The individual creator of a work (or his employer) is the first owner of copyright.
Copyright will only prevent copying –not independent creation.
Copying is presumed from access and similarity, unless the defendant can prove independent creation.
Infringement Copyright infringement: 1. Is what is taken substantial? 2. If so, is there a defense? 3 very narrow “fair dealing” defenses : A. Private study or research of literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works for non-commercial purposes (§29). B. Criticism or review of a work already in the public domain with acknowledgement, (§30(1)). C. Reporting of current events with acknowledgement (this does not apply to photographs) (§30(2)).
The intermediary may be ordered to disclose the identity of the poster -- a Norwich Pharmacal order.
Due to confidentiality & Data Protection obligations, ISP’s require a Court Order before revealing identities.
EU law requires a Court Order in civil cases, Promusicae v Telefonica
UK Courts have robustly refused to make orders where the comments were jokes or just abusive comments. BBC v Sheffield FC’s Dave Allen, BBC v Hargreaves
Fighting Takedown 1. Seek the precise allegations they say are inaccurate and the meanings they complain of. A blanket notice will not suffice. 2. Consider temporarily removing while taking advice. 3. Post the Takedown Notice—on your own site and also at www.chillingeffects.org . This ensures the public can see what is being done and casts sunlight on attempts to remove materials online. 4. Posting the other side of the story –create a qualified privilege or Reynolds defense to defamation–provided the information has some public interest relevance. See one we did at http://www.hotukdeals.com/item/187273/redsave-nettexmedia-take-down-notic/showthread.php?t=187273&page=29 .
A breach of the CAP Code’s requirements of truthfulness which applies to advertising in paid for space and paid for search or sponsored links and viral ads with downloads.
New rule 22.3 on “Recognizing Marketing Communications and identifying marketers” –marketers should not falsely claim or imply they are acting as consumers or for purposes that do not relate to their business.
Breach of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.
Recruitment agency sued former employee (who had left to establish a competing firm) for migrating company contacts to his personal linked in account –despite the fact that it was done with their consent and once uploaded it had ceased to be confidential. Not a final ruling –merely an order to disclose documents. Likely a contract issue but once confidence is lost -gone for good. Hays v Ions
Customer cards and addresses were not confidential –when on a company website and the personal contacts could be found online. WRN v Awris.
False Identities can be defamatory and misuse of private information –eg Applause Store Productions Limited and Mathew Firsht v Grant Raphael.