Taylor v Maguire

Copyright protects the original expression of an artistic idea, not the idea or general style alone. In assessing infringement, the court must identify the features said to have been copied, compare the works visually, disregard commonplace or unoriginal features, and assess whether the similarities are more likely to result from copying than coincidence. Prior access may shift the evidential burden to the defendant. An inexact copy infringes where the copied features constitute a substantial part of the claimant’s original work, assessed by quality rather than quantity. Similarities drawn cumulatively from several works may amount to a substantial part of one or more of them. An educational copying defence requires compliance with the statutory conditions and does not protect subsequent communication of the copy to the public.

The claimant, an artist specialising in papercutting, alleged that the defendant had copied several original papercut works and had reproduced the claimant’s distinctive topiary-style arrangements in other works. The defendant denied copying, asserted independent creation by herself and her daughter, and relied in part on the educational defence under the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988.

The defendant did not attend the small claims track trial. The court determined whether the claimant’s works were original artistic works, whether the defendant had copied protected features after having access to the works, whether substantial parts had been taken, and whether any statutory defence applied.

1. The claim succeeded. The claimant’s papercut works were original artistic works protected by copyright under section 4(1) of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988. The claimant’s detailed choices as to shape, structure, motifs, placement and hollowing demonstrated independent skill and labour. It was unnecessary finally to decide whether the works were drawings or graphic works because either characterisation would provide protection.

2. The court followed the approach stated in Designers Guild Ltd v Russell Williams (Textile) Ltd [2001] FSR11 HL. It identified the features alleged to have been copied, compared similarities and differences, disregarded unoriginal elements and general ideas, considered prior access, and assessed whether the similarities were more likely to result from copying than coincidence. The defendant’s admissions and the extensive similarities established copying in relation to the Letter S, Letter K, “A friend”, Rabbit, Letter D and the two cat works.

3. Copyright did not protect the Deneane font, the general absence of a solid outline, or a general arrangement of pattern and empty space where those features were not original to the claimant. It did protect the claimant’s particular combination and arrangement of original motifs. The copied features were sufficiently detailed and important to constitute substantial parts of the relevant works. In the Letter D and cat cases, cumulative similarities to one or more of the claimant’s works were sufficient even though no identical subject matter had been copied.

4. The educational defence under section 32(1) was not established. There was no sufficient basis for treating the defendant as the person giving instruction in the GCSE context, and no sufficient acknowledgement of the claimant’s copyright was shown. In any event, posting the copies on Facebook constituted communicating them to the public. Under section 32(6), the copies were therefore treated as infringing copies for that dealing and subsequent purposes.

5. An injunction was granted, together with an order for destruction of the infringing works. Damages were awarded on the basis of the two known commissions. The claimant received small claims track costs of £260 and court fees of £500.

First-instance decision. No appellate history was stated in the judgment.