UK: A Reminder About Copyright Infringement

Last Updated: 9 February 2015
Article by Harry Jupp

As many people remember from their school days, it is much better to create something on your own than to copy someone else's work. But where do you stand when matters are not so clear cut, when there are elements of grey, when you suspect that someone has copied your work but knowingly or unfairly altered various aspects or when you have been accused of copyright infringement in relation to a work that you hadn't seen before?

If faced with such scenarios, allegations of copyright infringement are unlikely to be far away.  You may wish to protect and enforce your rights or defend your position.  If so, you may want an understanding of how the Courts are likely to approach the question of copyright infringement.

The recent case of John Kaldor Fabricmaker UK Limited -v- Lee Ann Fashions Limited is not a bad place to remind yourself of the main elements involved in copyright infringement.  Heard in the High Court's Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, the parties were commended by the Court for their sensible approach to the dispute which meant that it could focus on the key issues in order to provide an important summary of the law, including previous authorities, and to explain how it would, as a result, apply it when copyright infringement is alleged, without getting drowned in extraneous detail.

The legal background

The law surrounding the question of copyright infringement stems from the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (also known as the CPDA).  Under the CPDA, original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works may be protected by UK copyright for the life of the author plus seventy (70) years.  During that period, the copying (which under the CPDA means reproducing the work in any material form) of the protected work is prohibited without permission. 

What are literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works?

An original literary work is normally formed of the written word (whether online or in print) such as marketing literature, a novel, an article or correspondence.  An original dramatic work is typically a work of action with or without words or music which can be performed – examples include screenplays, dances and mimes.  

An original musical work is a work that consists exclusively of music, and has been defined by the Courts as the combination of sounds for listening to and which are not mere noise but created for human emotions or intellect. An original artistic work is defined by the CPDA as a graphic work, photograph, sculpture, collage or a work of architecture or artistic craftsmanship, and it can be used to protect diagrams, charts, graphic design materials, design drawings and engineering drawings amongst others.

The John Kaldor case

Both John Kaldor and Lee Ann are in the fashion business, and both design and make fabrics for sale to various retailers.  The dispute in this particular case concerned a fabric which Lee Ann had supplied to Marks & Spencer and which John Kaldor claimed had been copied from its own earlier fabric which Lee Ann had seen.  At the trial of the case, there was no dispute that John Kaldor held the necessary (artistic) copyright in its fabric, so the question for the Court was whether it had been infringed by Lee Ann's subsequent fabric.

Primary and secondary infringement

In the case, John Kaldor alleged the two forms of infringement against Lee Ann – primary and secondary infringement.  Primary infringement occurs when (for example) an individual copies the protected work without permission.  Secondary infringement targets the importing, distributing and selling of infringing copies by individuals.  Liability for secondary infringement will ordinarily only occur once the individual has knowledge of or reason to believe that the copies are infringing and is often alleged against the primary infringer once he or she has been put on notice of the infringement allegation.

Copyright infringement

Under the CPDA, for the Court to find there was infringement, it has to be satisfied (i) that the alleged copy was in fact copied, directly or indirectly, from the protected work and (ii) that the copying was done in relation to the whole or a substantial part of the protected work.

Was it copied, directly or indirectly, from the protected work?

In relation to the first part, the Court does not expect there to be bullet-proof evidence of copying as it is unlikely to exist.  Instead, the Court accepts that it has to rely on the similarities between the works and whether they are significant enough on their face to infer that copying did indeed take place.  This inference can, however, be defeated by evidence which shows that the accused work was created without reference to the previous work. The Court said that it follows from this that the stronger the similarities and therefore the inference of copying, the stronger the evidence needs to be to defeat it.  Likewise, where the inference is weak, weaker evidence will suffice to defeat it.

Was the copying done in relation to the whole or a substantial part of the protected work?

Once the first part of the infringement question is satisfied, attention must turn to the second limb which says that the copying must be done in relation to the whole or a substantial part of the work.  The issue for the Court here is whether the elements found to have been copied form a substantial part of the protected work.  

Where the whole of a work has been copied the issue will be straightforward.  The tougher examination is when less than the whole has been copied.  The Court sees two types of what may be termed 'part copying'.  The first type is where a part of the whole work has been exactly copied.  The question for the first type is whether that part is a substantial part, and that will depend more on the quality of what has been copied than on the quantity.  The second type is where none of the work has been exactly copied and it has instead been modified.  This is referred to as altered copying.  The question for altered copying is whether a substantial part of the original independent skill and labour has been incorporated into the latter work.  The similarities between the works will be critical and determinative, according to the Court, for altered copying.

The Court has, however, said that once copying is established (the first part) it is very likely that the substantial element will follow (the second part) as where the similarities are "sufficiently numerous or extensive to justify an inference of copying they are likely to be sufficiently substantial".  Indeed, the Court has gone further and suggested that where the similarities justify the inference of copying there will be no need to consider the substantiality issue and infringement will be found.

The Court's summary

From its review of the law and authorities on copyright infringement, the Court drew the following principles:

  1. There needs on the face of it to be an inference of direct or indirect copying due to the similarities between the works.
  2. Similarities which have no connection to the literary, dramatic, musical or artistic nature of the work are disregarded.
  3. Similarities which are commonplace give little or no inference of copying.  Or in other words, the more original the similarity, the stronger the inference of copying.  
  4. The inference of copying can be defeated by evidence of independent creation.  The stronger the inference, the stronger the evidence needed.
  5. No copying will mean no infringement.  But if there has been copying, to be infringing, it needs to have been done in relation to the whole or a substantial part of the original work.
  6. There are two approaches to substantial part.  The first is to decide whether the similarities establish a substantial part of the original work.  The second, which applies to altered copying, is whether a substantial part of the original intellectual creation has been incorporated.
  7. Commonplace similarities do not count in the substantial part test.
  8. Where copying is found, it will regularly lead to the substantial part test being satisfied.  But this is likely to be influenced by the strength or weakness of the similarities.

Did Lee Ann infringe John Kaldor's copyright?

So what about John Kaldor and Lee Ann?  

The Court carefully reviewed the two fabrics and came to the view that the similarities between them meant that Lee Ann had, on the face of it, copied John Kaldor's design.  The Court also said that while there was enough similarity to infer copying, it was not a particularly strong inference.  On the face of it, therefore, Lee Ann was liable for copyright infringement.

However, the Court found that the evidence put forward by Lee Ann that their fabric was created independently of the John Kaldor fabric was credible and thus defeated the inference of copying.  The Court did hint that had the similarities between the fabrics been greater, it might have found for John Kaldor.  As a result of failing the first limb of the infringement test, the Court did not have to go on and consider whether the copy was a substantial part.  

While the case provides a useful summary of the law which will apply in a copyright infringement case, two factors stand out: (i) how critical the degree of similarity between the two works will be in a copyright infringement dispute and (ii) how important the record of a work's creation will be to the chances of rebutting a presumption of copying.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions