How ‘original’ does your work have to be to be protected by copyright law?

WHAT KINDS of works are protected by copyright law? On 7 November the UK Court of Appeal handed down a judgment that defines how "original" a work must be for its author benefit.

The case dealt with the "look and feel" of options trading software - and the messy break-up of a business partnership.

But, in the conclusion of Mr Justice Arnold, works of any kind are protected by copyright only if "the author was able to express their creative abilities in the production of the work by making free and creative choices so as to stamp the work created with their personal touch… This criterion is not satisfied where the content of the work is dictated by technical considerations, rules or other constraints which leave no room for creative freedom."

This ruling was greeted enthusiastically by arts academics, who conclude that it means that galleries can no longer charge licence fees to reproduce faithful photographs of paintings that are themselves out of copyright.

So far as the Freelance can tell at the moment, this judgment is not likely to have any significant effect on journalistic works produced by human journalists. It may well mean that there is no copyright in machine-generated works that are only lightly revised by a human. We may need to revise our estimation of copyright and so-called "artificial intelligence" - see www.londonfreelance.org/fl/2308robo.html

Interestingly for wider politics, Mr Justice Arnold made wide use of judgments in the Court of Justice of the European Union in reaching his conclusion. Lady Justice Asplin and Lord Justice Moylan agreed.

© Mike Holderness