Acknowledging the conflict between copyright law and freedom of expression under the Human Rights Act. (2003). Entertainment Law Review. http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?&srguid=i0ad629030000014da02751782ac4c3e2&docguid=I849EDB00E45411DA92358E85EE602D8A&hitguid=I849EDB00E45411DA92358E85EE602D8A&rank=5&spos=5&epos=5&td=5&crumb-action=append&context=48&resolvein=true
An Intentional View of the Copyright Work. (2008). Modern Law Review, 71(4), 535–558. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2008.00705.x
Ashdown v Telegraph Group Ltd [2002] Ch 149. (n.d.). https://www.justcite.com/Document/d7jsrUrxA0LxsKjIo2yJnWWIikvNCPnhzPngDP9MBjrMi6atF
Baigent v Random House Group Ltd [2006] EWHC 719 (Ch). (n.d.). http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?&suppsrguid=i0ad629030000014d9f7c65405ffdddf4&docguid=I6D9771B0E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&hitguid=I6D972391E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&rank=1&spos=1&epos=1&td=52&crumb-action=append&context=107&resolvein=true
Bently, L., & Sherman, B. (2018a). Intellectual property law (5th ed). Oxford University Press.
Bently, L., & Sherman, B. (2018b). Intellectual property law (5th ed). Oxford University Press.
Bently, L., & Sherman, B. (2018c). Intellectual property law (5th ed). Oxford University Press.
Bently, L., Sherman, B., Gangjee, D., & Johnson, P. (2018a). Chapter 10, from: Intellectual Property Law. In Intellectual property law (5th ed). Oxford University Press.
Bently, L., Sherman, B., Gangjee, D., & Johnson, P. (2018b). Intellectual property law (5th ed). Oxford University Press.
British film copyright and the incorrect implementation of the E.C. Copyright Directives. (1998). Entertainment Law Review. http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?&srguid=i0ad69f8e0000014d87aca10f05dbc7f7&docguid=I81502530E45411DA92358E85EE602D8A&hitguid=I81502530E45411DA92358E85EE602D8A&rank=1&spos=1&epos=1&td=1&crumb-action=append&context=107&resolvein=true
C-5/08 Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening [2009] ECDR 16. (n.d.-a). https://www.justcite.com/Document/d7jsrUrxA0LxsKjIo2Cto5GtmWWIikvNCPnhzPngDP9MBjrMi6atF
C-5/08 Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening [2009] ECDR 16. (n.d.-b). https://www.justcite.com/Document/d7jsrUrxA0LxsKjIo2Cto5GtmWWIikvNCPnhzPngDP9MBjrMi6atF
C-393/09 Bezpečnostní softwarová asociace - Svaz softwarové ochrany v Ministerstvo kultury [2011] ECDR 3. (n.d.). http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&num=C-393/09
C-604/10 Football Dataco Ltd v Yahoo! UK Ltd [2012] 2 CMLR 24. (n.d.). https://www.justcite.com/Document/d7jsrUrxA0LxsKjIo4edm1Gto5WIikvNCPnhzPngDP9MBjrMi6atF/football-dataco-ltd-v-yahoo-uk-ltd-c60410
Copyright and Its Categories of Original Works. (2010). Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 30(2), 229–254. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqq009
Copyright in photographs. (2000). European Intellectual Property Review. http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?&srguid=ia744cc630000014da017fb0120102e0c&docguid=IB799ADD0E72111DA9D198AF4F85CA028&hitguid=IB799ADD0E72111DA9D198AF4F85CA028&rank=1&spos=1&epos=1&td=3&crumb-action=append&context=9&resolvein=true
Copyright law after Ashdown - time to deal fairly with the public. (2002). Intellectual Property Quarterly. http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?&srguid=i0ad69f8e0000014da025b229c86a28e4&docguid=I7FB44F80E45411DA92358E85EE602D8A&hitguid=I7FB44F80E45411DA92358E85EE602D8A&rank=2&spos=2&epos=2&td=5&crumb-action=append&context=38&resolvein=true
Creation Records v News Group Newspapers [1997] EMLR 444. (n.d.). https://www.justcite.com/Document/e7jsrUrxA0LxsKjIoXaJn4edlIOuDYL2CKL2y0L2BULezIOdm9baa
Derclaye, E. (2010). Wonderful or worrisome? The impact of the ECJ ruling in Infopaq on UK copyright law. European Intellectual Property Review, 32(5). https://uk.westlaw.com/Document/IB72704A030AC11DF9C83BB18AACF6BDB/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=%28sc.Default%29
Derclaye, E. (2013). Debunking some of UK copyright law’s longstanding myths and misunderstandings. Intellectual Property Quarterly. http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I874421C0677511E28B5E802FB0D6A23E
Derclaye, E. (2014). Assessing the impact and reception of the Court of Justice of the European Union case law on UK copyright law: what does the future hold? Revue Internationale Du Droit d’auteur, 240, 5–117. http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/3613/
Designers Guild Ltd v Russell Williams (Textiles) Ltd [2000] 1 WLR 2416. (n.d.-a). http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?&suppsrguid=ia744cc630000014d9f733755dc297a23&docguid=I98667580E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&hitguid=I98664E70E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&rank=1&spos=1&epos=1&td=196&crumb-action=append&context=80&resolvein=true
Designers Guild Ltd v Russell Williams (Textiles) Ltd [2000] 1 WLR 2416. (n.d.-b). https://www.justcite.com/Document/d7jsrUrxA0LxsKjIo4mdn0WIikvNCPnhzPngDP9MBjrMi6atF
Francis Day & Hunter v Bron [1963] Ch 587. (n.d.). https://www.justcite.com/Document/f7jsrUrxA0LxsKjIo2udo4iJmSiIs1jxAZrwAJrxAV5wsKjIoW0ha
Gerald Dworkin. (n.d.). Moral rights in English law - the shape of rights to come. European Intellectual Property Review. http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=IB9E8F500E72111DA9D198AF4F85CA028
Green v Broadcasting Corporation of New Zealand [1989] 2 All ER 1056. (n.d.). https://www.justcite.com/Document/d7jsrUrxA0LxsKjIoYCZnZyJn3WIikvNCPnhzPngDP9MBjrMi6atF
Griffiths, J. (2013). Dematerialization, Pragmatism and the European Copyright Revolution. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 33(4), 767–790. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqt017
Griffiths, J. (2014). Pre-empting conflict - a re-examination of the public interest defence in UK copyright law. Legal Studies, 34(1), 76–102. https://doi.org/10.1111/lest.12006
Holyoak, J., & Torremans, P. (1995). Intellectual property law. Butterworths.
Hubbard v Vosper [1972] 2 QB 84. https://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?&suppsrguid=i0ad6ada60000015f24a6c3d5f879d8da&docguid=IC4449F60E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&hitguid=IC4447850E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&rank=1&spos=1&epos=1&td=1&crumb-action=append&context=29&resolvein=true
Hyde Park Residence Ltd v Yelland [2001] Ch 143. (n.d.). https://www.justcite.com/Document/d7jsrUrxA0LxsKjIo3qZn4WIikvNCPnhzPngDP9MBjrMi6atF
Jane C. Ginsburg. (n.d.). Moral rights in a common law system. Entertainment Law Review. http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=IB13AD1D1E72111DA9D198AF4F85CA028
Joy: a reply. (2001). Intellectual Property Quarterly. http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?&srguid=ia744c0970000014d87a6fd800a3bb51f&docguid=I7FA50D40E45411DA92358E85EE602D8A&hitguid=I7FA50D40E45411DA92358E85EE602D8A&rank=1&spos=1&epos=1&td=51&crumb-action=append&context=79&resolvein=true
‘Joy’ for the claimant: can a film also be protected as a dramatic work? (2000). Intellectual Property Quarterly. http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?&srguid=ia744c09a0000014d87a4ec45c7cffa7a&docguid=I7FA49810E45411DA92358E85EE602D8A&hitguid=I7FA49810E45411DA92358E85EE602D8A&rank=2&spos=2&epos=2&td=34&crumb-action=append&context=70&resolvein=true
Ladbroke (Football) Ltd v William Hill (Football) Ltd [1964] 1 WLR 273. (n.d.). https://www.justcite.com/Document/f7jsrUrxA0LxsKjIo2udo0ytoSiIs1jxAZrwAJrxAV5wsKjIoW0ha
Lucasfilm Ltd & Ors v Ainsworth & Anor [2011] UKSC 39 (27 July 2011). https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/uk/cases/UKSC/2011/39.html&query=(.2011.)+AND+(UKSC)+AND+(39)
Morrison Leahy Music Limited v Lightbond Limited [1995] EMLR 144. https://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?&srguid=i0ad69f8e0000015f24b844b994f7cd73&docguid=I05B5B471E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&hitguid=I05B5B471E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&rank=1&spos=1&epos=1&td=1&crumb-action=append&context=47&resolvein=true
Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd v Marks and Spencer plc [2003] 1 AC 551. (n.d.-a). https://www.justcite.com/Document/d7jsrUrxA0LxsKjIo3aJn4WIikvNCPnhzPngDP9MBjrMi6atF
Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd v Marks and Spencer plc [2003] 1 AC 551. (n.d.-b). https://www.justcite.com/Document/d7jsrUrxA0LxsKjIo3aJn4WIikvNCPnhzPngDP9MBjrMi6atF
Norowzian v Arks Ltd (No2) [2000] FSR 363. (n.d.-a). https://www.justcite.com/Document/d7jsrUrxA0LxsKjIoYCdoXyZm5WIikvNCPnhzPngDP9MBjrMi6atF
Norowzian v Arks Ltd (No2) [2000] FSR 363. (n.d.-b). https://www.justcite.com/Document/d7jsrUrxA0LxsKjIoYCdoXyZm5WIikvNCPnhzPngDP9MBjrMi6atF
Pasterfield v Denham [1999] FSR 168. https://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?&suppsrguid=i0ad629030000015f24c082df1e63b7f9&docguid=I1A540670E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&hitguid=I1A53B850E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&rank=1&spos=1&epos=1&td=1&crumb-action=append&context=66&resolvein=true
Patrick Masiyakurima. (n.d.). The futility of the idea/expression dichotomy in UK copyright law. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law. http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=IC163EEB08C7F11DDA308CE7DDE22A835
Photographing paintings in the public domain: a response to Garnett. (2001). European Intellectual Property Review. http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?&src=ri&docguid=IB7886FC0E72111DA9D198AF4F85CA028&hitguid=IB7886FC0E72111DA9D198AF4F85CA028&srguid=i0ad629030000014d9f591f4f101e575a&spos=1&epos=1&td=3&refer=%2Fmaf%2Fwluk%2Fapp%2Fdocument%3Fdocguid%3DICFAADD40E71211DA915EF37CAC72F838%26td%3D3%26spos%3D1%26suppsrguid%3Di0ad629030000014d9f591f4f101e575a%26refer%3D%252Fmaf%252Fwluk%252Fapp%252Fdocument%253Ftd%253D3%2526spos%253D1%2526rank%253D1%2526epos%253D1%2526hitguid%253DIB7886FC0E72111DA9D198AF4F85CA028%2526docguid%253DIB7886FC0E72111DA9D198AF4F85CA028%2526resolvein%253Dtrue%2526srguid%253Di0ad629030000014d9f591f4f101e575a%2526crumb-action%253Dappend%2526context%253D5%26epos%3D1%26src%3Dri%26hitguid%3DIB7886FC0E72111DA9D198AF4F85CA028%26crumb-action%3Dappend%26context%3D16&crumb-action=append&context=32
Preserving judicial freedom of movement - interpreting fair dealing in copyright law. (2002). Intellectual Property Quarterly. http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?&srguid=i0ad629030000014da02426b5f04f995a&docguid=I7FB3DA50E45411DA92358E85EE602D8A&hitguid=I7FB3DA50E45411DA92358E85EE602D8A&rank=1&spos=1&epos=1&td=3&crumb-action=append&context=28&resolvein=true
Pro Sieben Media AG v Carlton UK Television Ltd [1999] 1 WLR 605, *605 Pro Sieben Media A.G. v Carlton U.K. Television Ltd. and Another ___. https://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?&suppsrguid=i0ad6ada60000015f24a9d86df4f20ff0&docguid=I2914BA60E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&hitguid=I29149350E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&rank=1&spos=1&epos=1&td=2&crumb-action=append&context=35&resolvein=true
Rahmatian, A. (2013). Originality in UK Copyright Law: The Old "Skill and Labour” Doctrine Under Pressure. IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 44(1), 4–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-012-0003-4
Sawkins v Hyperion Records Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 565 [2005] 3 All ER 636. (n.d.-a). https://www.justcite.com/Document/d7jsrUrxA0LxsKjIoZKZm0WIikvNCPnhzPngDP9MBjrMi6atF/sawkins-v-hyperion-records-ltd
Sawkins v Hyperion Records Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 565 [2005] 3 All ER 636. (n.d.-b). https://www.justcite.com/Document/d7jsrUrxA0LxsKjIoZKZm0WIikvNCPnhzPngDP9MBjrMi6atF/sawkins-v-hyperion-records-ltd
Stina Teilmann. (n.d.). Framing the law: the right of integrity in Britain. European Intellectual Property Review. http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=I7FA66CD0E45411DA92358E85EE602D8A
Test of infringement: what is it now? (2014). [Electronic resource]. European Intellectual Property Review.
The compatibility of the skill and labour originality standard with the Berne Convention and the TRIPs Agreement. (2004). European Intellectual Property Review. http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?&srguid=ia744c09a0000014d9f6fb5dac7d18af6&docguid=IB744D711E72111DA9D198AF4F85CA028&hitguid=IB744D711E72111DA9D198AF4F85CA028&rank=1&spos=1&epos=1&td=1&crumb-action=append&context=57&resolvein=true
The hedgehog and the fox, a substantial part of the law of copyright? (2001). European Intellectual Property Review. http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?&srguid=ia744c0970000014d9f807c4558b0afb3&docguid=IB78F4D90E72111DA9D198AF4F85CA028&hitguid=IB78F4D90E72111DA9D198AF4F85CA028&rank=2&spos=2&epos=2&td=2&crumb-action=append&context=125&resolvein=true
The idea/expression dichotomy and the games that people play. (1995). European Intellectual Property Review. http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?&srguid=ia744c0970000014d9f774bbcd6f5f645&docguid=IB8E874F0E72111DA9D198AF4F85CA028&hitguid=IB8E874F0E72111DA9D198AF4F85CA028&rank=1&spos=1&epos=1&td=1&crumb-action=append&context=89&resolvein=true
Torremans, P., & Holyoak, J. (2016a). Holyoak and Torremans intellectual property law (8th ed). Oxford University Press.
Torremans, P., & Holyoak, J. (2016b). Holyoak and Torremans intellectual property law (8th ed). Oxford University Press.
Torremans, P., & Holyoak, J. (2016c). Holyoak and Torremans intellectual property law (8th ed). Oxford University Press.
Torremans, P., & Holyoak, J. (2016d). Holyoak and Torremans intellectual property law (8th ed). Oxford University Press.
University of London Press v University Tutorial Press [1916] 2 Ch 601. (n.d.). https://www.justcite.com/Document/f7jsrUrxA0LxsKjIo2GJmYiZnSiIs1jxAZrwAJrxAV5wsKjIoW0ha
W.R. Cornish. (1989). Moral rights under the 1988 Act. European Intellectual Property Review, 11(12). https://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?access-method=toc&src=toce&docguid=I7FB8BC51E45411DA92358E85EE602D8A&crumb-action=append&context=15
