
 |
Bulletins Story:
COMPARATIVE ADVERTISEMENT NOT "FAIR DEALING": IPC Media v News
Group Newspapers
|
Date:
21.03.2005
|

A newspaper has failed in its attempt to rely on "Fair Dealing"
as a defence for its use in comparative advertising of the
copyright logos and front cover of a rival publication. News Group
Newspapers, publishers of The Sun, were found liable for copyright
infringement (as well as a related breach of contract) for copying
the cover of IPC Media's What's on TV magazine.
TV Mag is a free listings magazine available through The Sun
that re-launched itself last July using a half-page ad in the style
of an "Editor's Letter" and depicting a recent cover of What's on
TV. The text of the ad compared the prices and number of pages of
the listings magazines and, as such, News Group argued that their
re-printing of the front cover of What's on TV constituted Fair
Dealing for the purpose of criticism or review and/or reporting
current events. News Group further argued that this use of its
rival's copyright material in the context of comparative
advertising was not only permissible but indeed promoted the public
good (as identified in the Comparative Advertising Directive) of
ensuring that consumers were informed of opportunities.
News Group cited the case of ProSieben Media, in which the
parameters of Fair Dealing were widened with the words "for the
purpose of" being held to be equivalent to "in the context of" or
"as part of an exercise in". The terms "criticism or review" and
"reporting of current events" were interpreted as "expressions of
wide and indefinite scope" which should be interpreted
liberally.
The court in this case was generous in allowing that News
Group's reproduction of IPC's copyright work was, at least
arguably, "for the purpose of criticism and review" although, the
judge commented, "the tongue has to perform an act of no small
intimacy with the cheek" in making that argument.
Nevertheless, The Sun had gone too far. The court held that "all
that needed to be done to make the desired criticism of [the]
product was to identify it [and] that could readily be done without
infringing [IPC's] copyright". News Group had argued that they were
merely using the copyright to identify the product, but the court
found that News Group was taking advantage of IPC's copyright: "The
claimant has devoted its skill and labour in the production of
literary and artistic work for the very purpose of identifying its
product for its own commercial purposes. In copying the work to
advance its own competing commercial purposes at the expense of the
claimants, the defendant was taking advantage of the fact that the
claimant's work has created that literary/artistic identify for its
product."
News Group also suggested that this sort of use of copyright
material was acceptable in contemporary newspaper culture, but the
judge was not convinced, noting that News Group had failed to
produce even one example of such a usage.
News Group was also found to be in breach of a contract which it
had entered into with IPC in 1998. That contract was a settlement
agreement arising from an almost identical situation in which the
same comparative advertising tactic had been used and News Group
had subsequently paid £8,000 and undertaken not to do it again.
Subject to any successful appeal by News Group, it seems that
the position regarding copyright law and comparative advertising
remains as it was in 1998, when IPC won a very similar case against
the Sunday Mirror. Advertisers can use competitors' registered
trade marks, but must be careful to avoid infringing the copyright
in competitors' logos and other artistic material.
Charlie Swan and Tom
Frederikse
249
e-bulletins are for general guidance only. Legal advice
should be sought before taking action in relation to specific
matters. Where reference is made to Court decisions facts
referred to are those reported as found by the Court. Please
note that past bulletins included in the Archive have not been
updated by any subsequent changes in statute or case
law.
<< back to ebulletins
|