What was left of the Forum after the pro-patent folk finished arguing with the generics manufacturers

Coming up soon is an exciting patent law event in which the IPKat has a paw -- he is one of the event's supporters, no less, and (as sharp-eyed readers of his Forthcoming Events page may already have spotted) this entitles IPKat readers to a thumping 20% discount on their registration fees.

The event in question is Managing Intellectual Property magazine's first-ever International Patent Forum.  When IPKat team member Jeremy first set up MIP and before he sold the title to Euromoney he envisaged the magazine as promoting its own conferences in order to educate and stimulate readers, to bring them together as a community, to enhance awareness of issues that required  further analysis and as means of building on the synergies of the printed media and carefully-managed events.  He's delighted to see that, despite the impact of the social media -- or because of it -- this objective is coming into fruition with the inauguration of this Forum.

The venue chosen for the Forum, the elegantly furbished Renaissance London Chancery Court Hotel, is in London's High Holborn -- exactly over the road from his cosy little office at Olswang LLP, so the Kat plans to make some strategic incursions from time to time in search of his quarry [the hotel used to be the Pearl Assurance building and you can usually buy a punnet of blueberries from the cheery chappie who runs the street stall just outside it].

The panel of speakers is stellar, with representatives from the main international institutions, leading patent owners and members of the judiciary and the patent professions.  From the Kat's point of view the speakers are literally within his grasp.  In his opinion most of the speakers deserve to be tied to their chairs for a while, some so that they can't escape and have to talk; others so they can't escape and will therefore have to listen.  They know who I mean.

For the record, the cast of speakers includes one of Europe's most prominent and outspoken patent judges, Lord Justice Jacob, the AIPLA's Q. Todd Dickinson and USPTO head David Kappos, James Pooley from WIPO and the IPKat's old friend Jacques Gevers (ValiPat).

You can check out the full programme and get your IPKat readers' 20% discount here.

I've arrived in L.A. for Microsoft #PDC09. It's just like L.A. Story--sunny.... 72.

The IPKat is grateful to Dr Christine Riefa, ace lecturer at Brunel University, for the following report on the recent copyright workshop which took place at Queen Mary.


Should photographs of two-dimensional works of art attract copyright protection?

This was the main question examined on 3 May at an event organised by Queen Mary University, Centre for Commercial Law Studies in conjunction with BAPLA (the British Association of Picture Libraries and Agencies) and the Bridgeman Art Library. The conference revisited the decision in Bridgeman Art Library v Corel Corporation (New York Southern District Court 1999).

In the case under discussion, the Corel Corporation, a Canadian software company, was distributing clip art CDs in the USA. The Bridgeman Art Library, based in London, sued Corel for the use of around 120 pictures without authorisation. The court was applying UK law and found that no copyright protection was granted to “slavish recreation” of works of art because of lack of originality.

For photographs to be protected by copyright laws in the UK as artistic works, the work must be fixed and original. Photographs are defined by section 4(2) of the CDPA 1988 as “ a recording of light or other radiation on any medium on which an image is produced or from which an image may by any means be produced and which is not part of a film”. Given the nature of the work, photographs are fulfilling the fixation criterion. However, in the absence of a unified definition of what is an original work, much controversy surrounds the protection of photographs reproducing two-dimensional artistic works.

IPKat guest blogger, Dr Christine Riefa (right)

Presentations during the day were of excellent calibre and included a technical master class by fine art photographer Philip de Bay on the techniques used to retain the essence of a painting being photographed. This led the audience to understand how in some circumstances it is possible to envisage how taking a “slavish” copy is in fact displaying skill, labour and judgement, all essential requirements of originality. This is so because the photographer has, amongst other things, to select the necessary equipment, and to decide on the appropriate angle and lighting in order to render the true intensity of a painting.

The day ended with an entertaining re-enactment of the case. Professor Adrian Sterling was acting for the claimant and Dr Uma Suthersanen for the defence. Having listened to, and considered all arguments put forward during the day in favour of each parties by eminent experts, Richard Edwards, acting as the judge, found in favour of the claimant. He accepted the claimant’s argument that a photograph was not a painting and that therefore, it could not be a mere copy of the painting. He considered that a good photograph of a work of art, even a two-dimensional one, owes it to the skill, labour and judgement of the photographer and as a result should be protected. Although doubt was expressed as to whether or not such photograph would fulfil the requirement of an “author’s own intellectual creation” under the EC Directive, this issue did not need to be decided as it was not the case in point. The defence had mainly argued that the protection of slavish copies would be detrimental to the public interest, especially with regards to the reproduction of works of art in the public domain. The judge decided that whilst it is clear that the protection of photographs of two-dimensional works of art may be seen to be detrimental to the public interest, it would be for Parliament to consider and not for the courts.

Copying Without Infringing

This year's popular one-day Copying Without Infringing conference takes place in London on 13 March 2007. Organised by CLT, it addresses the vexed issue of how far a business can make use of another's IP rights before it finds itself liable for infringing them. Is it "fair dealing" or "fair stealing"? IPKat team member Jeremy will be chairing the day's activity. Papers on this year's programme include

* "Open Source Licensing and the Commons", by Slaughter and May double-act David Morris and Martin Cook;

* "Farmers' Rights and the Commercialisation of Biological Materials", by eminent German scholar and practitioner Gert Würtenberger (Wuesthoff & Wuesthoff, Munich);

* "How and When is it Safe to Use a Celebrity's Image?", by Duncan Lamont (Charles Russell).

The IPKat will shortly be announcing a competition to go with this conference, the prize being complimentary admission (and a jolly good lunch). Full programme and booking form here.


Intellectual Property and Competition Law

Left: IP encourages competition, while competition law seems uncomfortable with winners and losers (artwork available from www.art.com)

Six days later, on 19 March 2007, the Intellectual Property and Competition Law conference takes place at the Cafe Royal, near London's Piccadilly Circus. Also organised by CLT, it purports to demystify the interface between those two noble bodies of legal doctrine - though there's always a chance that it might have quite the opposite effect ... IPKat co-bloggie Jeremy is co-chairing and, for his sins, will be giving papers on "The Role of Competition-Based Euro-Defences in IP Litigation" and "Goods in Transit". Other papers include

* "Patent Pools", by Field Fisher Waterhouse partner Charles Whiddington (who is co-chairing the day's programme);

* Abuse of Market Power", by JIPLP editorial board member and Bristows partner Pat Treacy;

* "Agreements to Settle IP Litigation & Delimitation Agreements", from another Field Fisher Waterhouse worthy, David Knight.

Full programme and booking form here.