This page has been validated.
Rights.
15
§1 (2)
EXISTING LAW.
engraving may be infringed by a photograph[1]. Copyright in a painting may be infringed by a photograph or pencil sketch[2].
It is doubtful whether a reproduction in the round of an artistic work on the flat or vice versa can be an infringement; that is to say, whether copyright in a painting can be infringed by the reproduction of the design in the form of a work of sculpture or whether copyright in a work of sculpture can be infringed by a painting, drawing, or photograph[3].
The representation of a painting in the form of a tableau vivant is not an infringement of the copyright in the painting[4].
- ↑ Graces v. Ashford (1867), L. R. 2 C. P. 410; Gambart v. Ball (1863), 14 C. B. N. S. 306; Guggenheim v. Leng (1896), 12 T. L. R. 491.
- ↑ Beal, Ex parte (1868), 3 Q. B. 387; Bolton v. Aldin (1895), 65 L, J. Q. B. 120.
- ↑ See Hanfstaengl v. Baines, [1895] A. C. 20; Hanfstaengl v. Empire Palace, [1894] 2 Ch. 1; [1894] 3 Ch. 109.
- ↑ Hanfstaengl v. Empire Palace, [1894] 2 Ch. 1.
- ↑ Chatterton v. Cave (1878), 3 A. C. 483, 498; (1875), L. R. 10 C. P. 572, 575; Sweet v. Benning (1855), 16 C. B. 469, 481; Bohn v. Bogue (1846), 10 Jur. 420; Jarrold v. Heywood (1870), 18 W. R. 279; Baily v. Taylor (1829), 1 R. & M. 73; Planché v. Braham (1837), 8 C. & P. 68; Beere v. Ellis (1889), 5 T. L. R. 330.
- ↑ Leslie v. Young, [1894] A. C. 335, 341, 342; Tinsley v. Lacey (1863) 1 H. & M. 747; Bramwell v. Halcomb (1836), 3 My. & Cr. 7.57, 738; Bradbury v. Hotten (1872), L. R. S Ex. 1; Cooper v. Stephens, [1895] 1 Ch. 567; Scott v. Stanford (1867), L. R. 3 Eq. 718; Murray v. Bogue (1852), 1 Drew. 353, 369; Cary v. Kearsley (1802), 4 Esp. 168; Lennie v. Pillans (1843). 5 D. 416.
- ↑ Mawman v. Tegg (1826), 2 Russ. 385, 394; Neale v. Harmer (1897), 13 T. L. R. 209; Kelly v. Hooper (1841), 1 Y. & C. Ch. C. 197; Cooper v. Stephens, [1895] 1 Ch. 567.