• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. 9
  • Level: GCSE
  • Subject: ICT
  • Word count: 3584

Critically evaluate the extent to which it can be said that copyright law gives adequate and appropriate protection to contemporary works of art?

Extracts from this document...


Intellectual Property Law Assessed Essay Student No: 001813779 Question 1. Critically evaluate the extent to which it can be said that copyright law gives adequate and appropriate protection to contemporary works of art? In this essay there are certain questions that need to be resolved in order to completely consider the protection to contemporary works of art under copyright law. In general it will be necessary to consider what exactly contemporary art is in order to understand the extent of the protection, and whether this is reasonable, or is there grounds for reform of the law? Perhaps the law is too strict in this area of litigation, or on the contrary is may be too easy to gain copyright for something that is considered a form of contemporary art? Looking back at the question, by saying to what extent does the law provide adequate and appropriate protection to contemporary works of art, there is an immediate suggestion that there is in fact a problem with the law. How far will the courts go in order to protect so-called contemporary art? In order for a contemporary art form to be considered for copyright there are certain statutory and common law obligations that need to be fulfilled. Firstly it is section 4 (1) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 that defines 'artistic work' as meaning: (a) a graphic work, photograph, sculpture, or collage. IRRESPECTIVE OF ARTISTIC QUALITY (b) a work of architecture being a model for a building, or (c) a work of artistic craftsmanship What is important in the first category is that copyright exists, irrespective of artistic quality. With regards to the extent to which copyright gives protection to contemporary artwork this is very positive for new artists seeking to obtain copyright. So if the courts are satisfied that a contemporary piece of art work falls under section 4 1 (a) ...read more.


It is also the way that the judges are interpreting these statutes that will determine the extent of the protection. This seems to be at the depth of the problem, trying to define art for the purposes of copyright and the way that judges interpret the CDPA of 1988. A purely fictitious example would be whether to give copyright to an upside down placed table? Using the CDPA of 1988 the judges have a choice of a taking a very literal meaning of the words or rather to be very flexible in interpreting what an upside down table could be? In this example there are several other things that must be considered if the court is to recognise an upside down table as a piece of artistic work contrary to Section 4. First of all there has to be some kind of originality for the piece of work to be considered for copyright. Also that copyright should be allowed as to protect the interests of the copyright owner. Or simply summed up in the words of Justice Peterson in University of London Pres Ltd v University Tutorial Press Ltd, where he said '...there remains the rough practical test that what is worth copying is prime facie worth copying'4 However, again this brings us immediately back to the question of what exactly is worth copying? I suppose it is at the core of this question, evaluating the extent that copyright law gives adequate protection to contemporary art, is both the extent and ultimately the coverage made in Section 4 of CDPA 1988. Followed by the way the judges interpret this statute, together with perhaps their opinions and that of professionals in the area of contemporary art. Although that we know in a court of law, any emotive feelings or biased opinion should be eradicated, it seems with regards to determining what contemporary art is and whether it should gain copyright, this is something that is ultimately required. ...read more.


What should be rewarded is a combination of the both, the mental application and the labour. A work that requires purely skill in its execution should not be better protected that one which is created by a conception of the mind. It seems that we are being drawn into numerous tests for the subsistence of copyright, and it seems to be undermining true copyright law. With this is mind it seems that perhaps contemporary artists are not getting the required adequate and appropriate protection desired. So what happens when a contemporary artist successfully gains copyright protection? After fulfilling all the necessary common law and statutory criteria, does the artist gain adequate protection over his or her work? Under Section 16 (1) if the CDPA of 1988 copyright protection gives exclusive rights to an author, artist etc to: (a) Copy the work (b) Issues copies of a work to the public, or publishing it. (c) Performing, showing or playing a work in public (d) Broadcasting a work or including it in a cable programme service (e) Adapting a work or doing any of the above acts in relation to an adaptation of it. If another artist does any of the following then he or she will be in primary infringement of the work. The statutory provision above seems to cover every possible eventuality and once an artist has gained copyright protection he or she will have adequate and appropriate protection. Therefore it seems the difficulty for new artists is actually gaining the protection in the first place, the question to whether it is adequate is quite simply yes. The real problem as I have mentioned before is that some artists are not getting the deserved protection in the first place, because of the harsh and stringent criteria that needs to be fulfilled. Perhaps what is needed is a reform of the statute in order to cover every possible new artistic movement and work, but at the same time it should not be so relaxed as to allow worthless, uncreative work to gain protection. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Legislation & The Legal Framework section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related GCSE Legislation & The Legal Framework essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Ict and the law

    4 star(s)

    Computer Misuse Act (1990) The Computer Misuse Act (CMA) ensures all computer users cannot use computers for accessing files they do not have authority to access. People who gain access to any computer system and have the intent on modifying, viewing, accessing or deleting files that do not belong to them, (such as hackers or terrorists,)

  2. Assets table - recording the copyright information on the logos and pictures I used.

    the bottom and irrelevant text this is to show that united we can change the world, it also appealed to me because it shows that even in the worst conditions people stick together. Swap advert A house made from natural material image s N/A A house made from natural material

  1. The Child Protection Act.

    This view was shared by Ms Anderson who concluded in her letter that, "Certain changes need to be made by the government to rectify these imperfections." This idea is sort after by the public and by professionals so in reality it needs to happen.

  2. The Data Protection Act 1998 - questions and answers

    What is fair processing? The first data protection principle requires data controllers to ensure that processing is fair. The 1998 Act gives some guidance on what amounts to fair processing. Where information is obtained from the individual himself the data controller is required to supply certain information to the individual

  1. The Legislation That Protects Individuals and Groups using IT. Use of It by myself ...

    Mr Ajaib can thus easily be tricked. Facebook contains a lot of bots. These are computerised programs coded to do a certain task. These bots are typically fake profiles, often disguised as attractive women, which send messages to people in hopes of passing viruses, no euphemism intended.

  2. 3E-The legislation that protects individuals and groups from the misuse of ICT

    Overall, I believe that the law has been extremely effective in keeping everyone's data personal and secured. The advantages prevail over the disadvantages because with the law in place, a number of events are less likely to commence and even though there are a few drawbacks; without the law their will be more problems then with the law in place.

  1. Data Protection Act

    Schedule 3 conditions are set out in Data Protection Order 2000. Schedule 4 of the Act consists of cases where the Eighth Principle (prohibiting the transfer of personal data outside the European Economic Area) does not apply. Once registered the data user must comply with the following eight principles: 1.1

  2. Is the UK copyright act of 1988 still an adequate means of protecting intellectual ...

    For many, we have entered a new era where copyright protection is still necessary, but its enforcement is no longer effective, or, even, possible. Perhaps even more importantly, whereas most technologies (e.g. camcorders, video recorders, etc.) would simply make copyright protection more difficult, digital computers managed to alter the fundamental concepts behind copyright (1).

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work