Geraldine Jennifer Young v The British Library
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Hacon |
| Judgment Date | 27 January 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] EWHC 697 (IPEC) |
| Court | Intellectual Property Enterprise Court |
| Docket Number | Case No: 2020-000093 |
| Date | 27 January 2021 |
[2021] EWHC 697 (IPEC)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LIST (ChD)
7 Rolls Buildings
Fetter Lane
London EC4A 1NL
HIS HONOUR JUDGE Hacon
Case No: 2020-000093
Ms G Young appeared in person
Ms J Clement (instructed by Bevan Brittan LLP) appeared on behalf of the Defendants/Applicants
JUDGE This is an application by the defendants to strike out the Claim Form in these proceedings or alternatively for summary judgment in their favour.
In about 2015, the Claimant, Ms Young, wrote a book entitled Twiggles and Squiggles. The title characters are cats. In August 2015, Ms Young paid Austin Macauley Publishers Limited £2,300 to publish the book. In 2017, the publication agreement with Austin Macauley was terminated and in December 2017 a second version of Twiggles and Squiggles was published by Ms Young herself.
As I will explain in more detail below, the First Defendant (the British Library) and the Bodleian Library of the Second Defendant are entitled to a copy of each book published in the United Kingdom pursuant to the Legal Deposit Libraries Act 2003. Accordingly, the British Library and the Bodleian Library each hold a copy of both the 2015 and 2017 version of Twiggles and Squiggles.
Today, Joanne Clement of counsel appears for the defendants and Ms Young appears on her own behalf.
On 30 August 2019, Ms Young issued the Claim Form in these proceedings in the County Court Money Claims Centre. The two Defendants were identified to be the British Library and the Bodleian Library. On 11 October 2019, by an order of Deputy District Judge Slaney, the claim was transferred to the County Court at Stoke-on-Trent.
By an order of District Judge McGinty sitting in Stoke on 23 March 2020, the claim was transferred to this court. The judge also substituted the present Second Defendant in place of the Bodleian Library, the Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford being the correct legal defendant. The Bodleian Library is a service provided by the Second Defendant.
The British Library Act 1972 suggests that the correct First Defendant may correctly be the British Library Board, a body corporate created under that Act which provides the services of the British Library. However, I can leave that to one side.
The brief details of claim and the Particulars of Claim set out in the copy of the Claim Form in the electronic bundle which I have are not easy to read in their entirety nor entirely easy to follow. However, it is reasonably clear that the principal relief sought by Ms Young is the removal of metadata relating to her books as held by the British Library and the Bodleian. So far as I can make them out, the brief details of claim read:
“… to dismantle the metadata from the Internet of my book Twiggles and Squiggles; to collect and return to me any book remaining on the shelves or contact me to collect locally; to contact the libraries to take down any data they may still have on the Internet and to destroy all copies; Bodleian Library to cancel illegal partnership agreement with Google; British Library to cancel out illegal licensing agreement with Google; to pay damages as listed overleaf.”
The figure claimed for damages appears to be £5,000 to £10,000.
The present application to strike out was issued on 27 September 2019. Ms Young filed a response to the application in a document of 17 pages dated 5 October 2019. The first paragraph again summarises what Ms Young is seeking. It reads:
“I am the claimant and it is my case, I have tried repeatedly for over two years to get my book removed from the metadata in both of the above libraries, to which they have refused. My request to the court is that my book Twiggles and Squiggles is removed via a court order from the metadata as this is what they have requested, to put simply the URLs and title will have to be removed permanently. The British Library have an illegal licensing scheme which I am not party to, and the Bodleian Library has an illegal partnership agreement with Google to which I am not party to.”
Yesterday, 26 January 2021, Ms Young filed a document of about 14 pages headed, “Statement of Case” and a further shorter document summarising points on American and English law. From these documents, I draw the following summary of the complaints raised by Ms Young (and today she confirmed that they accurately summarise the points she wishes to make):
(1) The Bodleian Library has entered into an illegal contract with Google allowing copies of Twiggles and Squiggles to be sent to Google. Google has taken author's royalties and funds from public lending rights which should have gone to Ms Young. Ms Young has no objection, as I understand it, to the Bodleian retaining a copy of her book but its metadata should be removed to prevent copies of the book being passed to Google.
(2) Ms Young says that she has seen her book advertised many times on Google and has tried to have the sites taken down.
(3) Ms Young states that she was forced to withdraw from the UK public lending scheme because no payment was ever received. She also says that Google is using an American system of law in relation to her book, although it is an entirely British book.
(4) Ms Young says the British Library has set up an illegal licensing scheme with Google in relation to Ms Young's book and this has likewise led to the misdirection of royalties and funds from public lending rights to Google's benefit. Ms Young therefore wants the British Library to delete its metadata relating to the book. She also wants the books themselves to be withdrawn from the British Library.
(5) Ms Young argues that the agreements between the two libraries and Google give rise to infringements under section 2(1) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. They have also given rise to fraud and embezzlement. Ms Young refers to the Fraud Act 2006. She makes reference to other UK statutes...
To continue reading
Request your trial