawyers have welcomed a government U-turn on a ‘substantial prejudice’ defence that risked enabling defendants in child sexual abuse civil cases to have proceedings against them dropped
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll