Norowzian v Arks Ltd and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 17 July 1998 |
| Date | 17 July 1998 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
Before Mr Justice Rattee
Chancery Division
Copyright - film editing process - not protected dramatic work
A film of a man dancing, which had been edited by the film-maker to create an illusion that the dancer performed a certain sequence of movements which in reality no human could perform did not constitute a "dramatic work" within the meaning of section 1(1)(a) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 in which copyright could subsist.
Mr Justice Rattee so held in a reserved judgment in the Chancery Division when dismissing the claim of the plaintiff, Mr Mehdi Norowzian, that his film Joy represented a dramatic work within the meaning of section 1 of the 1988 Act, being a work of dance or mime as defined in section 3 of the 1988 Act, in respect of which he was entitled to copyright; and that the film Anticipation made by the first defendant, Arks Ltd, and authorised to be used as an advertisement for Guinness by the second defendant, Guinness Brewing Worldwide Ltd, represented a substantial copy of Joy and therefore an infringement of his copyright.
The plaintiff's claim for infringement of copyright against the third defendant, Guinness plc, the holding company of the second defendant, and his claim in passing off as against all three defendants were abandoned during the trial.
The plaintiff had made a film called Joy which he had sent in a show reel to the first defendant. Joy was a film of one man dancing to music.
It made extensive use of jump cutting, an editing process whereby the editor excised pieces of the original film within a sequence of movements by the actor, with the result that on the edited version of the film he appeared to have performed successively, without an interval, two movements which in reality could not have immediately succeeded each other.
The first defendant wished to make an advertisement based on Joy. It asked the plaintiff to direct the advertisement. The plaintiff refused.
The first defendant's film therefore was made by a different director, with a different actor, and different storyboard. It did, however, make extensive use of the jump cutting technique which had characterised Joy.
Mr Christopher Floyd, QC and Mr Mark Vanhegan for the plaintiff; Mr Peter Prescott, QC and Mr Thomas Mitcheson for the first defendant; Mr Adrian
Speck for the second and third defendants.
MR JUSTICE RATTEE set out section 1(1) of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Entertainment One UK Ltd v Công Ty Tnhh ð?u TU Công Ngh? Defendants Và D?ch v? Sconnect Vi?tnam also known as Sconnect Company Ltd (a Ltd liability corporation incorporated under the laws of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam)
...a prospect of success, but as pleaded, this is not a “sound-alike” case that infringes the principle enunciated in Norwozian v Arks Ltd [1998] FSR 394. 20 Notwithstanding that some videos were removed following the letter before claim, it is pleaded that the Defendants have “continued to cr......
-
Nova Productions Ltd v Mazooma Games Ltd
...will appear on the screen in response to the various inputs made by the person playing the game. Film 120 In Norowzian v. Arks (No. 1) [1998] FSR 394 it was held that film copyright can only be infringed by photographic copying from the film. In the circumstances Nova concedes that the defe......
-
Dramatico Entertainment Ltd and Others v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd and Others
...The right conferred by the 1988 Act on "films" is a right in the signal, not a right in the content: see Norowzian v Arks Ltd (No 1) [1999] EMLR 57. Under current UK law, the content of a film (i.e. the cinematographic work or what some other laws call the audiovisual work) is protected as ......
-
Nova Productions Ltd v Mazooma Games Ltd
...the game itself; iv) Film copyright. 3 Below, Nova relied upon the first three types. Having regard to the decision in Norowzian v Arks [1998] FSR 394 it merely reserved its position in relation to film copyright for possible argument on appeal. In the event it chose not to do so. It has al......
-
Santam Limited v Dial Direct Limited and Joe Public (Pty) Ltd Unreported Western Cape High Court case number 13278/11 (WCC) : recent case law
...form to which it wasreduced) such as a book, was not physically copied. It is the work that isbeing copied (Norowzian v Arks Ltd [1998] FSR 394 398). The mererecitation of a poem might even, arguably, be seen as a “reproduction”(definition of “performance” in s 1(1) read with s 6(1)(c) Copy......