|
''Designer Guild Limited v. Russell Williams (Textiles) Limited'',〔Designers Guild Ltd v Russell Williams (Textiles) Ltd (t/a Washington DC), () E.C.D.R. 10〕 is a leading House of Lords case on what constitutes copying in copyright infringement cases.〔(【引用サイトリンク】title=Copyright, Designs and Related Rights )〕 The House of Lords considered whether there was infringement of a fabric design. Although both the copyrighted work and the infringing design were different in detail, the overall impression of the designs was the same. This decision is significant because the House of Lords ruled that copyright infringement is dependent on whether the defendant copied a substantial portion of the original work, rather than whether the two works look the same.〔(【引用サイトリンク】title=Briefing Note - Copyright Infringement in Images & Photographs )〕 The outcome suggests that in the United Kingdom the overall impression of a copyrighted work is protected if the copied features involved the labor, skill and originality of the author's work, even if the copyrighted work and infringing work are different in detail.〔(【引用サイトリンク】title=United Kingdom - House of Lords Gives Expansive View of Copyright Protection )〕 == Background of case == Designer Guild Limited (“DGL”) and Russell Williams (Textiles) Limited (“RWT”) both design and sell fabrics and wallpapers. DGL held a copyright in its ''Ixia'' design. DGL accused RWT of copyright infringement, alleging that the RWT design, ''Marguerite'', copied ''Ixia''. Both designs included a combination of flowers and stripes, a similar style of painting, and use of the resist effect (part of the stripe color shows through the flower petals). Under section 16(3) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, infringement will be found if there is copying of the work as a whole or any substantial part of it.〔(【引用サイトリンク】title=c. 48, Part I, Chapter II, Section 16 )〕 There were two issues at the trial: *Did the designers of ''Marguerite'' copy from the ''Ixia'' design? *Did what had been copied amount to the whole or substantial part of ''Ixia''? The deputy judge of the Chancery Division found that RWT’s ''Marguerite'' design had been copied from DGL’s ''Ixia'' design and that there had been copying of a substantial part. The judge identified the copied features as: the combination and relation of flowers and stripes, the manner in which they were painted, and the “resist effect”. The judge determined that the combination of these features formed a substantial part of the ''Ixia'' design. On appeal, RWT challenged the judge’s finding that the copied features formed a substantial part of the ''Ixia'' design. The issue of copying was not challenged. The Court of Appeal upheld RWT’s challenge to the finding of substantiality.〔Designers Guild Ltd v Russell Williams (Textiles) Ltd (t/a Washington DC), () F.S.R. 121〕 DGL appealed. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Designer Guild Ltd v Russell Williams (Textiles) Ltd」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|