Caricature, parody or pastiche
Part I Copyright
(1)Fair dealing with a work for the purposes of caricature, parody or pastiche does not infringe copyright in the work.
(2)To the extent that a term of a contract purports to prevent or restrict the doing of any act which, by virtue of this section, would not infringe copyright, that term is unenforceable.F114]
The judgment applies the parody exception but concludes that it does not protect the copying. The works were reproduced essentially in full, lacked a noticeable difference, and were not used for humour or mockery. (see paras [29]-[33])
Applies the parody and pastiche exception and concludes that the use of the logo, brochure and website design was intended to impersonate the claimant rather than constitute parody or pastiche (see paras [71]; [73]).
The court interpreted section 30A as a single fair-dealing question for the purposes of parody, caricature or pastiche. It confined parody and pastiche to their proper categories and held that the defence failed because the use was extensive, commercially competing and prejudicial. (see paras [137]-[196])
What each judgment says about section 30A is in the case-law panel in the full Act.