Ibcos Computers v Barclays Mercantile, 1994, FSR, 297
Citation:Ibcos Computers v Barclays Mercantile, 1994, FSR, 297
Rule of thumb:If a person has copied the underlying structure of your work, but the final work looks/sounds a lot different, can you still sue? How do you assess whether copyright has been breached? The test applies to both the underlying structure & the actual look/sound of the final content. Copyright protection is not only superficial.
Background facts:
Parties argued:
In many cases a common error with a minor detail strongly suggests copying. ‘Reverse countersink’ (LB Plastics v Swish [1979] RPC 551) spelling errors can start to prove copyright breach - these can however be defended as a coincidence.
Judgment:
The Court in this case set an important 2 part test for considering whether there was a ‘connection’ between the 2 pieces of work. The Court held that the first part of the test was whether there were (i) literal similarities, which would be enough to satisfy the test, and where it is not so clear, this can also be (ii) similar overall structures and design features, ‘... right to have regard to... “literal similarities” but also to ... “programme structure”’, Jacob J
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.