Robic's Newsletter

CLICK FOR LEGAL NOTICE

Publications Back to the newsletter

Engravings and Copyright – How Does a Definition Aimed at Fine Arts Apply to Frisbee Disks?

2003-01-01

1
ENGRAVINGSANDCOPYRIGHT

HOWDOESADEFINITIONAIMEDATFINEARTSAPPLYTOFRISBEE
®DISKS?

by
LaurentCarrière*
LEGERROBICRICHARD,Lawyers,
ROBIC,Patent&TrademarkAgents
CentreCDPCapital
1001Square-Victoria-BlocE–8
thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.(514)9876242-Fax(514)8457874
www.robic.ca-info@robic.com

Textofsection
1.0RelatedSections
2.0RelatedRegulations
3.0PriorLegislation
3.1CorrespondingSectioninPriorLegislation
3.2LegislativeHistory
3.2.1S.C.1921,c.24,s.2(h)
3.2.2R.S.C.1927,c.32,s.2(h)
3.2.3R.S.C.1952,c.55,s.2(h)
3.2.4R.S.C.1970,c.C-30,s.2
4.0Purpose
5.0Commentary
5.1History
5.2Interpretation
5.2.1″Includes”
5.2.2″Includes”/Estassimilé”
5.2.3EjusdemGeneris5.3General
5.3General
5.3.1Printmaking
5.3.2Enumeration
5.4Definitions
5.4.1Engravings
5.4.2Etchings
5.4.3Lithographs
5.4.4Woodcuts
5.4.5Prints
5.5″Orothersimilarworks”
5.6″Notbeingphotographs”
5.7TermofCopyright
5.8AuthorandOwner
5.8.1TheEngraver

©LaurentCarrière,1994-2003.
*Lawyerandtrademarkagent,LaurentCarrièreisaseniorpartnerinthelawfirmLEGERROBIC
RICHARD,g.p.andinthepatentandtrademarkagencyfirmROBIC,g.p.Publication121.

2
5.8.2DerivativeWork
5.8.3CommissionedEngraving
5.9ArtisticMerit
5.10Infringement
5.10.1StatutoryExceptions
5.10.2CriminalLaw
5.11Typefaces
6.0CaseLaw
6.1CaseLaw-Canada
6.2CaseLaw-UnitedKingdom
6.3CaseLaw-UnitedStatesofAmerica
6.4CaseLaw-NewZealand
7.0ListofCases
7.1ListofCases-Canada
7.2ListofCases-UnitedKingdom
7.3ListofCases-UnitedStatesofAmerica
7.4ListofCases-NewZealand
8.0Authors
8.1Authors-Canada
8.1.1InterpretationIssues
8.1.2CopyrightIssues
8.2Authors-UnitedKingdom
8.3Authors-UnitedStatesofAmerica
8.4Authors-France
8.5Authors-Australia
8.6Authors-Varia
8.6.1Law
8.6.2Arts&Techniques
9.0ComparativeLegislation
9.1ComparativeLegislation-Canada
9.1.1CopyRightAct,1832,section1
9.1.2CopyrightAct,1868,section3
9.2ComparativeLegislation-UnitedKingdom
9.2.1CopyrightAct,1911,section35(1)
9.2.2CopyrightAct,1956,section48(1)
9.2.3CopyrightAct,1988,section4(2)
9.2.4CopyrightAct,1988,section15
9.3ComparativeLegislation-UnitedStatesofAmerica
9.3.1CopyrightAct,1802,section2
9.3.2CopyrightAct,1874,section3
9.3.3CopyrightAct,1909,section5(k)
9.4ComparativeLegislation-Australia
9.4.1CopyrightAct,1968,section10(1)
9.5ComparativeLegislation-India
9.5.1CopyrightAct,1957,section2(i)
9.6ComparativeLegislation-SouthAfrica
9.6.1CopyrightAct,1978,section1
10.0Varia
10.1RegistrabilityofComputerProgramsthatGenerateTypefaces

3
“ENGRAVINGS”
“engravings”includesetchings,lithographs,
woodcuts,printsandothersimilarworks,not
beingphotographs;

«GRAVURE»**
«gravure»Sontassimiléesàunegravureles
gravuresàl’eau-forte,leslithographies,les
gravuressurbois,lesestampesetautres
oeuvressimilaires,àl’exclusiondes
photographies.

R.S.C.1985,c.C-42,s.2

§1.0RelatedSections
Section2—Definitions:“artisticwork”,“photograph”,“plate”,“work”
“performance”;section2.2—Definitionof“publication”;section7—Termof
copyrightinposthumousworks;section13—Ownershipofcopyright;section
28.2—Natureofrightofintegrity;section32.2—Permittedacts;section64—
Interpretation[Industrialdesignandtopographies].

§2.0RelatedRegulations

None.

§3.0PriorLegislation
§3.1CorrespondingSectioninPriorLegislation
Section2(h)from1924-01-01to1971-07-14;section2from1971-07-15to
present.
§3.2LegislativeHistory
S.C.1921,c.24,s.2(h);C.I.F.1924-01-01;R.S.C.1927,c.32,s.2(h);C.I.F.1928-
02-01;R.S.C.1952,c.55,s.2(h);C.I.F.1953-09-15;R.S.C.1970,c.C-30,s.2;C.I.F.
1971-07-15;R.S.C.1985,c.C-42,s.2;C.I.F.1988-12-12.
3.2.1S.C.1921,c.24,s.2(h)

**Note:“Gravure”,astheFrenchtranslationof“engravings”,wasnumbered2(e)from1924-
01-01to1953-09-14;andwasnumbered2(h)from1953-09-15to1971-07-14.

4
“ENGRAVINGS”
(h)“engravings”includeetchings,
lithographs,woodcuts,prints,andother
similarworks,notbeingphotographs;

«GRAVURE»*
e)l’expression«gravure»comprendles
gravuresàl’eau-forte,leslithographies,les
gravuressurbois,lesestampesetautres
œuvressimilaires,àl’exclusiondes
photographies;

§3.2.2R.S.C.1927,c.32,s.2(h)

“ENGRAVINGS”
(h)“engravings”includeetchings,
lithographs,woodcuts,prints,andother
similarworks,notbeingphotographs;

«GRAVURE»*
e)«gravure»comprendlesgravuresà
l’eau-forte,leslithographies,lesgravures
surbois,lesestampesetautresœuvres
similaires,àl’exclusiondesphotographies;

§3.2.3R.S.C.1952,c.55,s.2(h)

“ENGRAVINGS”
(h)“engravings”includeetchings,
lithographs,woodcuts,prints,andother
similarworks,notbeingphotographs;

«GRAVURE»*
h)«gravure»comprendlesgravuresà
l’eau-forte,leslithographies,lesgravures
surbois,lesestampesetautresœuvres
similaires,àl’exclusiondesphotographies;

§3.2.4R.S.C.1970,c.C-30,s.2

“ENGRAVINGS”
“engravings”includeetchings,lithographs,
woodcuts,prints,andothersimilarworks,
notbeingphotographs;

«GRAVURE»*
e)«gravure»comprendlesgravuresà
l’eau-forte,leslithographies,lesgravures
surbois,lesestampesetautresœuvres
similaires,àl’exclusiondesphotographies.

§4.0Purpose
Thissectionprovidesforanon-exhaustivedefinitionof“engravings”,onetype
ofartisticwork.

§5.0Commentary

§5.1History
Thissectionwhichhasremainedrelativelyunchangedsincecominginto
forcein1924,isamereduplicationofsubsection35(1)oftheUnitedKingdom
CopyrightAct,1911.
IntheUnitedKingdom,statutoryprotectionforengravingscouldbetracked
backtoAnActfortheEncouragementoftheArtsofdesigning,engraving
andetchinghistoricalandotherPrints,byvestingthePropertiesthereofinthe
InventorsandEngravers,duringtheTimethereinmentioned(1735),section1
ofwhichreadpartlyasfollows:
(…)That(…)everypersonwhoshallinventanddesign,engrave,etch,or
work,inmezzotintoorchiaro-oscuro,orfromhisownworksandinvestigation
shallcausetobedesignedandengraved,etched,orworked,inmezzotinto
orchiaro-oscuro,anyhistoricalorotherprintorprints,shallhavethesole
rightandlibertyofprintingandreprintingthesameforthetermoffourteen
years,tocommencefromthedayoffirstpublishingthereof,whichshallbe
trulyengravedwiththenameoftheproprietoroneachplate,andprinted
oneverysuchprintorprints;(…)
TheUnitedKingdomAct(sometimesreferredtoas“Hogarth’sAct”),aswellas
itssubsequentamendmentsof1767,1777,1836and1852wereheld,
however,nottobeapplicableinCanada:HenryGraves&Co.v.Gorrie,
[1903]A.C.496(J.C.P.C.-Canada)LindleyJ.,atp.500.
Astatutorydefinitionof“engraving”wasfirstintroducedinCanadabythe
CanadianCopyrightAct,1921.Priortothattime,however,“engravings”were
neverthelessprotectedinCanada:see,forinstance,section1oftheLower
CanadaCopyRightAct,1832,section3oftheCanadianCopyrightAct,1868
andsection4oftheCanadiancopyrightActsof1875,1886and1906.
§5.2Interpretation
§5.2.1“Includes”
Theword“includes”isgenerallyusedininterpretationclausestoextendthe
meaningofwordsorexpressionsinthebodyofastatute.Whenthesewords
orexpressionsareused,theymustbeconstruedascomprehendingnotonly
suchthingsastheysignifyaccordingtotheirnaturalimportbutalsothose
thingswhichtheinterpretationclausedeclaresthattheyshallinclude.“Ithas

6
beenestablishedthatwhenthestatuteemploystheword‘including’or
‘includes’ratherthan‘means’thedefinitiondoesnotpurporttobecomplete
orexhaustiveandthereisnoexclusionofthenaturalmeaningofthewords”:
seeLaidlawv.MetropolitanToronto(Municipality),[1978]2S.C.R.736,Spence
J.,atpp.744-745.
Therefore,sinceintroducedbytheword“includes”,thedefinitionof
“engravings”shouldbeconstruedasillustrativeorextensiveandnotasa
completeandexhaustiveenumeration.Suchadefinitiondoesnotprovidefor
acompleteandexhaustiveenumerationandshouldnotberestrictedtothe
dictionarymeaningsincetheenumerationfollowingtheword“engravings”in
section2isaddedtotheusualsensethereof:CÔTÉ(Pierre-André),The
InterpretationofLegislationinCanada,2nded.(Cowansville,Blais,1992),at
pp.55-58;DRIEDGER(ElmerA.),ConstructionofStatutes,2nded.(Toronto,
Butterworths,1983),atpp.18-22;PIGEON(Louis-Philippe),Draftingand
InterpretingLegislation(Toronto,Carswell,1988),atpp.32-35.
§5.2.2“Includes”/“estassimilé”
Intheprocessofthe1985revisionoftheCopyrightAct,theword“comprend”
intheFrenchtext(asitwasusedsince1921;see§3.2LegislativeHistory,supra)
wasreplaced,albeitunfortunately,by“estassimilé”whichconveystheidea
ofcomparison,similarityinaclassificationorincorporationinasystem(i.e.,
“assimilation”)ratherthanoneofplacinginaclassorcategory(i.e.,
“inclusion”).
§5.2.3Ejusdemgeneris
Ageneralwordwhichfollowsspecificwordsofasimilarnature(asin“and
othersimilarworks”),takesitsmeaningfromthemandshallbeconstruedas
applyingonlytothingsofthesamegeneralclassasthoseenumerated:CÔTÉ
(Pierre-André),TheInterpretationofLegislationinCanada,2nded.
(Cowansville,Blais,1992),atpp.264-270;DRIEDGER(ElmerA.),Constructionof
Statutes,2nded.(Toronto,Butterworths,1983),atpp.111-119;LANGAN(P.St.
J.),MaxwellontheInterpretationofStatutes,12thed.(Bombay,Tripathi,
1969),pp.297-306.
ToparaphraseMartlandJ.inSuperiorPre-KastSepticTanksv.R.,[1978]2
S.C.R.612at618,torestrictthemeaningofthewords“andothersimilar
works”onlytoengravingswouldmeanthatitsuseinthedefinitionwould
servenousefulpurpose.Astheword“works”isprecededbytheword
“other”,itcertainlyindicatesthatitisintendedtorefertosomethingother

7
thanengravingsbutofthesamegenus.SeealsoBritishColumbiaForest
ProductsLtd.v.MinisterofNationalRevenue(1971),[1972]S.C.R.101,
MartlandJ.,at110.
§5.3General
Whendealingwith“engravings”itisimportanttorememberthat“[A]n
importantcharacteristicoftheprint,therefore,isitsidentityasamultiple.
Whileanartistcouldcertainlycreatejustoneimpressionfromablockor
plate,theusualpracticeisforaneditionofmanyprintstobestruck”.See
generallySAFF(Donald)etal.,Printmaking:HistoryandProcess(NewYork,
HRW,1978),atpp.3-4.
“Afurtherpointconcerningengravingsisthateachprintstruckoffthemaster-
block(thatis,supposingasubstantialamountofskillandlabourwentinto
makingtheblock);inotherwords,theword‘copy’asappliedtoauthentic
printsismisleading,foreachprintisasauthenticasitsfellowsandeachisan
‘original’.Theblockisa‘plate’withinthemeaningofs.18ofthe[1956United
KingdomCopyright]Act”[cf.definitionof“plate”insection2ofthe
CanadianCopyrightAct]:seeLADDIE(Hugh)etal.,TheModernLawof
Copyright(London,Butterworths,1980),atno.3.17butseeLADDIE(Hugh)et
al.,TheModernLawofCopyrightandDesigns,2nded.(London,Butterworths,
1995),atno.3.22withrespecttotheUnitedKingdomCopyrightActof1988.
§5.3.1Printmaking
Thedefinitionof“engravings”,foundinsection2oftheCopyrightActhasa
largerscopethanitsdictionarydefinitionasitcoversalsootherprintmaking
techniques,providedtheresultingworkisnotaphotographasdefinedin
section2.
Thefourmajortraditionalcategoriesofprintmakingare:
i)reliefprintswhichresultfromaraisedprintingsurface;these
techniquesincludewoodcut,linocutandwoodengraving;
ii)intanglioprintinginwhichtheimageareasaredepressed
belowthesurfaceoftheplate;thesetechniquesinclude
engraving,etching,drypoint,mezzotint,andaquatint;

8
iii)lithographywhichisaplanographicprocesswherethe
printingsurfaceisflatandtheprintingdependsonchemical
reaction;

iv)serigraphy(alsoknownassilkscreen,screenprintingor
mitography),whichisanadaptationofthebasicstencil-
makingtechnique.
SeealsoGILMOUR(Pat),UnderstandingPrints:aContemporaryGuide
(London,Waddington,1979),atp.6.
Reliefprinting.Reliefprintingisatechniqueinwhichtheimageisprintedfrom
araisedsurfacetowhichinkhasbeenapplied.Theblocksurfaceisusually
producedbycuttingawaynon-imageareas:cuttingawaythebackground
asinawoodcutoralinocut;carvingtheimageasinwoodengravingor
xylography;metalcollageoraddingobjectstoaflatsurfaceasinmetal
relief.“Inreliefprintingtheflatsurfaceofablockiscutinto,removingthenon-
printingpartsofthedesign,sothatthedesiredimageorpatternprovidesa
printingsurface.Thesurfaceisinkedwitharollerandprintedinapressor
burnishedbyhandusingawoodenspoon”:seeALLEN(Trevor),ReliefPrinting,
inRUSS(Stephen)ed.,ACompleteGuidetoPrintmaking(NewYork,Viking,
1975),atp.69.
Intanglio.“Theseveralprocessesgroupedunderthecategoryofintanglio
haveincommontheincisionoflinesorimagesintoasurface,usuallyof
metal.Intanglioprintsresultwhentheincisedareasarefilledwithinkorsimilar
substancefortransferoftheimagetopaper.Whereasthereliefprocessesrely
onaraisedprintingsurface,theprintingareasinintanglioaredepressed
belowthesurfaceoftheplate.Thevehicleforcuttingintothemetalorother
materialmaybeeitherasharptool(engraving,woodengraving,drypoint,
mezzotint)oranacidsolution(etching,aquatint).Oncetheplatehasbeen
cut,thedepressedareasarefilledwithinkandthenon-printingsurfacewiped
clean.Pressureforcesthepaperintothedepressedareas,andtheimageis
transferred”:seeSAFF(Donald)etal.,Printmaking:HistoryandProcess
(NewYork,HRW,1978),atp.89.
Lithography.Lithographyisaplanographicprocessinwhich,unlikethewood
blockorintanglioplate,theprintingandnon-printingareasofthestoneor
platesharethesamesurface.Theprintinginthelithographicprocessisbased
ontheprinciplethatgreaseandwaterdonotmix.
Serigraphy.Serigraphyisaprintingtechniquethat“makesuseofasqueegee
[i.e.,atoolforpushingtheinktoascreen]toforceinkdirectlyontoapieceof
paperorcanvasthroughastencil[i.e.,ameansofblockingthepassageof

9
inkthroughthenon-imageareasofthescreen]containingtheimage”:see
SAFF(Donald)etal.,Printmaking:HistoryandProcess(NewYork,HRW,1978),
atp.429.
§5.3.2Enumeration
Thedefinitionof“engravings”,providedforinsection2refersspecificallyto
severalspecifictechniques,namelyengraving,etching,lithograph,print,and
othersimilarworks.
Inordertoascertainthetruemeaningoftheseterms,whicharenototherwise
definedintheCopyrightAct,referencecouldbemadetocommon
dictionariesaswellastechnicalones.SeeWham-OManufacturingCo.v.
LincolnIndustriesLtd.(1984),[1985]R.P.C.128(N.Z.C.A.)DavidsonJ.,atp.150:
“Insofarthereforeasthosedefinitions[of“engraving”and“sculpture”]are
merelyinclusiveandarenotexhaustiveoftheoriginalmeaningsof
“engraving”and“sculpture”,thecourtcanhaveregardtotheordinary
meaningsofsuchwordsasascertainedfromvarioussources”.
Furthermore,inordertoascertainthemeaningofthesewords,onehasalso
torefertotheirmeaningatthetimeoftheirintroductionintheCopyrightAct,
1921,sincewordsinalegislativeactpossessthedefinitiontheyhadatthe
timewhentheactwasadopted:seeBARBE(RaoulP.),Lesdéfinitions
contenuesdanslesacteslégislatifsetréglementaires(1983),43Revuedu
Barreau1105,atpp.1119-1120.
§5.4Definitions
§5.4.1Engravings
Inthe1984ThirdRevisedEditionoftheShorterOxfordDictionaryBasedon
HistoricalPrinciples(“SOED”),“toengrave”isdefinedas“tosculpture;tocut
into;tomarkbyincisions;tocarveuponasurface;torepresentbyincisions
uponwood,metal,stone,etc.withtheviewofreproducingbyprinting”
[emphasisadded].Fromamoretechnicalpointofview,“engraving”isan
intangliotechnique“inwhichtheimageisproducedbycuttingametalplate
directlywithasharpengravingtool.Theincisedlinesareinkedandprinted
withheavypressure”:seeSAFF(Donald)etal.,Printmaking:Historyand
Process(NewYork,HRW,1978),atp.427.
To“engrave”includesnotonlythemakingoftheplatebutalsothemakingof
printsfromtheengravedplate:seeJamesArnold&Co.Ltd.v.Miafern

10
Limited,[1980]R.P.C.397,BakerJ.,at403-404(Ch.D.),whereitwasheldthat
theproductionofaflyingdiscbyinjectionmouldingfromamouldwhichwas
anengravingdidnotpreventthediscfromalsobeinganengraving.Tothe
sameeffect,seealsoWham-OManufacturingCo.v.LincolnIndustriesLtd.
(1984),[1985]R.P.C.128,DavidsonJ.,at152(N.Z.C.A.).UnderthisNew
Zealandcase,thedefinitionof“engravings”hasbeenextendedtomeanthe
processaswellastheresultingproduct.InAustralia,however,aviewcontrary
tothisliberalinterpretationwasexpressedinGreenfieldProductsPty.Ltd.v.
Rover-ScottBonnarLtd.(1990),17I.P.R.417,PincusJ.,at428(Austr.F.C.);Talk
oftheTownPty.Ltd.v.Hagstrom(1990),19I.P.R.649,PincusJ.,at655(Austr.
F.C.),wherethecourtrefusedtoconsideramouldandtheresultingproduct
as“engravings”.
§5.4.2Etchings
IntheSOED,“toetch”isdefinedas“toengravebyeatingawaythesurface
ofwithacids;chiefly,toengrave(ametalplate)bythisprocessforthe
purposeofprintingfromit”while,fromamoretechnicalpointofview,
“etching”isanintangliotechnique“inwhichametalplateisfirstcovered
withanacidresistantground[i.e.,surface],thenworkedwithanetching
needle.Themetalthusexposedis“eaten”inanacidbath,creating
depressedlineswhicharelaterinkedandprinted”:seeSAFF(Donald)etal.,
Printmaking:HistoryandProcess(NewYork,HRW,1978),atp.425.
“Etchingisaprocessthatusesthereactionofacidto‘bite’selectedlinesor
areasbelowthesurfaceofaflatmetalplate”whileinengraving,“lines
incisedintometalplatesbyhandratherthanbytheactionofacid”:SHIRREF
(Jack),EtchingandEngraving,inRUSS(Stephen)ed.,ACompleteGuideto
Printmaking(NewYork,Viking,1975),atpp.101and118.
§5.4.3Lithographs
IntheSOED,“lithography”isdefinedas“printingorimpressingfromadrawing
onastone”,whileonamoretechnicalpointofview,itisa“printing
techniqueinwhichtheimageareasonalithographicstoneormetalplate
arechemicallytreatedtoacceptinkandrepelwaterwhilethenon-image
areasaretreatedtorepelinkandretainwater.Becausetheprintingsurface
remainsflat,lithographyissometimesreferredtoasaplanographic
technique”:seeSAFF(Donald)etal.,Printmaking:HistoryandProcess(New
York,HRW,1978),atp.428.
Thebasicprincipleofthelithographicprocessisthenaturalantipathyof
greaseandwater.Thesensitizedstoneorplateisdrawnuponwitha

11
grease-basedmaterial,suchasliquidinkorchalk,whichisinstrumentalin
makingthepositivemarksofanimage.Thesurfaceisthentreated
chemicallybymeansofanetch,whichdesensitizestheundrawnareasof
thestonetothereceptionoffurthergreaseduringtheprintingprocessand
stabilizesthedrawnimage.(…)Thegreaseimagewhichhasbeen
stabilizedonthestonethroughtheetchingprocessisthen‘washedout’
withagreasesolvent;theoriginaldrawingmaterialiswashedaway,leaving
agreasedepositwhichhasbeenabsorbedintothegrainedsurfaceofthe
stone.Thesurfaceisthendampenedwithwaterwhichridesawayfromthe
greaseareas;whenarollerchargedwithoilyinkispassedoverthesurface
theinkisattractedonlytothegreasyareasofthestone,thewaterfilmon
thenon-imageareasactingasabarriertotheinkbetweenrollerandstone.
Theplateorstonenowhasanimageholdingprintinginkandisreadyfor
printing.
[SeeCOX(Alan),Lithography,inRUSS(Stephen)ed.,ACompleteGuideto
Printmaking(NewYork,Viking,1975),atp.37.]
§5.4.4Woodcuts
“Woodcut”,whichisanengravingperformedonwood,isdefinedinthe
SOEDas“adesigncutinreliefonablockofwood,forprintingfrom”.InSAFF
(Donald)etal.,Printmaking:HistoryandProcess(NewYork,HRW,1978),atp.
430,itisthe“reliefprintmadeontheplanksideofablockofwood”,“wood
engraving”(orxylography)beingthereindescribedasthe“reliefprintmade
ontheendgrainofablockofwood.Thereliefareasareinkedandprinted”.
§5.4.5Prints
AsfoundinSOED,“toprint”istheaction“tostamporimpresscharacters,
figures,patternsorthelike,transferredbypressurefromplates,type,orthe
like”.Moretechnically,itisdescribedinSAFF(Donald)etal.,Printmaking:
HistoryandProcess(NewYork,HRW,1978),atp.429,asthe“imageproduced
onpaperoranothermaterialbyplacingitincontactwithaninkedblock,
plate,collageorstoneandapplyingpressure;orpressinginkontoasheetof
paperthroughastencil”.
Asaprintisanindentationormarkinasurfacemadebythepressureofone
bodyonanother,itallowsDavidsonJ.,inWham-OManufacturingCo.v.
LincolnIndustriesLtd.(1984),[1985]R.P.C.128(N.Z.C.A.)toconclude,atp.
154,“thatintheordinarysenseanimageproducedfromanengravedplate
isaprintandthusfallswithinthedefinitionof‘engraving’”.

12
“Theinclusionoftheword“print”inthelistispuzzling,sincealloftheother
thingsmentionedarealsoprints:ineachcaseaprintismadefromaplateor
block,Presumably,therefore,thephrase“printorsimilarwork”ismeantto
includeprintsmadebytheprocessesnotfallingwithinanyofthepreceding
categories,butisalsotobeconstruedejusdemgeneris.Itisnotsupposedthat
itdoesnotincludeamereprintedpageofletterpressmadefroma
stereotypeintheusualway,butisconfirmedtopicturesordesignsorother
thingsmeanttobeappreciatedvisually”:[seeLADDIE(Hugh)etal.,The
ModernLawofCopyright(London,Butterworths,1980),atno.3.17].
§5.5“Orothersimilarworks”
Inviewoftheejusdemgenerisrulediscussedabove,engravingscouldalso
encompassotherprintmakingtechniquessuchas:chromolithography,which
isalithographytechniqueusedprincipallytoreproducepaintingsand
watercolors;aluminography(oralgraphy),whichislithographyonaluminum
plate;zincography,whichislithographyonzincplate;autolithography,where
theoriginalismadedirectlyontheplate;vacuumforming;orgumprinting.
“Engravings”arenottobeconstruedaslimitedtotheprocessofcuttingor
otherwiseworkingasurface.InJamesArnold&Co.Ltd.v.MiafernLtd.,[1980]
R.P.C.397(Ch.D.)itwasheldthatrubberstereosforuseinmakingdesignson
printedtextilessuchasscarveswereengravingeventhoughproducedby
mouldingratherthanbycuttingout.
Whetherthe“records,perforatedrollsandothermechanicalcontrivancesby
meansofwhichsoundsmaybemechanicallyreproduced”aimedbyformer
subsection5(3)[R.S.C.1985,c.C-42]orthenewlydefined“soundrecordings”
[S.C.1997,c.24,s.1(5)]couldalso—atleastwithrespecttotheolder
techniquesofmanufacturingthem—constitute“engravings”withinthe
meaningofthesection2definitionofthisterm,isleftopenforjudicial
determination;seealsoparagraph64(2)(b).
§5.6“Notbeingphotographs”
Itisnoteworthythatphotographsarespecificallyexcludedfromthebroad
definitionof“engravings”.Suchanexclusionmayresultfromthestateofthe
artatthetimewhentheCopyrightAct,1921waspassed,assometechniques
usedintheinfancyofphotographywereparentaltothoseusedinengraving
andetching.

13
Thefactisthatthe“processesanalogoustophotography”referredtointhe
non-exhaustivedefinitionof“photograph”insection2,weresometimesofa
similarnaturetothosereferredtointheartofengraving,orintermingledwith
them.Seetherelateddiscussionundersection2andsection10.
Forinstance,thecollotype(orheliotype,orphotogelatineprinting)isa“high-
qualityreproductionprocessusingagelatinecoatedglassplatetoholdthe
imagerelatedtolithography”:seeSAFF(Donald)etal.,Printmaking:History
andProcess(NewYork,HRW,1978),atp.426.Theglassprint(orclichéverre),
printmadebyphotographicmeansfromanimagescratchedthrougha
light-resistantemulsiononasheetofclearglass;theheliogravureisa
photomechanicalintanglioprintingprocess;photogravureisanintanglio
printingprocessinwhichtheimagehasbeenplacedontheplateby
photographicmeansusingcarbontissue(i.e.,gelatine-coatedpaperthat
canbelight-sensitive);photolithogravure(whichisspecificallymentionedin
thedefinitionofphotograph)isatechniqueforproducinganimageona
lithographicplatebyphotographicmeans.
“Sinceproductsofphotographyandkindredprocessesarenotengravingsit
followsthatsuchworksasphotolithographs,photogravuresandproductsof
typesettingarenotincludedinthescopeoftheterm”:LADDIE(Hugh)etal.,
TheModernLawofCopyright(London,Butterworths,1980),atno.3.17.Inthis
regarditisofinteresttonotethatthedefinitionof“plate”insection2could
applytophotographsaswellasengravings.
Aninterestingbutunresolvedproblemariseswhenengravingand
photographtechniquesaremixed(asinphoto-engraving,photo-screenprint
orphoto-etching)soastoformoneworkofart:seeSHIRREF(Jack),Etching
andEngraving,inRUSS(Stephen)ed.,ACompleteGuidetoPrintmaking(New
York,Viking,1975),atpp.122-128.
§5.7TermofCopyright
Engravingsandphotographsaretwotypesofartisticworkswithinthe
meaningofsection2.Theirrespectivetermofprotection,however,maydiffer
asengravingsaregovernedbythegeneralruleof“lifeplusfifty”laiddownin
section6,whilethetermofprotectionforphotographsis,accordingto
section10,settheremainderofthecalendaryearofthemakingofthe
originalnegativeandaperiodoffiftyyearsthereafter.
Furthermore,thespecialcomputationofthetermofcopyrightinposthumous
workreferredtoinsection7appliestoengravingsbutnottootherartistic
works.

14
§5.8AuthorandOwner
§5.8.1Theengraver
AsexpressedbySTERLING(J.A.L.)etal.,CopyrightLawintheUnitedKingdom,
1sted.(London,LegalBooks,1986),atno.243:“Theauthoroftheengraving,
asregardsthecopyrightintheengravedplate,willbethepersonwho
engravedit.Whereaseparateanddistinctcopyrightintheimpression
belongstothepersonwhoproducedtheimpression(otherthantheperson
whoengravedtheplate,seeabove),therewillbetwoauthorstoconsider,
theauthoroftheengravedplate,andtheauthoroftheimpression.The
exerciseoftheimpressioncopyrightmust,howeverbesubjecttotherightsof
theauthorintheengravedplate,sinceeveryimpressionwillreproducein
materialformtheworkincorporatedintheplate”.Astotheimpressionofthe
engraving,theauthorshiphasneverthelesstoanswertothegeneraltestof
originality:seecommentaryundersection2definitionof“everyoriginal…
work”.
§5.8.2Derivativeworks
Moreover,thefactthatanengravingisbasedonanexistingworkwillnot
preventthisengravingfrombeingcopyrightablebyitself.InMartinv.Polyplas
ManufacturersLtd.,[1969]N.Z.L.R.1046(H.C.)itwasdecidedthatengravings
madefromphotographsofathirdparty’soriginaldesignsofdecimalcoins
wereneverthelessoriginalartisticworks,atpp.1049-1050:
Theengravingrepresentsachangeofmediuminwhichtheoriginaldesign
hasbeenconvertedintoathree-dimensionalform.(…)itwastheskillin
workingoutthethirddimensionwhichmakestheworkanoriginalartistic
work.(…)Ihold,then,thattheindependentlabourandskillemployedby
theplaintiffinworkingfromthephotographsofMr.Berry’sdesignswassuch
astoentitlehimtocopyrightprotectioninrespectofhisengravingsasan
originalartisticwork.

SeealsoPHILLIPS(CharlesPalmer),TheLawofCopyrightinWorksofLiterature
andArtandintheApplicationofDesigns(London,Stevens,1863),atpp.213-
214andLADDIE(Hugh)etal.,TheModernLawofCopyright(London,
Butterworths,1980),atno.3.18.
However,thecreationandexploitationoftheengraving,asaderivative
work,could,dependingonthecircumstances,besubjecttotherightsofthe
copyrightownerintheunderlyingwork:see,forinstance,BRAITHWAITE
(WilliamJ.),DerivativeWorksinCanadianCopyrightLaw(1982),20Osgoode

15
HallLawJournal191andLEVENTAL(JessicaA.),1IntellectualPropertyJournal
271,atpp.273-274.
§5.8.3Commissionedengraving
Ownershipofthecopyrightinengravingsisgovernedbythegeneralrulelaid
downinsubsection13(1)(i.e.,theauthoristhefirstownerofcopyright)and
section14.1(i.e.,moralrights).Apartfromtheexceptionsofsubsection13(3)
(i.e.,workmadeinthecourseofemployment)andsection12(i.e.,where
copyrightbelongstotheCrown),itisimportanttobearinmindthespecific
provisionofsubsection13(2)byvirtueofwhichthefirstownerofthecopyright
inanengravingistheperson

i)bywhomtheplateorotheroriginalofanengraving
ii)wasorderedand

iii)wasmadeforvaluableconsideration
iv)inpursuanceofthatorder,
v)unlessthereisanagreementtothecontraryand
vi)subjecttothemoralrightsoftheauthor.
SeeConPlanckLtd.v.KolynosInc.,[1925]2K.B.187(K.B.D.);TorontoCarton
Co.v.ManchesterMcGregorLtd.,[1935]O.R.144(Ont.H.C.J.).
Anengravingcouldconstitutea“contribution”toaperiodicalsothateven
theownershipofthecopyrightwillbevestedintheemployer.Theengraver
willneverthelessbeentitledtorestrainthepublicationofhisengraving
otherwisethanaspartofaperiodical:subsection13(3).SeealsoNicolv.
Barranger(1920),[1917-23]MacG.Cop.Cas.219,PetersonJ.,at227-228(Ch.
D.);reversedonothergrounds(1921),[1917-23]MacG.Cop.Cas.230(C.A.).
§5.9ArtisticCharacter
Itisnotnecessarytomakeanaestheticjudgmentinrespectofanengraving,
asaspeciesofartisticwork,beforedeterminingthesubsistenceofcopyright
therein:seeL.B.(Plastics)Ltd.v.SwishProductsLtd.,[1979]R.P.C.611(H.L.).
Therefore,anengravingmaybeprotected

16
irrespectiveofanyartisticmerit:Martinv.PolyplasManufacturersLtd.,[1969]
N.Z.L.R.1046WildJ.,at1049,(H.C.).
Inthatregard,itshouldberememberedthat“thephrase‘artisticwork’
[foundinsection2]isusedmerelyasageneraldescriptionofthetypeof
workswhichfollows.Itisusedasageneraldescriptionofworkswhichfinds
expressioninavisualmediumasopposedtoworksofliterary,musicalor
dramaticexpression”:seeDRGInc.v.DatafileLtd.(1987),[1988]2F.C.243,
ReedJ.,at253(F.C.T.D.);seealsothedefinitionof“design”insubsection
64(1).
Itfollowsthatetchings,lithographs,printsandengravingsaswellastheircasts
andmoulds,couldbeprotectedundertheCopyrightActas“artisticworks”
eventhoughthoseworksaredeprivedofartisticmerit,atleastfromamerely
aestheticalpointofview.
§5.10Infringement
Copyinganengravingbyphotography,lithographyoranyotherprocess,
whethermechanicalorotherwise,mayconstituteaninfringementofthe
exclusiverightsconferredbysubsection3(1):seeGambartv.Ball(1863),14
C.B.N.S.306,ErleJ.,at315-316(C.P.);seealsosection2definitionof
“infringing”andLADDIE(Hugh)etal.,TheModernLawofCopyright,2nded.
(London,Butterworths,1995),atno.3.22.
§5.10.1Statutoryexceptions
Subsection32.2(1)providesthat,incertaincircumstances,someactswillnot
constituteaninfringementofcopyright.
Paragraph32.2(1)(b)providesthatthereproductionof,interalia,engravings
ofanarchitecturalworkwillnotconstituteaninfringementofcopyright
providedthatthecopyisnotinthenatureofanarchitecturalplanoran
architecturaldrawing.
Paragraph32.2(1)(b)providesthatthereproductionof,interalia,engravings
ofi)asculpture,ii)aworkofartisticcraftsmanship,iii)acastofasculpture,iv)
amodelofsculpture,v)acastofaworkofartisticcraftsmanship,orvii)a
modelofaworkofartisticcraftsmanshipworkprovidedtheseare
permanentlysituatedinapublicplaceorpublicbuildingwillnotconstitutean
infringementofcopyright.

17
Paragraph32.2(1)(a)provides,interalia,thatitisnotaninfringementof
copyrightfortheauthorofanartisticworktouseanyi)mould,ii)cast,iii)
sketch,iv)plan,v)model,orvi)studythisauthormadeforthepurposeofthat
work,providedtheauthordoesnotrepeatorimitatethemaindesignofthat
work.
Copyrightprotectionforanengravingdoesnotrequirethatsuchengraving
bemadeinasinglecopy.However,inrespecttoengravingscreatedbefore
June8,1988,formersection46oftheCopyrightActcreatesanexceptionto
thegeneralruleregardingcopyrightprotectionwhereinanengravingmay
bedeprivedofcopyrightprotectionundercertaincircumstancesiftheyare
intendedtobereproducedinmorethanfiftycopiesandcapableofbeing
registeredundertheIndustrialDesignAct(R.S.C.1985,c.I-9):seeFOX(Harold
George),TheCanadianLawofCopyrightandIndustrialDesigns,2nded.
(Toronto,Carswell,1967),atpp.159-165;GOULD(RobertD.),Copyrightin
ThreeDimensions—NewDimensions(1980-81),8-10PatentandTrademark
InstituteofCanadaBulletin534.
WithrespecttoengravingscreatedafterJune8,1988,referenceshouldbe
madetosubsection64(2)whichprovidesthatsuchworksarestill
copyrightablebutthatcopyingofsame,undercertaincircumstances,may
notconstituteinfringementofthecopyrighttherein;seerelateddiscussion
undersection64.1.
§5.10.2Criminallaw
Paragraph42(2)(a)oftheCopyrightActenactsthateverypersonwho
knowinglymakesorpossessesanyplate,forthepurposeofmakinginfringing
copiesofanyworkinwhichcopyrightsubsists,isguiltyofanoffenceand
liableonsummaryconvictionorconvictiononindictment.
Aninterestingcross-referencecouldbemadetosubsections369(b)and
409(1)andsection459oftheCriminalCode(R.S.C.1985,c.C-46)whichread
asfollows:

369.Everyonewho,withoutlawfulauthority
orexcuse,theproofofwhichliesonhim,
…
(b)makes,offersordisposesoforknowingly
hasinhispossessionanyplate,die,
machinery,instrumentorotherwritingor
materialthatisadaptedandintendedto
beusedtocommitforgery.
369.Quiconque,sansautorisationniexcuse
légitime,dontlapreuveluiincombe,selon
lecas:

…
(b)fait,offreoualièneousciemmentaen
sapossessionquelqueplaque,matrice,
appareil,instrumentouautreécritou
matièreadaptésetdestinésàservirpour

…
isguiltyofanindictableoffenceandliable
toimprisonmentforatermnotexceeding
fourteenyears.
409.(1)Everyonecommitsanoffencewho
makes,hasinhispossessionordisposesofa
die,block,machineorotherinstrument
designedorintendedtobeusedinforging
atrade-mark.
458.Everyonewho,withoutlawful
justificationorexcuse,theproofofwhich
liesonhim,

(a)makesorrepairs,
(b)beginsorproceedstomakeor
repair,
(c)buysorsells,or
(d)hasinhiscustodyorpossession,
anymachine,engine,tool,instrument,
materialorthingthatheknowshasbeen
usedorthatheknowsisadaptedand
intendedforuseinmakingcounterfeit
moneyorcounterfeittokensofvalueis
guiltyofanindictableoffenceandliableto
imprisonmentforatermnotexceeding
fourteenyears.
c
ommettreunfaux;
…
estcoupabled’unactecrimineletpassible
d’unemprisonnementmaximalde
quatorzeans.
409.(1)Commetuneinfractionquiconque
fait,aensapossessionoualiènetout
poinçon,matrice,machineouautre
instrumentdestinéàêtreemployépour
contrefaireunemarquedecommerce,ou
conçuàcettefin.
458.Estcoupabled’unactecriminelet
passibled’unemprisonnementmaximalde
quatorzeansquiconque,sansjustification
ouexcuselégitime,dontlapreuvelui
incombe:
(a)soitfabriqueourépare;
(b)soitcommenceousemetà
fabriquerouàréparer;
(c)soitachèteouvend;
(d)soitaensagardeoupossession,
unemachine,unengin,unoutil,un
instrument,unematièreouchosequ’ilsait
avoirétéutiliséàlafabricationdemonnaie
contrefaiteoudesymbolesdevaleur
contrefaitsouqu’ilsaityêtreadaptéet
destiné.

Seealsosection38oftheCopyrightActwithrespecttotheconversionofthe
platesusedorintendedtobeusedfortheproductionofinfringingcopiesof
worksorofothersubject-matterofcopyright.
§5.11Typefaces
Theinventionoftypographyconfirmedandextendedthenewvisualstress
ofappliedknowledge,providingthefirstuniformlyrepeatablecommodity,
thefirstassemblylineandthefirstmass-production.
–MarshallMacLuhan,TheGutenbergGalaxy(Toronto,Routledge,1962).
Thedesignofatypefacecouldbeentitledtocopyrightprotectionasan
engravingoranartisticworkprovidedsuchadesignisoriginalandnot
commontothetrade:seesection2definitionof“everyoriginal…work”,and
LIMBERG(Theodore),Laprotectionjuridiquedescaractères
typographiques/Thejuridicalprotectionoftypographictype(1964),44Revue
internationaledudroitd’auteur174,atpp.187-199.

19
IntheUnitedStatesofAmerica,TheHouseReportofthe1976revisionofthe
CopyrightAct,94thCongress,2dSess.(1976),atp.5668,considereda
“typeface”inthefollowingterms:
Atypefacecanbedefinedasasetofletters,numbers,orothersymbolic
characters,whoseformsarerelatedbyrepeatingdesignelements
consistentlyappliedinanotationalsystemandareintendedtobe
embodiedinarticles,whoseintrinsicutilitarianfunctionisforusein
composingtextorothercognizablecombinationsofcharacters.
AstotheartisticnatureoftypefaceSTOYANOV(Kaloyan),Laprotection
juridiquedescaractèrestypographiques(Genève,Droz,1981)wrote,atp.11:
Bienplusqu’unproduitindustriel,lescaractèrestypographiquessontune
créationartistique.Leurrôlen’estpassimplementdeservirdesupportdela
penséeécrite,maisdel’illustrer.CommelesouligneA.Novarese[inL’esprit
delacréationentypographie,Paris1962)]«Lecréateurdecaractèresdoit
donnervieàseslettres,afind’exprimeruneidéenouvelle;ledessinde
l’alphabetdoitcolorerlesmotsetlapenséemoyennantlaseuleforcede
sapropreforme,ildoitavoirunephysionomieexacte,unproprevisagesur
lequelpeutapercevoiruneémotivité».Lecréateurdecaractèrescomplète
ainsil’apportintellectueldel’auteurparunesatisfactionvisuelledirecte.En
sensibilisantlelecteurparlaformeextrinsèquequ’ilassocieàlavaleur
intrinsèquedutexte,ils’affirmecommeunartisteàpartentière.
Theprotectionofthetypefacesandtheirinternationaldepositisthesubject-
matteroftheViennaAgreementof1973towhich,however,Canadaisnota
party.However,itissubmittedthattypefacedesignsareartisticworksthat
deservesthesamecopyrightprotectionasotherartisticworks,asillustratedin
thediscussionofauthorshipfoundinCARROLL(TerrenceJ.),Protectionfor
typefacedesigns:acopyrightproposal(1994),10-1SantaClaraComputer
andHighTechnologyJournal139,atpp.144-148.
§6.0CaseLaw
§6.1Canada

1.TorontoCartonCo.v.ManchesterMcGregorLtd.,[1935]2D.L.R.94,Rose
J.(Ont.H.C.J.).
Now,iftheplaintiffshadbeenallegingthattheyweretheownersofthe
copyrightintheengraving(ex.6)—“engravings”include“lithographs,
wood-cuts,prints,andothersimilarworks,notbeingphotographs”(s.2(h)—
andthatthatthecopyrighthadbeeninfringed,thentheprovisomight
haveassistedthem,forprobablythe“plateorotheroriginal”fromwhich
the“engraving”(print)wasmadewasorderedbythemandwasmadefor
valuableconsiderationinpursuanceoftheirorder.Butno“engraving”was
evermadeofwhichthesketch(ex.1)wastheoriginal,andtheclaimof
copyrighthasnothingtodowith“thecaseofanengraving,photograph,or

20
portrait.”Whatisclaimedis,onthecontrary,copyrightinasketchwhich
mayhavebeenintendedtobeusedastheoriginalofanengravingbut
whichneverwasusedforthepurposeintended.[atp.98]

2.DRGInc.v.DatafileLtd.(1987),[1988]2F.C.243,ReedJ.(F.C.T.D.).
Specifically,then,withrespecttotherespondent’slabeldesigns,firstofall,it
ismyviewthattheyfallwithintheenumeratedclassesofworkssetoutinthe
definitionofartisticwork.Theycomewithinthecategoryof“engravings”;
thatconceptisexpandedbysection2,toinclude:
2.…etchings,lithographs,woodcuts,printsandothersimilarworks,
notbeingphotographs;[Emphasisadded.]

Mr.Barber,inparagraph22ofhisaffidavit,states“eachofthelabels…isa
colouredprint,printedonwhitepaperinaprintingpressbyprintingplates
orengravings”.Thatevidencehasnotbeenchallenged.
IfIamwronginthisandtherespondent’swork,whichIwouldcharacterize
asagraphicdesign,doesnotfallwithinthespecificallyenumerated
category“engravings”,thenIwouldholdthatitfallswithinthegeneral
categoryofartisticworksasbeinganalogoustoanengraving.[atp.253]

§6.2UnitedKingdom
1.Newtonv.Cowie(1827),4Bing,234,BestJ.(C.P.).

Anengraverisalwaysacopyist,andifengravingsfromdrawingswerenot
tobedeemedwithintheintentionofthelegislature,theseactswould
affordnoprotectiontothatmostusefulbodyofmen,theengravers.The
engraver,althoughacopyist,producestheresemblancebymeansvery
differentfromthoseemployedbythepainterordraftsmanfromwhomhe
copies;—meanswhichrequiresgreatlabourandtalent.Theengraver
produceshiseffectsbythemanagementoflightandshade,or,astheterm
ofhisartexpressesit,thechiarooscuro.Theduedegreesoflightandshade
areproducedbydifferentlinesanddots;hewhoistheengravermust
decideonthechoiceofthedifferentlinesordotshimself,andonhischoice
dependsthesuccessofhisprint.Ifhecopiesfromanotherengraving,he
mayseehowthepersonwhoengravedthat,hasproducedthedesired
effect,andsowithoutskillorattentionbecomeasuccessfulrival.
Thefirstengraverdoesnotclaimthemonopolyoftheuseofthepicture
fromwhichtheengravingismade;hesays,takethetroubleofgoingtothe
pictureyourself,butdonotavailyourselfofmylabour,whohavebeento
thepicture,andhaveexecutedtheengraving.[atpp.245-246]

2.Gambartv.Ball(1863),32L.J.C.P.166(dealingwiththeEngraving
CopyrightActs)ErleJ.andKeatingJ.(C.P.).
Theobjectofthestatutewastosecuretotheinventorthecommercial
valueofhisarticle,asarewardformakinganobjectofattraction,andasa

21
stimulanttootherstodolikewise.Asphotographiccopyisasgood,ifnot
bettercopythananyother,whetheritbeonalargeoronasmallscale.Itis
nottheextentofthepaper,butthedesignputuponit,andtheideaswhich
thatdesignconveys,thatarethesourceofthepleasure.Nordoesitappear
tomethatitmakesanydifferencethatthecopyisproducedbyaprocess
notknownatthetimethestatutewaspassed.Itisstillacopy,andcopying
inanymannerisprohibitedbythestatute.Itisclearthat,ifthese
photographiccopieswereallowedtobemade,thecommercialvalueof
theseworksofartwouldbeentirelydestroyed.[ErleJ.,atp.168]
Theintentionoftheactisclear,tovestpropertyofacommercialvaluein
theinventorororiginalengraver.Thepublicationandsaleofphotographic
copieswouldundoubtedlyverymuchdiminish,ifnotentirelydestroy,the
commercialvalueofsuchproperty,andsuchcopiesaretherefore
presumablywithintheintentionoftheframersoftheact.[KeatingJ.,atp.
168]

3.Dicksv.Brooks,[1880]15Ch.D.22,JamesL.J.(C.A.).
NowitappearstomethattheprotectiongivenbythesubsequentActsto
themereengraverwasintendedtobe,andwas,commensuratewiththat
whichtheengraverdid,thattheengraverdidnotacquireagainstanybody
intheworldanyrighttothatwhichwastheworkoftheoriginalpainter,did
notacquireanyrighttothedesign,didnotacquireanyrighttothe
groupingorcomposition,becausethatwasnothisworkbuttheworkofthe
originalpainter.What,asitseemstome,theActgavehim,andintendedto
givehim,wasprotectionforthatwhichwashisownmeritoriouswork.Theart
oftheengraverisoftenoftheveryhighestcharacter,asintheprintbefore
me.Itisdifficulttoconceiveanyskillorartmuchhigherthanthatwhichhas
byawonderfulcombinationoflinesandtouchesreproducedthevery
textureandsoftnessofthedress,andtheexpressionofloveandadmiration
intheeyesoftheladylookingupatherlover.Thatartorskillwasthething
which,asIbelieve,wasintendedtobeprotectedbytheActsof
Parliament.[atp.34]

4.BancodePortugalv.Waterlow&SonsLtd.(1932),[1928-35]MacG.Cop.
Cas.340(headnote)(H.L.).
Abanknoteisanengravingandthecopyrightbelongstothebankto
whoseorderthedesignwasexecuted.
Aprinteremployedbyabanktodesign,engraveandprintabanknoteis
underanabsoluteobligationnottousetheplateotherwisethanforprinting
notesauthorisedbythebank,andifheprintsanddeliverstosomethird
personanynotesnotsoauthorisedheisliableindamagesforbreachof
contractoralternativelyforinfringementofcopyrightandconversionofthe
infringingcopies.

5.JamesArnold&Co.v.MiafernLtd.,[1980]R.P.C.397,BakerJ.(Ch.D.).

22
“Engraving”canandusuallydoesmeananimageproducedfroman
engravedplate.Thefirstquestionhereiswhethertheengravingcanmean
theactualengravedplatefromwhichthecopiesaretaken.Lookingatthe
sectionsalone,particularlytheassociationofthewordinsection3with
sculptures,drawingsandphotographs,itwouldsuggestthatitmustbethe
finalpicture,andofcourseitcertainlyincludesthat…IntheCopyrightAct
1911section5(1),thematterissetoutalittlemoreclearlyastothe
commissioningofengraving:“SubjecttotheprovisionsofthisAct,the
authorofaworkshallbethefirstownerofthecopyrighttherein:provided
(a)whereinthecaseofanengraving,photographorportrait,theplateor
otheroriginalwasorderedbysomeotherpersonandwasmadefor
valuableconsiderationinpursuanceofthatorder,then,intheabsenceof
anagreementtothecontrary,thepersonbywhomsuchplateorother
originalwasorderedshallbethefirstownerofthecopyright”.Thatseemsto
suggestthatifapersoncommissionsaplatethenheistheownerofthe
copyrightinanyengraving,inthesenseoftheimage,madefromit.The
copyrightwasplacedintheimagethatbelongedtothepersonwhohad
orderedtheplateinthecaseofcommissionedworks.Icannotthinkthat
theCopyrightAct1956meanttoaltertherulesothatcopyrightdoesnot
existatallintheplate.Itwouldbestrangeifonecouldinfringethe
copyrightbycopyingtheimagebutnotbytakinganimpressionfromthe
engravedplate.ItisforthosereasonsthatIconcludedthat“engraving”in
section4(3),andintheActgenerally,embracesnotonlytheimagemade
fromtheengravedplatebuttheengravedplateitself.[at403]
Thenitissaidthattobeanengravingitmustbemadebytheengraving
process,somethingwhichismadebycuttingintothemetalorwoodor
othermaterial.Idonotconsiderthematterissoconfined.Thedefinitionin
section48isintermsofparticularworksanddoesnotdirecttotheprocess
bywhichtheyachievethatform.Itisalsosignificantthatitwasthought
necessarytoexcludephotographsexpressly.Evidentlythedraughtsmen
wouldthinkthattheywouldotherwisebeengravingsorproducedfrom
engravings.ThepurposeoftheActistoprotectoriginalartistic
craftsmanship,itisnottolimittooneparticularmodeofexpressionrather
thananother.Inthesedaysofmassproductionthepictureordesignis
producedbyacomplexseriesofartefactsandIwouldregardthefinalone
inthelinewhichisusedtomassproduceadesignasanengravingeven
thoughofitselfitmaynotontheotherhandhassufficientoriginality,be
mechanicallyandslavishlyreproducedfromearlierartefacts,oronthe
otheritisproducedbymouldingratherthanbycuttingout.Ihavenot
foundthisatallaneasymatterbutmyconclusionisthatrubberstereosare
engravingsforthepurposeoftheAct.[at403-404]

6.NewspaperLicensingAgencyLtd.(The)v.Marks&SpencerPlc(2001),
[2002]3AllE.R.977,HoffmanJ.(U.K.H.L.),atparagraph5:
5.Copyrightinatypographicalarrangementisofrelativelyrecentorigin,
havingbeencreatedbytheCopyrightAct1956.Itcanbetracedtotwo
developmentsinthepublishingindustry,oneofthemartisticandtheother
technological.Thefirstwasthegreatimprovementintypographicaldesign
whichisassociatedwiththeartsandcraftsmovementinthelasttwo
decadesofthenineteenthcenturyandthefirsttwoofthetwentieth.Anew

23
fontcouldberegisteredasadesignbutthetypographiclayoutofa
particularbook,whichmayhavetakenconsiderableskillandeffort,was
notassuchprotected.ThesecondwasthedevelopmentsincetheFirst
WorldWarofthetechniqueofphoto-lithography,whichenabledprinting
platestobemadebyphotographicmeans.Publisherswereconcerned
thattheskillandlabourwhichhadgoneintothetypographicaldesignof
fineeditionsofclassicalworks(outofliteraryormusicalcopyright)couldbe
appropriatedbyotherpublisherswhousedphoto-lithographytomake
facsimilecopies.

7.NewspaperLicensingAgencyLtd.(The)v.Marks&SpencerPlc(2001),
[2002]3AllE.R.977,HoffmanJ.(U.K.H.L.),atparagraphs23,24and25:
23.Inthecaseofamodernnewspaper,Ithinkthattheskillandlabour
devotedtotypographicalarrangementisprincipallyexpressedinthe
overalldesign.Itisnotthechoiceofaparticulartypeface,theprecise
numberorwidthofthecolumns,thebreadthofmarginsandthe
relationshipofheadlinesandstraplinestotheothertext,thenumberof
articlesonapageandthedistributionofphotographsandadvertisements
butthecombinationofalloftheseintopageswhichgivethenewspaperas
awholeitsdistinctiveappearance.Insomecasesthatappearancewill
dependupontherelationshipbetweenthepages;forexample,having
headlinesratherthansmalladvertisementsonthefrontpage.Usually,
however,itwilldependupontheappearanceofanygivenpage.ButIfind
itdifficulttothinkoftheskillandlabourwhichhasgoneintothe
typographicalarrangementofanewspaperbeingexpressedinanything
lessthanafullpage.Theparticularfonts,columns,marginsandsoforthare
only,sotospeak,thetypographicalvocabularyinwhichthearrangement
isexpressed.
24.IwouldthereforeagreewiththegeneralapproachoftheFederalCourt
ofAustraliaintheappealfromthedecisionofWilcoxJ.inNationwideNews
Pty.Ltd.v.CopyrightAgencyLtd.136ALR273,wherethequestionof
substantialityisdiscussedingreaterdepththaninthecourtbelow.Sackville
J.said,atp.291:

“Inrelationtoapublishededition,thequalityofwhatistakenmustbe
assessedbyreferencetotheinterestprotectedbythecopyright.That
interest…isinprotectingthepresentationandlayoutoftheedition…”

25.IntheCourtofAppealinthiscase,PeterGibsonLJ,atp.267Grecorded
acommonsubmissionbyMr.SilverleafQCandMr.GarnettQC(then
appearingforMarksandSpencerandtheNLArespectively)thatthetestof
substantialitywasquantitativeratherthanqualitativebecausecopyrightin
atypographicalarrangementis“notdependentonoriginality”.Iamnot
surethatthisisright.Thetestisquantitativeinthesensethat,astherecan
beinfringementonlybymakingafacsimilecopy,thequestionwillalways
bewhetheronehasmadeafacsimilecopyofenoughofthepublished
editiontoamounttoasubstantialpart.Butthequestionofwhatcountsas
enoughseemstometobequalitative,dependingnotupontheproportion
whichtheparttakenbearstothewholebutonwhetherthecopycanbe
saidtohaveappropriatedthepresentationandlayoutoftheedition.That

24
iswhyIsaidearlierthatIdonotthinkitislikelytomatterwhetherthe
supplementsorinsertsinanewspaperareseparatepublishededitions.

8.Hi-TechAutopartsLtd.v.TowergateTwoLtd.(2001-07-25),[2002]FSR15
(Eng.Pat.CountyCt.)RecorderFloyd,atpp.264-265:
Onehadtorememberthatboththeplateitselfandtheprintproduced
fromitareprotected.Theplateisrecognizedbythestatutetobeanartistic
workofitsownright.Theappearancesoftheplatemaywellbeaffected
bytheinternalshapeandtextureofthecutsmadeinit.Theskillandlabour
oftheengraverinshapingtheinternalsurfaceofthecutshemakesinthe
plateshouldinmyjudgmentbeprotectedalongwiththeworkwhich
affectstheappearanceofthefinalprint.[atp.264.]
ItistruethatWhamp-O[1985]R.P.C.127(N.Z.C.A.)Davidsonatp.153was
notapprovedbyPincusJ.sittinginfirstinstanceintheFederalcourtof
AustraliainGreenfieldProductsPty.Ltd.v.Rover-ScottBonnarLtd.17IPR
417.Hewasoftheview,withwhichIagree,thatnotallcuttingofmetalis
engraving.Ashepointedout,cuttingametalrodintosectionsisnotto
engraveit.Hepreferredtheviewthatengraving(seep.428):
hastodowithmarking,cuttingorworkingthesurface-typicallyaflat
surface-ofanobject.[atp.265.]
§6.3UnitedStates
1.Woodv.Abott,30F.Cas.424,ShipmanJ.(C.C.N.Y.1866).
Theprincipalgrounduponwhichtheplaintiffsclaimthevalidityofthe
copyrightis,that,astheyallege,thephotographsare“prints”.(…)Thisisa
newandbeautifulart,discoveredlongafterthestatuteinquestionwas
enacted.Itisnotadevelopmentoftheartofmakingprintsorengravings
whichexistedatthedateoftheact.(…)Thisnewartofphotography,and
allitskindredprocesses,isanentirelyoriginalandindependentmodeof
takingpicturesofmaterialobjects,andmultiplyingcopiesofsuchpictures
atpleasure.(…)Noblock,plate,orstoneisengraved.Nofigureisdrawn,
etched,raisedorworkedonanysurfacefromwhichcopiesaretobe
producedbyimpressionorprinted.Theimagethrownbylightreflected
fromtheoriginalandpassedthroughacameraproducesanegative,and,
whenthelightpassesthroughthetransparentnegativeontoappearheld
incontactwithglass,itproducesapositive.Theimageisnomoreformed
bypressurewhenthepositiveismadeonthepaperheldincontactwith
theglassplate,thanwhenthenegativeismadeontheglassbyrays
reflectedfromtheoriginalatadistance.Inbothcases,theonlyforcethat
contributestotheformationoftheimageisthechemicalforceofthelight,
operatingonasurfacemadesensitivetoitspower.(…)Itisanentirely
originalandindependentmethodofproducingandmultiplyingpictures—
anart,notofprintingorengraving,butofsecuringthedelineationof
picturesbylightoperatingonsensitivesurfaces.[atp.425]

2.Yuenglingv.Schile,12F.97,BrownJ.(C.C.S.D.N.Y.1892).
Thechromoinquestionisnothingbutalithographicprintincolors.
Lithographswereundoubtedlyembracedintheterm“print”undertheact
of1831….Theonlydifferencebetweenchromo-lithographicprintsand
otherlithographsisthattheformerareprintedfromseveralstones,namely,
oneforeachcolor,whilethelatterareprintedfromonestone,withinkof
somekind.Itcannotbecontendedthata“print”isanylessa“print”
becausestruckoffindifferentcolors;andithasbeenheldthatplaying
cardsprintedincolorsare“prints.”Richardsonv.Miller,3Law&Eq.Rep.
(Am.)614….Chromo-lithographswerethereforecopyrightableas“prints”
undertheactof1831.[atp.107]

3.AdobeSystemsInc.v.SouthernSoftwareInc.(1998),45U.S.P.Q.(2d)
1827,WhyteJ.(N.D.Cal.).
AdobecontendsthatKingcopiedliteralexpressions.[Literalexpressionis
thecomputercodeitself.ComputerAssociates,Int’lv.Altai,Inc.,982F.2d
693,702(2ndCir.1992).Non-literalexpressioniseverythingabouta
computerprogramnotexpressedinthecode.CognotecServicesLtd.v.
MorganGuarantyTrustCo.,862F.Supp.45,49(S.D.N.Y.1994)]Adobe
contendsthatwhiletheshapeoftheglyphnecessarilydictatessometothe
pointstobechosentocreatetheglyph,itdoesnotdetermineallthepoints
tobechosen.Thus,eachrenderingofaspecificglyphrequireschoicesby
theeditorastowhatpointstoselectandwheretoplacethosepoints.
Accordingly,Adobeassertsthattheselectionofpointsandtheplacement
ofthosepointsareexpressionwhichiscopyrightableinanoriginalfont
outputprogram.Theactualcodeisdictatedbytheselectedpoints.

[…]

Theevidencepresentedshowsthatthereissomecreativityindesigningthe
fontsoftwareprograms.Whiletheglyphdictatestoacertainextentwhat
pointstheeditormakecreativechoicesastowhatpointstoselectbased
ontheimageinfrontofthemonthecomputerscreen.Thecodeis
determineddirectlyfromtheselectionofthepoints.Thus,anycopingofthe
pointsiscopyingofliteralexpression,thatis,inessence,copyingofthe
computercodeitself.

Further,theselectionofpointsisnotdictatedbyfunctionalconcernsonly.
See57Fed.Reg.6201-2[“RegistrabilityofComputerProgramsthat
GenerateTypefaces,”57Fed.Reg.35(February12,1992)].Defendants
arguetheefficiencyisthekeywhichisdrivenbythegoalofminimizingthe
numberofreferencepoints.However,simplybecausethereareseveral
waystocreatethesameglyph,somebeingmoreefficientthanothers,i.e.
usingfewerpoints,doesnotmeanthereisnocreativityintheprocessof
creatingthesoftwaretoproducetheglyphs.Thatsomecreativityis
involvedisillustratedbythefactthattwoindependentlyworking
programmersusingthesamedataandsametoolscanproducean
indistinguishableoutputbutwillhavefewpointsincommon.Accordingly,

26
thecourtfindsthattheAdobefontsoftwareprogramsareprotectable
originalworksofauthorship.[atp.1831]
§6.4NewZealand
1.Martinv.PolyplasManufacturersLtd.,[1969]N.Z.L.R.1046,WildJ.
(N.Z.H.C.).
Theremainingquestioniswhetherthedefendanthasinfringedthat
copyright.AsIhavealreadysaid,itisadmittedthatthediesfortheplastic
coinsmanufacturedbythedefendantweredirectlycopiedfromspecimen
plasticcoinssuppliedforthatpurposebytheDepartmentofEducation,
thosespecimenshavingthemselvesbeenmadebytheplaintiff.Thatitwas
fromtheplaintiff’scoinsandnotfromhisoriginalengravingsordiesthatthe
defendantcopieddoesnot,Ithink,takethedefendant’sactionsoutofthe
categoryofinfringement.InKingFeaturesSyndicateInc.v.C.&M.
KleemanLtd.[1941]A.C.417wheretheplaintiffclaimedaninjunctionto
restrainaninfringementoftheircopyrightbytheimportationofdolls,
broochesandtoys,theHouseofLordsheldthatthedefendant’sdollsand
broocheswerenonethelessreproductionsinamaterialformofthe
plaintiff’soriginalworkthoughtheywerecopied,notfromanysketchofthe
plaintiff’sbutfromareproductioninamaterialformderiveddirectlyor
indirectlyfromtheoriginalwork.[atp.1050]

2.Wham-OManufacturingCo.v.LincolnIndustriesLtd.(1984),[1985]R.P.C.
128,DavidsonJ.(N.Z.C.A.).
[Theplaintiffallegedthatcopyrightsubsistedinthepreliminarydrawings,
wooden,models,injectionmouldsandthemouldeddiscsofits“Frisbee”,
allofwhichhadribsontheiruppersurface]
Insofarthereforeasthosedefinitions[of“engraving”and“sculpture”]are
merelyinclusiveandnotexhaustiveoftheoriginalmeaningsof“engraving”
and“sculpture”,thecourtcanhaveregardtotheordinarymeaningsof
suchwordsasascertainedfromvarioussources.Counselalsopointedout
thattheinclusivedefinitionofengravingsetoutaboveincorporateda
“print”.
Areadingofthedefinitionof“artisticwork”insection2(1)(a)oftheAct
[whichcorrespondstosection3(1)(a)oftheUnitedKingdomCopyrightAct,
1956]indicatesthattheActwhenitspeaksofengravingsprimarilyhasin
contemplationthefinalprintsmadefromanengravedplateratherthan
theplateitself.[atp.150]
WeagreewiththeconclusionreachedbyPaulBakerQ.C.[inJames
Arnold&Co.v.MiafernLtd.[1980]R.P.C.397(Ch.D.)]thatengraving
embracesnotonlytheimagemadefromtheengravedplatebutthe
engravedplateitself,butweprefertoreachthatresultbygivingtheword
“engraving”asusedinthedefinitionof“artisticwork”insection2(1)(a)of
theAct[U.K.Act:section3(1)(a)]itsordinarymeaningasascertainedfrom
thesourcesreferredtoearlier[i.e.,Webster’sThirdNewInternational

27
Dictionary,RandomHouseDictionaryoftheEnglishLanguage,TheShorter
OxfordEnglishDictionary].Itisthepurposeofcopyrighttoprotectthe
originalskillandlabouroftheauthorandthereisalargedegreeofthatskill
andlabourbroughttobearinmakingtheengravedplate.Wedonot
believethatitwastheintentionoftheParliamenttodenycopyrightinthe
plateandyetallowitintheprinttakenfromtheplate.[atpp.152-153]
ThemannerinwhichthemouldsweremadehasbeendescribedbyMr.
Gillespie.Acuttingtoolonalathewasusedtoremovemetalfromthedie
blocktocreatethedesiredshape.Nodoubtthatitisthewayinwhichthe
ribsorringsappearingonthefinishedproductwereformed.Weseeno
reasonwhytheprocessinvolvedintheproductionofthedieormould,
particularlythecreationofthecutstoproducetheribsorrings,shouldnot
beregardedastheactofengravingwithintheprovisionsofsection2(1)(a)
oftheAct[U.K.Act:section3(1)(a)],andthemouldordiesocreatedan
“engraving”justasa“print”isanengravingintermsoftheextended
definitioninsection2oftheAct[U.K.Act:section48(1)].
MollerJ.inhisjudgment[(1981),[1982]R.P.C.281(N.Z.H.C.)]cametothe
viewthatadieormouldofthekindinquestionisanengraving.Weagree.
ThepurposeoftheActistoprotectoriginalartisticworks.Theskilland
labourofthecraftsmanisexercisedbycuttingandshapingtheplate—
engravingit—toproducetheintendeddesign.Thereappearstobeno
reasonwhyskillandlabourshouldnotbeprotectedequallyasaprint
madefromthatplateisgivenprotectionifitcanproperlybedescribedas
anoriginalartisticwork.[atp.153]
MollerJ.inhisjudgment[(1981],[1982]R.P.C.281(N.Z.H.C.)]concludedthat
thefinishedproductisanengravinginthatitis“animageproducedfrom
anengravedplate”andthat“eachdisccomeswithinthecategoryofa
“print”.Therecanbelittlequarrelwiththepropositionthatintheordinary
senseanimageproducedfroanengravedplateisaprintandthusfalls
withinthedefinitionof“engraving”.
However,theverynatureoftheinjectionmouldingprocessbywhichplastic
materialunderveryhighpressureisforcedintoamouldraisessomedoubts
astowhetherwhatistakingplaceisreallya“print”asthatwordisgenerally
understoodinitsordinarymeaning.
Theusualconceptofaprintisofsomethingcreatedbypressureofthe
plateuponamaterial.InthesystemofinjectionmouldingusedbyWham-O
plasticmaterialisforcedupontheplateorintothemould.Doesthat
methodofoperationpreventthefinisheddiscsocreatedbeingproperly
calleda“print”?Theresultisthesamealthoughachievedbyasomewhat
differentmeans.Theshapeofthemouldisimprintedupontheplastic
materialforcedintoit.
Moderntechnologyforcreatingreproductionshasinvolvedvariousnew
processesbeingdevisedandwedoubtthatthemakingofa“print”can
anylongerbeidentifiedwithanyoneormoreparticularprocessesor
procedures.Thereappearscurrentlytobenogoodreasonwhyanarticle
producedbyinjectionmouldingfromamouldwhichisanengravingshould
notbeitselfanengravingifitisproducedfromthatmould.

28
MollerJ.inhisjudgment[(1981),[1982]R.P.C.281(N.Z.H.C.)]afterposingthe
questionastowhetherthefinalplasticmouldedproductscouldbebrought
withinthedefinitionofsculptureorengraving,simplynotedthata
considerationofArnold’scase(JamesArnold&Co.v.MiafernLtd.,[1980]
R.P.C.397)hadbroughthimtothedecisionthateachdiscisanengraving
inthatitis“animageproducedfromtheengravedplate”andcomes
withinthecategoryofaprint.
WeagreewithMollerJ.onthispoint[atp.155]

§7.0ListofCases
§7.1Canada
1.HenryGraves&Co.v.Gorrie,(1900),32O.R.266(Ont.H.C.);aff’d(1900),
1O.L.R.309(Ont.Div.Ct.);aff’d(1901),3O.L.R.697(Ont.C.A.);aff’d
(1902),aff’d[1903]A.C.496(J.C.P.C.-Canada).
2.BeullacLtéev.Simard(1910),39C.S.97(Que.Sup.Ct.);aff’d(1911),39
C.S.517(Que.Sup.Ct.-Revision).
3.TorontoCartonCo.v.ManchesterMcGregorLtd.,[1935]O.R.144(Ont.
H.C.J.).
4.Cardwellv.Leduc(1962),41C.P.R.167(Ex.Ct.);appealdismissed[1964]
Ex.C.R.ix(S.C.C.).
5.BritishColumbiaForestProductsLtd.v.MinisterofNationalRevenue,
[1969]C.T.C.156(Ex.Ct.);aff’d(1971),[1972]S.C.R.101.
6.Laidlawv.MetropolitanToronto(Municipality)(1975),7L.C.R.111(Land
Comp.Bd.);(1976),9L.C.R.270(Ont.Div.Ct.);rev’d(1976),9L.C.R.269
(Ont.C.A.);aff’d[1978]2S.C.R.736.
7.SuperiorPre-KastSepticTanksv.R.,(1973),74D.T.C.6330(F.C.T.D.);aff’d
(1977),77D.T.C.5134(F.C.A.);rev’d[1978]2S.C.R.612.
8.DRGInc.v.DatafileLtd.(1987),16C.P.R.(3d)155(F.C.T.D.-Evidence);
(1987),18C.P.R.(3d)538(F.C.T.D.);aff’d(1991),35C.P.R.(3d)243
(F.C.A.).
§7.2UnitedKingdom

1.Newtonv.Cowie(1827),130E.R.759(C.P.).

2.Turnerv.Robinson(1860),10Ir.Ch.121(Ch.D.);rev’dinpart(1860),11Ir.
Ch.510(C.A.).
3.Gambartv.Ball(1863),143E.R.463(C.P.).
4.Dicksv.Brooks,[1880]15Ch.D.22(C.A.).
5.Colev.HenryGraves&Co.(1910),[1905-10]MacG.Cop.Cas.275
(K.B.D.).
6.Tillyv.Selfridge&Co.(1913),[1911-16]MacG.Cop.Cas.103(K.B.D.).
7.Stephenson,Blake&Co.v.Grant,Legros&Co.(1916),33R.P.C.406(Ch.
D.);aff’d(1917),34R.P.C.192(C.A.).
8.Nicolv.Barranger(1920),[1917-23]MacG.Cop.Cas.219(Ch.D.);rev’d
onothergrounds(1921),[1917-23]MacG.Cop.Cas.230(C.A.).
9.MassonSeeley&Co.v.EmbosotypeManufacturingCo.(1924),41R.P.C.
160(Ch.D.).
10.ConPlanckLtd.v.KolynosInc.,[1925]2K.B.187,L.J.K.B.823,133L.T.798,
[1923-28]MacG.Cop.Cas.187(K.B.D.).
11.BancodePortugalv.Waterlow&SonsLtd.(1930),47T.L.R.214(Ch.D.);
var’d(1931),100L.J.K.B.465(C.A.);aff’d[1932]A.C.452(H.L.).
12.CharlesWalker&Co.v.BritishPickerCo.(1960),[1961]R.P.C.57(Ch.D.).
13.L.B.(Plastics)Ltd.v.SwishProductsLtd.(1976),[1979]R.P.C.565(Ch.D.);
rev’d[1979]R.P.C.546(C.A.);rev’d[1979]R.P.C.511(H.L.).
14.JamesArnold&Co.v.MiafernLtd.,[1980]R.P.C.397(Ch.D.).
15.NewspaperLicensingAgencyLtd.(The)v.Marks&SpencerPlc,[1999]
R.P.C.536(Eng.Ch.Div.),reversed(2000),[2001]R.P.C.5(Eng.C.A.),
affirmed(2001),[2002]R.P.C.4(U.K.H.L.).
16.NewspaperLicensingAgencyLtd.(The)v.Marks&SpencerPlc(2001),
[2002]3AllE.R.977(U.K.H.L.).

30
17.Hi-TechAutopartsLtd.v.TowergateTwoLtd.(2001),[2002]FSR15(Eng.
PatentsCt.).

§7.3UnitedStates
1.Woodv.Abott,30F.Cas.424(C.C.N.Y.1866).
2.Rosenbachv.Dreyfuss,2F.217(D.C.N.Y.1880).
3.Yuenglingv.Schile,12F.97(C.C.N.Y.1882).
4.Bleisteinv.DonaldsonLithographingCo.,188U.S.239(U.S.1903).
5.NationalCloak&SuitCo.v.Kaufman,189F.215(C.C.Pa.1911).
6.StecherLithograhicCo.v.DunstonLithographCo.,233F.601(D.C.N.Y.
1916).
7.Jeweler’sCircularPublishingCo.v.KeystonePublishingCo.,274F.932
(D.C.N.Y.1921);aff’d,281F.83(C.C.A.N.Y.1922),cert.denied,259U.S.
581.
8.Ansehlv.PuritanPharmaceuticalCo.,61F.2d131(8thCir.1932).
9.AlfredBell&Co.v.CataldaFineArts,68U.S.P.Q.447(D.C.S.D.New
York—Practice1946);(1947),75U.S.P.Q.67(D.C.S.D.NewYork—Merit
1947);75U.S.P.Q.283(D.C.S.D.NewYork—Costs1947);90U.S.P.Q.153
(2ndCir.1951).
10.EltraCorp.v.Ringer,194U.S.P.Q.198(E.D.Va.1976);aff’d198U.S.P.Q.
321(4thCir.1978).
11.AdobeSystemsInc.v.SouthernSoftwareInc.(1998),45U.S.P.Q.(2d)1827
(N.D.Cal.)(settledoutofcourt1999-06-03).

§7.4AustraliaandNewZealand
1.GreenfieldProductsPty.Ltd.v.Rover-ScottBonnarLtd.(1990),95A.L.R.
275(Aust.F.C.).
2.Martinv.PolyplasManufacturersLtd.,[1969]N.Z.L.R.1046(H.C.).

31
3.TalkoftheTownPty.Ltd.v.Hagstrom(1990),99A.L.R.130(Aust.F.C.).
4.Wham-OManufacturingCo.v.LincolnIndustriesLtd.(1981),[1982]R.P.C.
281(H.C.);aff’d(1984),[1985]R.P.C.127(C.A.).
§7.5France
1.AssociationGuyLevisManov.Monti(1994),159R.I.D.A.316(Cassation—
1reChambreciv.).
§8.0Authors
§8.1Canada
§8.1.1Interpretationissues

1.BARBE(RaoulP.),Lesdéfinitionscontenuesdanslesacteslégislatifset
réglementaires(1983),43RevueduBarreau1105,atpp.1119-1120.
2.CÔTÉ(Pierre-André),TheInterpretationofLegislationinCanada,2nded.
(Cowansville,Blais,1992),atpp.55-58,264-270.
3.DRIEDGER(ElmerA.),ConstructionofStatutes,2nded.(Toronto,
Butterworths,1983),atpp.18-22,111-119.
4.GROUPEDEJURILINGUISTIQUEFRANÇAISE,Guidecanadienderédaction
législativefrançaise—éditionpermanente(Ottawa,JusticeCanada,
1984),at“Definitions”.
5.JARVISTONUS(Jill),DatabasesandTypeFontDesigns:His,HersorOurs?
inSoftware,Hardware,Data—TheLegalandBusinessIssuesinthe’90s
(Toronto,CanadianInstitute,1993),ch.3,atpp.39-52.
6.PIGEON(Louis-Philippe),DraftingandInterpretingLegislation(Toronto,
Carswell,1988),atpp.32-35.
7.PIGEON(Louis-Philippe),Rédactionetinterprétationdeslois(Québec,
éditeurofficiel,1965),atpp.20-22.

§8.1.2Copyrightissues

32
1.BONCOMPAIN(Jacques),Ledroitd’auteurauCanada:étudecritique
(Montréal,CercledulivredeFrance,1971),atpp.61-62.
2.BRAITHWAITE(WilliamJ.),DerivativeWorksinCanadianCopyrightLaw
(1982),20OsgoodeHallLawJournal191.
3.CONSEILQUÉBÉCOISDEL’ESTAMPE,Coded’éthiquedel’estampe
originale(Montréal,C.Q.E.,1987).
4.FOX(HaroldGeorge),TheCanadianLawofCopyrightandIndustrial
Designs,2nded.(Toronto,Carswell,1967),atpp.26-27,32-33,68,151-
152,155-156,218and252-253.
5.GOULD(RobertD.),CopyrightinThreeDimensions—NewDimensions
(1980-81),8-10PatentandTrademarkInstituteofCanadaBulletin534.
6.LEVENTAL(JessicaA.),DerivativeWorksandCopyrightInfringement:A
CaseforCopyrightingIdeas(1985),1IntellectualPropertyJournal271.
7.RACICOT(Michel),Jusqu’oùvalaprotectionducybergicielparledroit
d’auteur?,inMeredithLectures1996(Montreal,McGillUniversity,1996),
atno.5.8.
§8.2UnitedKingdom
1.COPINGER(WalterArthur),TheLawofCopyrightinWorksofLiterature
andArt,2nded.(London,StevensandHaynes,1881),atpp.11-12,351-
378.
2.CORNISH(WilliamR.),IntellectualProperty:Patents,Copyright,Trade-
MarksandAlliedRights,2nded.(London,Sweet&Maxwell,1989),atnos.
10.001,10.016and10.029.
3.DRONE(EatonS.),ATreatiseontheLawofPropertyinIntellectual
ProductionsinGreatBritainandintheUnitedStates(Boston,LittleBrown,
1879),atpp.177-178,280-286,316-317and478-483.
4.FLINT(MichaelF.),AUser’sGuidetoCopyright,3rded.(London,
Butterworths,1990),atnos.2.09,14.14.
5.HALSBURY(Earlof),TheLawsofEngland(London,Butterworths,1909),at
pp.200-206.

33
6.LADDIE(Hugh)etal.,TheModernLawofCopyright(London,
Butterworths,1980),atnos.2.45,3.17-3.18.
7.LADDIE(Hugh)etal.,TheModernLawofCopyrightandDesigns,2nded.
(London,Butterworths,1995),atnos.3.21-3.22.
8.LANGAN(P.St.J.),MaxwellontheInterpretationofStatutes,12thed.
(Bombay,Tripathi,1969),atpp.297-306.
9.LESTER(David)etal.,Joynson-HicksonUKCopyrightLaw(London,Sweet
&Maxwell,1990),atpp.177-178,280-286,316-317and478-482.
10.PHILLIPS(CharlesPalmer),TheLawofCopyrightinWorksofLiteratureand
ArtandintheApplicationofDesigns(London,Stevens,1863),atpp.205-
217.
11.PHILLIPS(JeremyJ.)etal.,WhaleonCopyright4thed.(London,Sweet&
Maxwell,1993),atpp.34-35.
12.ROBERTSON(GeorgeStuart),TheLawofCopyright(Oxford,Clarendon
Press,1912),atpp.21-22.
13.SCRUTTON(ThomasEdward),TheLawofCopyright,4thed.(London,
Clowes,1903),atpp.162,170-179.
14.SHORTT(John),TheLawrelatingtoWorksofLiteratureandArt:
EmbracingtheLawofCopyright,theLawrelatingtoNewspapers,the
LawrelatingtoContractsbetweenAuthors,Publishers,Printers,andthe
LawofLibel,2nded.(London,Reeves&Turner,1884),atpp.110-119,
182-183,227-234and254-257.
15.SKONEJAMES(EdmundP.)etal.,CopingerandSkoneJameson
Copyright,12thed.(London,Sweet&Maxwell,1980),atnos.33,67,119,
175,270,285,328,330,338,546,560and564.
16.SKONEJAMES(EdmundP.)etal.,CopingerandSkoneJameson
Copyright,13thed.(London,Sweet&Maxwell,1991),atnos.1-33,4-17
and4-25.
17.SKONEJAMES(F.E.),CopingerandSkoneJamesontheLawof
Copyright,8thed.(London,Sweet&Maxwell,1948),atpp.146-151.
18.STERLING(J.A.L.)etal.,CopyrightLawintheUnitedKingdom,1sted.
(London,LegalBooks,1986),atnos.241-244,252,291,2A34and4A02.

34
19.WATTS(Justin)etal.,ProtectionofSoftwareFontsinUKLaw(1995),17
EuropeanIntellectualPropertyReview133.

§8.3UnitedStates
1.AMDUR(LeonH.),CopyrightLawandPractice(NewYork,Clark
Boardman,1936),atpp.149-164.
2.APPLEBAUM(LouisB.),TheOneLinePictureClaim(1962),44Journalof
thePatentOfficeSociety379.
3.CARROLL(TerrenceJ.),Protectionfortypefacedesigns:acopyright
proposal(1994),10-1SantaClaraComputerandHighTechnology
Journal139;
http://www.aimet.com~smcarroll/copyright/oldtypeface.html.
4.MEZRICH(Jonathan),ExtensionofCopyrighttoFonts—Canthe
AlphabetbeFarBehind?(Summer1998)ComputerLawReviewand
TechnologyJournal;http://www.smu.edu/~smcsr/preview.htm.
5.NIMMER(MelvilleB.)etal.,NimmeronCopyright(NewYork,Matthew
Bender,1989),atnos.2.08[F]and2.08[G].
6.NIMMER(MelvilleB.)etal.,NimmeronCopyright(NewYork,Matthew
Bender,1989),at§2.15and§4.312.
7.ROTHENBERG(Stanley),LegalProtectionofLiterature,ArtandMusic
(NewYork,ClarkBoardman,1960),atpp.29,32-34and97.
8.SNYDER(Philipp),TypefaceDesignaftertheDesktopRevolution:ANew
CaseforLegalProtection(1991),16ColumbiaVLAJournalofLaw&the
Arts96.

§8.4France
1.BERTRAND(André),LeDroitd’AuteuretlesDroitsVoisins(Paris,Masson,
1991),atpp.107-111,138-139and148.
2.BERTRAND(André),LeDroitd’AuteuretlesDroitsVoisins,2nded.(Paris,
Dalloz,1999).

35
3.BERTRAND(André),Laprotectionjuridiquedescaractères
typographiquesendroitfrançais,endroitcomparéetendroit
international(1990),26Lescahiersdedroitd’auteur1.
4.CARREAU(Caroline),Méritedudroitd’auteur(Paris,LGDJ,1981),atnos.
239,262,283,293,296,382and549.
5.PLAISANT(Robert),Exercicedudroitdesauteurs—Ouvresprotégées,in
Propriétélittéraireetartistique—Juris-Classeurs(Paris,Éditions
techniques,1990),fascicule303,atnos.67-74,129-136.
§8.5Australia

1.LAHORE(James),IntellectualPropertyinAustralia:CopyrightLaw
(Sydney,Butterworths,1988),atnos.2.3.95,2.3.104.
2.RICKETSON(Stanley),TheLawofIntellectualProperty(Melbourne,LBC,
1999),atnos.7.345to7.360.
§8.6Varia
§8.6.1Law
1.BROWN(Arthur)etal.,TheLawofIntellectualPropertyinNewZealand
(Wellington,Butterworths,1989),atnos.4.16,4.20and4.84-4.86.
2.COPLING(A.J.C.),CopyrightLawinSouthAfrica(Durban,Butterworths,
1969),atpp.20-25,36.
3.Delaprotectiondeschromolithographiesdansl’unioninternationale
(1899),12LeDroitd’Auteur130.
4.DREYFUS(John),Pourquoifaut-ilunelégislationinternationalepour
protégerlescaractèrestypographiques?(1973),79LaPropriété
industrielle61.
5.FRANÇON(André),L’ArrangementdeVienneconcernantlaprotection
descaractèrestypographiquesetleurdépôtinternational(1976),89Le
Droitd’Auteur134.
6.JurisprudenceItalie:AlbrechtetMeislterc.Gualassini,[1900]LeDroit
d’Auteur145.

36
7.JurisprudenceItalie:Mayfilsc.Istitutodiartigrafiche,[1900]LeDroit
d’Auteur145.
8.JurisprudenceItalie:Schlossc.Citterio,[1907]LeDroitd’Auteur36.
9.LADAS(StephenP.),TheInternationalProtectionofLiteraryandArtistic
Property,2Vol.inHarvardStudiesonInternationalLawNo.3(NewYork,
Macmillan,1938),atno.101.
10.LIMBERG(Theodore),Laprotectiondesœuvrestypographiques
néerlandaisesauxPays-Basetàl’étranger/TheprotectionofDutch
typographicalcreationsinHollandandabroad(1962),36Revue
internationaledudroitd’auteur146.
11.LIMBERG(Theodore),Laprotectionjuridiquedescaractères
typographiques/Thejuridicalprotectionoftypographictype(1964),44
Revueinternationaledudroitd’auteur174.
12.LIMBERG(Theodore),Laprotectionjuridiquedeslettresetautres
caractèrestypographiques/Legalprotectionoflettersandothertype
facesprotectionoftypographictype(1972),74Revueinternationaledu
droitd’auteur86.
13.POIRIER(Pierre),Ledroitd’auteur,inLesNovelles—CorpusJurisBelgici:
DroitsIntellectuels(Bruxelles,Larcier,1936),atnos.92,292.
14.POTU(Émile),LaConventiondeBernepourLaprotectiondesœuvres
littérairesetartistiquesRéviséeàBerlinle13novembre1908etle
ProtocoleadditionneldeBernedu20mars1914(Paris,Rousseau,1914),
atnos.150,186.
15.RICKETSON(Sam),TheBerneConventionforthe
ProtectionofLiterary
andArtisticWorks:1886-1986(London,CentreforCommercialLaw
Studies,1987),atpp.251-257.
16.STOYANOV(Kaloyan),Laprotectionjuridiquedescaractères
typographiques(Genève,Droz,1981).

§8.6.2Artsandtechniques

1.AUGER(D.),Latypographie,coll.Quesais-je?No.1862(Paris,PUF,1980).

37
2.BERSIER(JeanE.)Lagravure:lesprocédés-l’histoire(Paris,Berger-
Levrault,1980).
3.BIGELOW(Charles),Dupiratagedefontes(1987),6-3Technologieset
sciencesinformatiques255.
4.DUPLESSIS(Georges),Histoiredelagravureanciennesuivied’une
indicationtechniquesurlesdifférentsprocédésdegravure(Paris,
Bonnot,1991).
5.FAINE(Brad),TheCompleteGuidetoScreenPrinting(Cincinnati,North
LightBooks,1989).
6.GILMOUR(Pat),UnderstandingPrints:aContemporaryGuide(London,
Waddington,1979).
7.HIND(ArthurM.),AHistoryofEngraving&Etching,3rded.(NewYork,
Dover,1963).
8.HIND(ArthurM.),AnIntroductiontoaHistoryofWoodcut(NewYork,
Dover,1963),Vol.2.
9.LERNER(RalphE.)etal.,ArtLaw—TheGuideforCollectors,Investors,
DealersandArtists,2nded.(NewYork,PractisingLawInstitute,1998),at
chap.5.
10.MALENFANT(Nicole),L’estampe(Québec,éditeurofficielduQuébec),
1979).
11.MARTIN(Gérard),L’imprimerie,7thed.(Paris,Puf,1990).
12.PHILLIPS(Phoebe)ed.,TheEncyclopaediaofGlass(NewYork,Crown,
1981),atpp.265etseq.
13.ROSS((John)etal.,TheCompletePrintmaker(London,FreePress,1990).
14.ROTHENBERG(Polly),DecoratingGlass(NewYork,Crown,1977),atch.4
“EngravingandEtchingGlass”.
15.RUSS(Stephen)ed.,ACompleteGuidetoPrintmaking(NewYork,Viking,
1975).
16.SAFF(Donald)etal.,Printmaking:HistoryandProcess(NewYork,HRW,
1978).

38
17.SIMMONS(Rosemary)etal.,TheCompleteManualofReliefPrintmaking
(NewYork,Knopf,1988).
18.WALSH(Norman),FrequentlyAskedQuestionsAboutFonts,version2.1.5
dated1999-08-14;
http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~smdzubera/FAQ/fonts.faq.
§9.0ComparativeLegislation
§9.1ComparativeLegislation-Canada
§9.1.1CopyRightAct,1832,section1:
“(…)that(…)anypersonorpersonsresidentinthisProvince(…)whoshall
invent,design,etch,engraveorcausetobeengraved,etchedormade
fromhisowndesign,anyprintorengraving(…)shallhavethesolerightand
libertyofprinting,reprinting,publishingandvendingsuch(…)print,cut,or
engraving(…).”
§9.1.2CopyrightAct,1868,section3:
“Anyperson(…)whoinvents,designs,etches,engravesorcausestobe
engraved,etchedormadefromhisowndesign,anyprintorengraving(…)
shallhavethesolerightandlibertyofprinting,reprinting,publishingand
vendingsuch(…)artisticalworksorcompositions(…).”

§9.2ComparativeLegislation-UnitedKingdom
§9.2.1CopyrightAct,1911,section35(1):
“Engravings”includeetchings,lithographs,wood-cuts,prints,andother
similarworks,notbeingphotographs;”
§9.2.2CopyrightAct,1956,section48(1):
“engravings”includesanyetching,lithograph,woodcut,printorsimilarwork,
notbeingaphotograph;”
§9.2.3CopyrightAct,1988,section4(2):
“graphicwork”includes-(…)
(b)anyengraving,etching,litograph,woodcutorsimilarwork;”

§9.2.4CopyrightAct,1988,section15:

39
“Copyrightinthetypographicalarrangementofapublishededitionexpires
attheendoftheperiodof25yearsfromtheendofthecalendaryearin
whichtheeditionwasfirstpublished.”
§9.3ComparativeLegislation-UnitedStatesofAmerica
§9.3.1CopyrightAct,1802,section2:
“(…)everyperson(…)whoshallinventanddesign,engrave,etchorwork,or
fromhisownworksandinventions,shallcausetobedesignedand
engraved,etchedorworked,anyhistoricalorotherprintorprints,shall
havethesolerightandlibertyofprinting,re-printing,publishingand
vendingsuchprintorprints(…).”
§9.3.2CopyrightAct,1874,section3:
“Thatintheconstructionoftisact,thewords”Engraving,””cut”and”print”
shallbeappliedonlytopictorialillustrationsorworksconnectedwiththe
finearts,andnoprintsorlabelsdesignedtobeusedforanyotherarticlesof
manufactureshallbeenteredunderthecopyrightlaw,butmaybe
registeredinthePatentOffice.”
§9.3.3CopyrightAct,1909,section5(k):
“Thattheapplicationforregistrationshallspecifytowhichofthefollowing
classestheworkinwhichcopyrightisclaimedbelongs:(…)
(k)Printsandpictorialsillustrations(…).”
§9.4ComparativeLegislation-Australia
§9.4.1CopyrightAct,1968,section10(1):
“engravings”includesanetching,lithograph,productofphotogravure,
woodcut,printorsimilarwork,notbeingaphotograph;”
§9.5ComparativeLegislation-India
§9.5.1CopyrightAct,1957,section2(i):
“Engravings”includeetchings,lithographs,wood-cuts,prints,andother
similarworks,notbeingphotographs;”
§9.6ComparativeLegislation-SouthAfrica
§9.6.1CopyrightAct,1978,section1:

40
“engraving”includeanyetching,lithograph,woodcut,printorsimilarwork,
butdoesnotincludeaphotograph;”

§10.0Varia
§10.1RegistrabilityofComputerProgramsthatGenerateTypefaces
USA—57Fed.Reg.35atpp.6201-2(February12,1992).
Afteracarefulreviewofthetestimonyandthewrittencomments,the
CopyrightOfficeispersuadedthatcreatingscalabletypefontsusing
alreadydigitizedtypefacerepresentsasignificantchangeintheindustry
sinceourpreviousPolicyDecision.Wearealsopersuadedthatcomputer
programsdesignedforgeneratingtypefaceinconjunctionwithlow
resolutionandotherprintingdevicesmayinvolveoriginalcomputer
instructionsentitledtoprotectionundertheCopyrightAct.Forexample,the
creationofscalablefontoutputprogramstoproduceharmoniousfonts
consistingofhundredsofcharacterstypicallyinvolvesmanydecisionsin
draftingtheinstructionsthatdrivetheprinter.Theexpressionofthese
decisionsisneitherlimitedbytheunprotectableshapeofthelettersnor
functionallymandated.Thisexpression,assumingitmeetstheusual
standardofauthorship,isthusregistrableasacomputerprogram.

ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommerce
vouédepuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelle
danstouslesdomaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesde
commerce,marquesdecertificationetappellationsd’origine;droitsd’auteur,
propriétélittéraireetartistique,droitsvoisinsetdel’artisteinterprète;informatique,
logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,pharmaceutiquesetobtentions
végétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howetconcurrence;licences,franchiseset
transfertsdetechnologies;commerceélectronique,distributionetdroitdesaffaires;
marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérification
diligenteetaudit;etce,tantauCanadaqu’ailleursdanslemonde.Lamaîtrisedes
intangibles.
ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademarkagentsdedicatedsince
1892totheprotectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsofintellectualproperty:
patents,industrialdesignsandutilitypatents;trademarks,certificationmarksand
indicationsoforigin;copyrightandentertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,
neighbouringrights;computer,softwareandintegratedcircuits;biotechnologies,
pharmaceuticalsandplantbreeders;tradesecrets,know-how,competitionand
anti-trust;licensing,franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-commerce,distribution
andbusinesslaw;marketing,publicityandlabelling;prosecutionlitigationand
arbitration;duediligence;inCanadaandthroughouttheworld.Ideaslivehere.
COPYRIGHTER
IDEASLIVEHERE
ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLUL’INVENTER!
LAMAÎTRISEDESINTANGIBLES
LEGERROBICRICHARD
NOSFENÊTRESGRANDESOUVERTESSURLEMONDEDESAFFAIRES
PATENTER
R
ROBIC
ROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
ROBIC++++
ROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TRADEMARKER
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDELAPLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOURIDEASTOTHE
WORLD

LAURENTCARRIÈRELAURENTCARRIÈRELAURENTCARRIÈRELAURENTCARRIÈRELAURENT
CARRIÈRELAURENTCARRIÈRELAURENTCARRIÈRELAURENTCARRIÈRELAURENTCARRIÈRE
LAURENTCARRIÈRELAURENTCARRIÈRE