IPC Media Ltd v Highbury-Leisure Publishing Ltd

Copyright protects discrete artistic works, not general design themes, styles, formats or ideas. A claimant must identify the particular work said to have been copied and prove copying of a substantial part of that work. Similarities must be assessed together with differences, the commonness of the design features and the possibility of independent creation. Excessive concentration on similarities may create a misleading impression of copying by excision. Where a work combines commonplace design elements, copying isolated features or a combination expressed only at a high level of generality will not ordinarily amount to infringement. The court must assess the visual and artistic significance of what was allegedly taken, rather than treat commonplace ingredients as protected in themselves.

IPC Media Limited alleged that covers and internal sections of Highbury-Leisure Publishing Limited’s May to August 2002 issues of HOME infringed copyright in numerous earlier covers and features of IDEAL HOME. IPC relied on the alleged copying of recurring design elements, including typography, cover layout, colour schemes, photographs and magazine features. The pleaded case focused on design, subject matter, theme and presentational style across series of issues, while the asserted copyrights were said to subsist in the individual covers and articles. Highbury denied copying and relied on independent design using common magazine conventions. The central issues were whether IPC had identified protected works, whether Highbury had copied them, and whether any copying amounted to reproduction of a substantial part.

1. The claim was dismissed. IPC failed to prove copying of the artistic copyright works in the relevant IDEAL HOME covers and articles.
2. Copyright subsisted, if at all, in each discrete cover or article. The alleged design elements were not separate layers of copyright. They could form a substantial part of an individual work, but the claim had to remain directed to the work as a whole and to the material actually reproduced.
3. The relevant comparison required attention to both similarities and differences. The court warned against “similarity by excision”, where selective concentration on common features creates an artificial appearance of copying. The alleged similarities here were minor, scattered and expressed at a high level of generality.
4. The use of common design conventions, including large numerals, cover text, standard typefaces, dingbats, straplines and familiar layouts, did not by itself support an inference of copying. The visual differences between the particular covers, together with the credible evidence of independent design, defeated IPC’s case.
5. The court applied the principle illustrated by Designers Guild Ltd v Russell Williams (Textiles) Ltd [2000] 1 WLR 241; Ladbroke (Football) Ltd v William Hill (Football) Ltd [1964] 1 WLR 273, HL; and Nichols v Universal Pictures Co 45 F 2nd 119 (2nd Cir. 1930). Even if Highbury had been influenced by IDEAL HOME, the alleged taking was too general to amount to copyright infringement.
6. Expert evidence could assist with industry practice and design conventions, but the decision whether copying occurred and whether a substantial part had been taken remained for the court.