Definition:
 Copyright protects the form of expression of ideas but not ideas themselves [ Intellectual Property Law by
Colin Goluan, 1992 at p.2
]
 Branch of IP which protects the proprietary rights of authors in relation to their created works( Khaw Lake
Tee, Copyright Law in Malaysia, p.1
)
P


Branch of IP which protects the proprietary rights of authors in relation to their created works( Khaw Lake
Tee, Copyright Law in Malaysia, p.1
)
 Entitles the author to control the reproduction of his works
 Protects the economic and moral rights of the author


Literary
 Artistic

Musical

Derivative Works – the translation, adaptations, arrangements and other transformations of the works eligible for copyright (s8(1)
Copyright Act 1987)

Subject matter other than original works


S3 Copyright Act 1987 – a non-exhaustive list

Covers work expressed in print or writing or reduced to a material form regardless of quality or merit of literary

Eg. Exam papers, advertisements, companies prospectus, dramatic works, tables & compilations, computer programs


S 10 Copyright Act 1987 – artistic craftmanship and artistic works
 S 7(2) CA 1987 – covers works which are artistic in nature though not of any artistic quality

Eg. Drawings, maps, plans, charts and the like, photographs, sculpture
 Artistic craftmanship covers artistry as well as craftmanship and it must originates from the same person


Life of the author plus 50 years after the author’s death

For works which remain unpublished at the time of death of the author, the duration shall expire 50 years after the publication- s 17(2) CA
1987


Work is protected if the requirements set out in s10 CA
1987 are fulfilled

Originality does not mean originality of ideas but of expression of thoughts – s 7(3)(a) CA 1987
 It relates to input of effort into the creation of work

Where there is sufficient effort and skill expended by the author to produce the work


Lau Foo San v Government of Malaysia [1974] 1 MLJ
28, Federal Court held that engineering drawings and designs for the construction of classroom by a civil engineer were original works.

University of London Press Ltd v University Tutorial
Press [1916] 2 Ch 601 - examination papers prepared by examiners were held to be original literary works


The amount of effort is a question of fact – Macmillan
& Co Ltd v K & J Cooper (1924).
It was held in this case that study notes, in which the text consists of a reprint of selected passages, were entitled to copyright.


Where the preparatory stage and the compilation stage cannot be separated the skill and effort expended at the former can be taken into account to determine originality – Football League Ltd v
Littlewoods Pools Ltd [1959] Ch 637 at 652. In this case a great deal of labour, skill and ingenuity was put in to prepare the football clubs list which was subsequently turned into a chronological fixture list.


No formalities required for registration as long as there’s subsistence and qualification of copyright as mentioned above

A copyright work should carry a notice where such right is claimed
 Eg. of such notice - the word “copyright” or the letter
“©” accompanied by the name of person claiming copyright and the year of 1 st publication.

 Protection is also afforded under s42 CA 1987 – an affidavit or a statutory declaration by the owner or his agent annexing a copy of the copyright is prima facie evidence and is admissible in evidence in any proceedings under the Act.


The Berne Convention – Malaysia acceded to it in
1/10/1990
 Applies to authors who are nationals of one of the
Berne Union countries

Authors who are not nationals of one of the Berne
Union countries but their works are first published in one of the Berne Union countries, or simultaneously in a country outside the Union and in the country of the
Union (within 30 days of its first publication in a non-
Berne Union country).


The law of copyright practically restrict the copying in whole or a substantial part of the owner’s work either in its original or derivative form

Lord Reid in Ladbroke (Football) Ltd v William Hill
(Football) Ltd [1964] 1 WLR 273 stated that
“substantiality” depended more on the quality than the quantity of what has been taken


Hawkes & Son v Paramount Film Service [1934] 1 Ch
593 – the defendant had reproduced a substantial part of the musical work when they played it for 20 seconds out of the normal 4 minutes play. The consideration was whether the amount taken could be recognised by any person as the musical work in question. If so, then a substantial part had been taken per Lord Hanworth MR.

S8 CA 1987 –it covers the following:-

Translation (to another language)

Adaptation (of a book into a play)

Arrangements (of musical work)

Transformation

Collection of works


Reproduction into a material form includes the recording of a literary work from a book to tape or disc
 Reproduction of a work in two-dimensional form into a three-dimensional form amounts to infringement. See
Peko Wallsend Operations & 3 Ors. V Linatex Process
Rubber Bhd [1993] 2 CLJ 94


King Features Syndicate Inc v Kleeman Ltd [1941] AC
417 – the copyright in drawing of “Pop-eye the Sailor” had been infringed by reproductions of that drawing in the form of dolls and brooches.

Performance, playing or showing of the work to the public


Broadcasting
 Distribution to the public - once the owner has released his copyright work by sale he is taken to have consented to any future disposition. Rental and lending of books is not considered an infringement of copyright

S 13(1) CA 1987


Direct infringement – where any one acts under s13 CA
1987 is done without the consent of the owner
(infringement of the exclusive right of the owner)
 Indirect infringement (secondary infringement) – include the sale, distribution/ importation of works incorporating copyright works (s36(2) CA 1987)

1) Objective similarity – comparing the similarities and differences (either visually or aurally) between the original work and the infringing copy. Two computer programs which produces the same function/ output/ look and feel does not necessarily satisfy the objective similarity test.

2) Causal connection – sufficient objective similarities may raise the inference of a causal connection but the defendant may rebut this presumption
3) Infringement of the substantial part of the work


Damages
 Injunction

Anton Piller

Delivery

Restriction on importation


Malaysia – s36(2) whether it includes exemplary damages remains open
 Singapore – s119(4) includes exemplary damages

Australia – s115(4) includes exemplary damages


S 41 CA – on conviction of any of the offences under s41(1)(a)-(f) CA, shall be liable to a fine of not less than
RM2,000.00 and not more than RM20,000.00 and/or imprisonment of not exceeding 5 years.

On conviction of the offence under s41(1)(g) CA, shall be liable to a fine of not less than RM4,00.00 and not more than RM40,000.00 and/or imprisonment not exceeding 10 years.


On conviction of the offences under s41(1)(h), (i)&(j)
CA, shall be liable to a fine not exceeding
RM250,000.00 and/or imprisonment of not exceeding 3 years.


Malaysia – s13(2)(a) the right to control does not include fair dealing for purpose of non-profit research, private study, criticism etc…

Singapore s35(2) and Australia s40(2) lay down various factors to be taken into account when considering the question of fair dealing


The factors are:-

Purpose and character of the dealing

The nature of the work
 The amount and substantiality of the parts taken
 The effect of the dealing

The availability of the work in the market
N