Ravenscroft v Herbert, 1980 RPC 193, EWHC
Citation:Ravenscroft v Herbert, 1980 RPC 193, EWHC
(Reference) Link to case on WorldLII.
Rule of thumb:What happens if the underlying structure of a copied work is the same, but the new work looks/sounds very different? If the underlying structure is not distinct, then this is still a breach of copyright even though the 2 pieces of work look/sound very different on the surface.
Judgment:
Where either the underlying structure/approach of another person’s work, or the research another person has done obtaining quotes/pictures to facilitate work, are effectively copied, this is a breach of copyright and constitutes copyright ‘infringement’, and new analysis on top of this base does not suffice to lead to a new piece of copyright being created, ‘... Herbert... had deliberately copied the language of the plaintiff on many occasions. To a more significant extent he has adopted wholesale the incidental incidents of documented occult history which the plaintiff used in support of his theory of ancestry and attributes of the spear, of Hitler’s obsession with and also General Patton’s. He did this in order to give his novel a backbone of truth with the least possible labour to himself. In so doing he annexed for his own purposes the skill and labour of the plaintiff to an extent which is not permissible under the law of copyright’, Brightman J, 207
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.