Ladbroke v William Hill [1964] 1 All ER 465
Claimant, William Hill, claimed copyright in their football betting coupons; alleged Defendant, Ladbroke, had infringed this.
Question was whether coupons were an ‘original literary work’.
-
Defendant argued there was no copyright in the coupons, on basis that there was distinction between:
-
Preliminary work
I.e. deciding what to sell
In this case, making a decision of which bets to include
-
Recording this work
I.e. deciding how to sell it
In this case,putting those bets on paper.
-
Defendant claimed only second stage was relevant for purposes of copyright; and that so little skill was involved in recording result of the preliminary work onto paper that no copyright could subsist in it.
Held:
Originality
“Originality” relates to the expression of a thought.
-
To be original, no requirement for original or inventive form.
Must simply be case that work has originated from the author.
With regards compilations, originality is a matter of degree depending on amount of skill, judgment or labour involved in making compilation.
Constituent Parts
Value of work as a whole is relevant when considering originality.
-
Thus not possible to split constituent parts of work of making coupons.
No need that preliminary work done should have as sole or even main object the preparation of a document.
Suffices that it is an object.
Case might be different if preliminary work was done with no intention of later writing this down.
Similar cases
Related free notes samples
Ambitious and intelligent students
choose Oxbridge Notes.
- Customer Support
- Sellers FAQ
- Contact Us
- Privacy Policy
- Terms and Conditions
©2024 Oxbridge Notes. All right reserved.