Bibliography for Intellectual Property (LAWW3030) (M33139) BETA

‘Acknowledging the Conflict between Copyright Law and Freedom of Expression under the Human Rights Act’. Entertainment Law Review (2003): n. pag. Web. <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’. Modern Law Review 71.4 (2008): 535–558. Web.

Ashdown v Telegraph Group Ltd [2002] Ch 149. N.p. Web. <https://www.justcite.com/Document/d7jsrUrxA0LxsKjIo2yJnWWIikvNCPnhzPngDP9MBjrMi6atF>.

Baigent v Random House Group Ltd [2006] EWHC 719 (Ch). N.p. Web. <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, Lionel et al. ‘Chapter 10, from:  Intellectual Property Law’. Intellectual Property Law. 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. Print.

---. Intellectual Property Law. 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. Print.

Bently, Lionel, and Brad Sherman. Intellectual Property Law. 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. Print.

---. Intellectual Property Law. 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. Print.

---. Intellectual Property Law. 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. Print.

‘British Film Copyright and the Incorrect Implementation of the E.C. Copyright Directives’. Entertainment Law Review (1998): n. pag. Web. <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.p. Web. <https://www.justcite.com/Document/d7jsrUrxA0LxsKjIo2Cto5GtmWWIikvNCPnhzPngDP9MBjrMi6atF>.

---. N.p. Web. <https://www.justcite.com/Document/d7jsrUrxA0LxsKjIo2Cto5GtmWWIikvNCPnhzPngDP9MBjrMi6atF>.

‘C-393/09 Bezpečnostní Softwarová Asociace - Svaz Softwarové Ochrany v Ministerstvo Kultury [2011] ECDR 3’. N.p., n.d. Web. <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.p. Web. <https://www.justcite.com/Document/d7jsrUrxA0LxsKjIo4edm1Gto5WIikvNCPnhzPngDP9MBjrMi6atF/football-dataco-ltd-v-yahoo-uk-ltd-c60410>.

‘Copyright and Its Categories of Original Works’. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 30.2 (2010): 229–254. Web.

‘Copyright in Photographs’. European Intellectual Property Review (2000): n. pag. Web. <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’. Intellectual Property Quarterly (2002): n. pag. Web. <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.p. Web. <https://www.justcite.com/Document/e7jsrUrxA0LxsKjIoXaJn4edlIOuDYL2CKL2y0L2BULezIOdm9baa>.

Derclaye, Estelle. ‘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 (2014): 5–117. Web. <http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/3613/>.

---. ‘Debunking Some of UK Copyright Law’s Longstanding Myths and Misunderstandings’. Intellectual Property Quarterly (2013): n. pag. Web. <http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&amp;docguid=I874421C0677511E28B5E802FB0D6A23E>.

---. ‘Wonderful or Worrisome? The Impact of the ECJ Ruling in Infopaq on UK Copyright Law’. European Intellectual Property Review 32.5 (2010): n. pag. Web. <https://uk.westlaw.com/Document/IB72704A030AC11DF9C83BB18AACF6BDB/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&amp;contextData=%28sc.Default%29>.

Designers Guild Ltd v Russell Williams (Textiles) Ltd [2000] 1 WLR 2416. N.p. Web. <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>.

---. N.p. Web. <https://www.justcite.com/Document/d7jsrUrxA0LxsKjIo4mdn0WIikvNCPnhzPngDP9MBjrMi6atF>.

Francis Day & Hunter v Bron [1963] Ch 587. N.p. Web. <https://www.justcite.com/Document/f7jsrUrxA0LxsKjIo2udo4iJmSiIs1jxAZrwAJrxAV5wsKjIoW0ha>.

Gerald Dworkin. ‘Moral Rights in English Law - the Shape of Rights to Come’. European Intellectual Property Review n. pag. Web. <http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&amp;docguid=IB9E8F500E72111DA9D198AF4F85CA028>.

Green v Broadcasting Corporation of New Zealand [1989] 2 All ER 1056. N.p. Web. <https://www.justcite.com/Document/d7jsrUrxA0LxsKjIoYCZnZyJn3WIikvNCPnhzPngDP9MBjrMi6atF>.

Griffiths, J. ‘Dematerialization, Pragmatism and the European Copyright Revolution’. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 33.4 (2013): 767–790. Web.

Griffiths, Jonathan. ‘Pre-Empting Conflict - a Re-Examination of the Public Interest Defence in UK Copyright Law’. Legal Studies 34.1 (2014): 76–102. Web.

Holyoak, Jon, and Paul Torremans. Intellectual Property Law. London: Butterworths, 1995. Print.

Hubbard v Vosper [1972] 2 QB 84. N.p. Web. <https://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?&amp;suppsrguid=i0ad6ada60000015f24a6c3d5f879d8da&amp;docguid=IC4449F60E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&amp;hitguid=IC4447850E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&amp;rank=1&amp;spos=1&amp;epos=1&amp;td=1&amp;crumb-action=append&amp;context=29&amp;resolvein=true>.

Hyde Park Residence Ltd v Yelland [2001] Ch 143. N.p. Web. <https://www.justcite.com/Document/d7jsrUrxA0LxsKjIo3qZn4WIikvNCPnhzPngDP9MBjrMi6atF>.

Jane C. Ginsburg. ‘Moral Rights in a Common Law System’. Entertainment Law Review n. pag. Web. <http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&amp;docguid=IB13AD1D1E72111DA9D198AF4F85CA028>.

‘Joy: A Reply’. Intellectual Property Quarterly (2001): n. pag. Web. <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?’ Intellectual Property Quarterly (2000): n. pag. Web. <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. pag. Web. <https://www.justcite.com/Document/f7jsrUrxA0LxsKjIo2udo0ytoSiIs1jxAZrwAJrxAV5wsKjIoW0ha>.

Lucasfilm Ltd & Ors v Ainsworth & Anor [2011] UKSC 39 (27 July 2011). N.p. Web. <https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/uk/cases/UKSC/2011/39.html&amp;query=(.2011.)+AND+(UKSC)+AND+(39)>.

Morrison Leahy Music Limited v Lightbond Limited [1995] EMLR 144. N.p. Web. <https://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?&amp;srguid=i0ad69f8e0000015f24b844b994f7cd73&amp;docguid=I05B5B471E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&amp;hitguid=I05B5B471E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&amp;rank=1&amp;spos=1&amp;epos=1&amp;td=1&amp;crumb-action=append&amp;context=47&amp;resolvein=true>.

Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd v Marks and Spencer Plc [2003] 1 AC 551. N.p. Web. <https://www.justcite.com/Document/d7jsrUrxA0LxsKjIo3aJn4WIikvNCPnhzPngDP9MBjrMi6atF>.

---. N.p. Web. <https://www.justcite.com/Document/d7jsrUrxA0LxsKjIo3aJn4WIikvNCPnhzPngDP9MBjrMi6atF>.

Norowzian v Arks Ltd (No2) [2000] FSR 363. N.p. Web. <https://www.justcite.com/Document/d7jsrUrxA0LxsKjIoYCdoXyZm5WIikvNCPnhzPngDP9MBjrMi6atF>.

---. N.p. Web. <https://www.justcite.com/Document/d7jsrUrxA0LxsKjIoYCdoXyZm5WIikvNCPnhzPngDP9MBjrMi6atF>.

Pasterfield v Denham [1999] FSR 168. N.p. Web. <https://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?&amp;suppsrguid=i0ad629030000015f24c082df1e63b7f9&amp;docguid=I1A540670E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&amp;hitguid=I1A53B850E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&amp;rank=1&amp;spos=1&amp;epos=1&amp;td=1&amp;crumb-action=append&amp;context=66&amp;resolvein=true>.

Patrick Masiyakurima. ‘The Futility of the Idea/Expression Dichotomy in UK Copyright Law’. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law n. pag. Web. <http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&amp;docguid=IC163EEB08C7F11DDA308CE7DDE22A835>.

‘Photographing Paintings in the Public Domain: A Response to Garnett’. European Intellectual Property Review (2001): n. pag. Web. <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’. Intellectual Property Quarterly (2002): n. pag. Web. <http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?&amp;srguid=i0ad629030000014da02426b5f04f995a&amp;docguid=I7FB3DA50E45411DA92358E85EE602D8A&amp;hitguid=I7FB3DA50E45411DA92358E85EE602D8A&amp;rank=1&amp;spos=1&amp;epos=1&amp;td=3&amp;crumb-action=append&amp;context=28&amp;resolvein=true>.

Pro Sieben Media AG v Carlton UK Television Ltd [1999] 1 WLR 605. N.p. Web. <https://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?&amp;suppsrguid=i0ad6ada60000015f24a9d86df4f20ff0&amp;docguid=I2914BA60E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&amp;hitguid=I29149350E42811DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&amp;rank=1&amp;spos=1&amp;epos=1&amp;td=2&amp;crumb-action=append&amp;context=35&amp;resolvein=true>.

Rahmatian, Andreas. ‘Originality in UK Copyright Law: The Old "Skill and Labour” Doctrine Under Pressure’. IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 44.1 (2013): 4–34. Web.

Sawkins v Hyperion Records Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 565 [2005] 3 All ER 636. N.p. Web. <https://www.justcite.com/Document/d7jsrUrxA0LxsKjIoZKZm0WIikvNCPnhzPngDP9MBjrMi6atF/sawkins-v-hyperion-records-ltd>.

---. N.p. Web. <https://www.justcite.com/Document/d7jsrUrxA0LxsKjIoZKZm0WIikvNCPnhzPngDP9MBjrMi6atF/sawkins-v-hyperion-records-ltd>.

Stina Teilmann. ‘Framing the Law: The Right of Integrity in Britain’. European Intellectual Property Review n. pag. Web. <http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&amp;docguid=I7FA66CD0E45411DA92358E85EE602D8A>.

‘Test of Infringement: What Is It Now?’ European intellectual property review (2014): n. pag. Print.

‘The Compatibility of the Skill and Labour Originality Standard with the Berne Convention and the TRIPs Agreement’. European Intellectual Property Review (2004): n. pag. Web. <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?’ European Intellectual Property Review (2001): n. pag. Web. <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’. European Intellectual Property Review (1995): n. pag. Web. <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, Paul, and Jon Holyoak. Holyoak and Torremans Intellectual Property Law. 8th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. Print.

---. Holyoak and Torremans Intellectual Property Law. 8th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. Print.

---. Holyoak and Torremans Intellectual Property Law. 8th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. Print.

---. Holyoak and Torremans Intellectual Property Law. 8th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. Print.

University of London Press v University Tutorial Press [1916] 2 Ch 601. N.p. Web. <https://www.justcite.com/Document/f7jsrUrxA0LxsKjIo2GJmYiZnSiIs1jxAZrwAJrxAV5wsKjIoW0ha>.

W.R. Cornish. ‘Moral Rights under the 1988 Act’. European Intellectual Property Review 11.12 (1989): n. pag. Web. <https://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?access-method=toc&amp;src=toce&amp;docguid=I7FB8BC51E45411DA92358E85EE602D8A&amp;crumb-action=append&amp;context=15>.