Headlines and Hyperlinks: UK Copyright Law Post-Infopaq - Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd and Others v Meltwater Holding BV and Other Companies [2010] EWHC 3099 (Ch)
![handle is hein.journals/qmjip1 and id is 184 raw text is:
Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property, Vol. 1 No. 2, July 2011, pp. 184-187
Headlines and hyperlinks: UK copyright
law post-Infopaq
Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd and others v Meltwater
Holding BV and other companies [2010] EWHC 3099 (Ch)
Luke McDonagh
PhD Candidate, Queen Mary University of London
INTRODUCTION
At the time of the decision of the European Court of Justice in Infopaq, a number of
copyright lawyers wondered what the eventual impact of the decision would be on UK
law under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA).2 With the decision
of the High Court in Newspaper Licensing Agency v Meltwater, we have the first indi-
cation of how the decision in Infopaq has the potential to influence decisions of the
UK courts.
In this regard, the relevant points articulated in Infopaq must be recalled before the
present case is examined. These points are as follows. First, the originality standard
for subsistence of all works is based around the idea of the author's 'intellectual
creation'.3 Secondly, even an extract of 11 words could amount to an example of
copyright infringement, if these 11 words are a reflection of the intellectual creation
of the author.4 Thirdly, the European Court of Justice stressed that the 'exceptions' to
copyright, as contained in the Information Society Directive, must be interpreted
narrowly.5
THE FACTS OF THE CASE
Meltwater offers its customers an online service for media monitoring. By utilizing a
search term mechanism, customers, or 'end users', are able to receive reports from
Meltwater of articles containing the search terms. Typically included within each
1. Infopaq International v. Danske Dagblades Forening (C-5/08) [2010] FSR 495.
2. E Derclaye, 'Wonderful or Worrisome? The Impact of the ECJ Ruling in Infopaq on UK
Copyright Law', (2010) 32(5) European Intellectual Property Review 247 and C Handig,
'Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening (C-5/08): is the term work of the
CDPA 1988 in line with the European Directives?', (2010) 32(2) European Intellectual Property
Review) 53.
3. Infopaq International v. Danske Dagblades Forening (C-5/08) [2010] FSR 495 at
[33]-[38], [42]-[47].
4. Infopaq International v. Danske Dagblades Forening (C-5/08) [2010] FSR 495 [38] and
[48]-[49].
5. Infopaq International v. Danske Dagblades Forening (C-5/08) [2010] FSR 495 at [56].
0 2011 The Author Journal compilation 0 2011 Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd
The Lypiatts, 15 Lansdown Road, Cheltenham, Glos GL50 2JA, UK
and The William Pratt House, 9 Dewey Court, Northampton MA 01060-3815, USA](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/qmjip1&div=20&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most