Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 329 views

    Donoghue v. Allied Newspaper.

    Uploaded by

    Tushika Agarwal
    This case discusses a copyright dispute between a journalist and a jockey. The journalist interviewed the jockey and wrote a series of articles about his racing career for one publication. The journalist then adapted the content of those articles into a new piece for another publication without the jockey's permission. The jockey sued for copyright infringement. The court found that while the jockey provided the ideas for the articles, the journalist's expression through writing deserved copyright. As such, the jockey did not own copyright over the articles and lost the case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Donoghue v. Allied Newspaper.

    Uploaded by

    Tushika Agarwal
    329 views2 pages
    This case discusses a copyright dispute between a journalist and a jockey. The journalist interviewed the jockey and wrote a series of articles about his racing career for one publication. The journalist then adapted the content of those articles into a new piece for another publication without the jockey's permission. The jockey sued for copyright infringement. The court found that while the jockey provided the ideas for the articles, the journalist's expression through writing deserved copyright. As such, the jockey did not own copyright over the articles and lost the case.

    Original Description:

    Case brief

    Original Title

    donoghue v. allied newspaper.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case discusses a copyright dispute between a journalist and a jockey. The journalist interviewed the jockey and wrote a series of articles about his racing career for one publication. The journalist then adapted the content of those articles into a new piece for another publication without the jockey's permission. The jockey sued for copyright infringement. The court found that while the jockey provided the ideas for the articles, the journalist's expression through writing deserved copyright. As such, the jockey did not own copyright over the articles and lost the case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    329 views2 pages

    Donoghue v. Allied Newspaper.

    Uploaded by

    Tushika Agarwal
    This case discusses a copyright dispute between a journalist and a jockey. The journalist interviewed the jockey and wrote a series of articles about his racing career for one publication. The journalist then adapted the content of those articles into a new piece for another publication without the jockey's permission. The jockey sued for copyright infringement. The court found that while the jockey provided the ideas for the articles, the journalist's expression through writing deserved copyright. As such, the jockey did not own copyright over the articles and lost the case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    COURT: High court, Uk

    CASE: Donoghue v. Allied Newspapers, Ltd. (1937) 3 All ER 503

    DATE OF JUDGMENT: 6 July 1937

    BENCH: Farwell, J.

    This case is related to copyright

    FACTS:
    Journalist S. T. Felstead utilized an interview with the plaintiff, a well-
    known jockey, regarding his escapades. The tabloid "News of the World"
    ran a series of pieces about him titled "Steve Donoghue's Racing Secrets,
    Enthhhralling Stories of the Sport of Kings." Mr. Donoghue gave his
    approval to every piece before it was published.

    In order to create fresh work, Mr. Falstead intended to utilize the


    content from these articles in a piece titled "My Racing Secrets. By
    Steve" that was going to be published in the publication "Guides and
    Ideas." This piece was essentially a shortened version of the earlier
    pieces. Mr. Donoghue was not in favor of the new work's publishing.
    Then, claiming copyright infringement, he proceeded to the court to get
    an injunction prohibiting the dissemination of the aforementioned work.

    Section 2(d), section 2 (z), section 13 and section 17 of copyright act


    were of high value for this case.

    ISSUES:
    under the then-current Copyright Act 1911, the primary question on the
    court's agenda was whether the Plaintiff was, or was not, the only
    author or co-author of the published pieces in the "News of the World."

    DEFENDANT’S ARGUMENTS:
    The defendant company put forth three arguments: first, Mr. Donoghue
    wasn't the sole or joint owner of the copyright in the articles; second,
    any existing copyright had been equitably assigned to the News of the
    World through an agreement; and third, Mr. Donoghue had initially
    consented to publication, despite later attempts to retract that consent.
    COURT’S OBSERVATION:
    The court found that while ideas are valuable, they only become
    copyrightable when expressed in a tangible form like writing or art. Mr.
    Donoghue provided ideas for articles, but Mr. Felstead's language and
    expression made him the article's author. Simply having an idea doesn't
    grant copyright; it's the form of expression that matters. Therefore, Mr.
    Donoghue couldn't claim ownership, and the court ruled against him in
    the case regarding the 'News of the World' articles.

    CONCLUSION:
    In conclusion, this case emphasizes that copyright protects the
    expression of a work, not its underlying ideas, themes, or concepts.
    Taking an idea and creating a different work based on it doesn't infringe
    on copyright.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy