133
IV. INFRINGEMENT AND ENFORCEMENT
infringed. Again, the fact that defendants appropriated the exact arrangement of plaintiff ’s
composition says more than what can be captured in abstract legal analysis.
It is certainly not clear as a matter of law that the portions copied from plaintiff ’s song were
insignificant to plaintiff ’s song. To the contrary, the “oohs” and “move, free your body” occur in
a bridge that attempts to be distinct and attention-grabbing. The keyboard riff begins the final
portion of plaintiff ’s song, setting the rhythm as well as the melody.
EXAMPLE 4:
The plaintiff was the copyright owner of the Starsky and Hutchtelevision series.
The defendant took a frame from one of the films, depicting the two characters,
enlarged it into a pin-up poster, and sold copies of the poster. The plaintiff sued
for infringement, claiming that the frame was protected either by itself or as a
“substantial part” of the film. The Court agreed.
Spelling Goldberg Productions Inc. v. B.P.C. Publishing Ltd, [1981] R.P.C.
283 (U.K.: Court of Appeal)
LORD JUSTICE TEMPLEMAN:
The question we have to decide is whether the copyright in a film is infringed by the
unauthorised copying of a single frame. By the light of nature a single frame must either be a
photograph or a part of a cinematograph film, or both. Since both photographs and
cinematograph films are expressly protected by the Copyright Act 1956, the answer to the
question should be a resounding single or double affirmative.
LORD JUSTICE DONALDSON:
[T]he proposition that there is no copyright in enlargements from individual frames of a
cinematograph film seems to me to be wholly contrary to commonsense...
- Parts taken to save time and labour are likely to be considered
“substantial”
EXAMPLE:
The plaintiff wrote The Spear of Destiny, a historical account of the Hapsburg
Spear, supposedly the spear that pieced Christ on the Cross. The defendant,
inspired by an extract from the plaintiff’s book that he saw in a magazine, wrote
a fiction thriller about the Hapsburg Spear called simply The Spear. Interspersed
throughout the book were extracts, often copied verbatimfrom the plaintiff’s
book, recounting the Spear’s history. The plaintiff sued the defendant for
infringement. The defendant denied that he had copied a “substantial part” of
the plaintiff’s book. The court found for the plaintiff.
Ravenscroft v. Herbert [1980] R.P.C. 193 (U.K.: High Court)
MR. JUSTICE BRIGHTMAN:
Copyright protects the skill and labour employed by the plaintiff in production of his work. That
skill and labour embraces not only language originated and used by the plaintiff, but also such
skill and labour as he has employed in selection and compilation. ... “[A]nother person may
