Hello, I am looking for someone to write an essay on The Public Interest Defence in UK Copyright Law and the impact of Ashdown v Telegraph Group. It needs to be at least 1500 words.Download file to se

Hello, I am looking for someone to write an essay on The Public Interest Defence in UK Copyright Law and the impact of Ashdown v Telegraph Group. It needs to be at least 1500 words.

According to Hugues, the Copy right act itself does not define 'fair dealing', the interpretation of which must be judged on the merits of the individual case, allowing the courts the freedom to "tailor their decisions to the facts which are placed before them without having to work their way around an impractical definition". According to Guangyong, the last defence to copyright infringement is termed 'public interest', which is "a newer and less well-developed defence in the copyright field compared with others, whereby the work is deemed important for wider distribution and fair dealing is not applicable".

In Hyde Park v. Yelland , Jacob J., "assumed that it may well be that balancing the 'freedom of expression' conferred by Article 10 of the ECHR and the 'right to respect for private life' conferred by Article 8 will involve the judges in just the same or a similar sort of exercise as is involved in judging whether there is a public interest defence" (Sutti) Sutti goes on to say that" commentators were surprised when the Court of Appeal of Hyde Park v. Yelland reversed the decision of Jacob J. denying the possibility of a public interest defence in an action for a copyright infringement."

Taking the above as precedent, the first time that the English courts "fully addressed the issue of the impact of the HRA on copyright law was in the case of Ashdown v Telegraph Group Lt, which involved important issues of freedom of expression of the press and the right of the public to receive information of legitimate public interest."(Walker) In this case, The Sunday Telegraph reproduced the minute of a private meeting between Ashdown, a prominent politician, and the Prime Minister. Ashdown sued the newspaper for breach of copyright. The newspaper argued that the provision of the Copyright Act 1988 should be interpreted in context with the Human Rights Act 1998 section 3 (1) The Court of Appeal was receptive in principle to the human rights defence: "now that the Human Rights Act is in force, there is the clearest public interest in giving effect to the right of freedom of expression in those rare cases where this right trumps the rights conferred by the Copyright Act". (Griffiths) But the appeal was decided against the appellant on the basis of fair dealing: the newspaper's activities were not fair because it had taken "too much" of Mr Ashdown's "work product". - this narrow interpretation of Laddie was to lead to criticisms of inflexibility (Griffiths)

Sir Morrit assumed " the importance of the right of property and stressed the right of every natural or legal person to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. He continued: "intellectual property rights in general and copyright in particular constitute a restriction on the exercise of the right of freedom of expression. Thus Article 10 is engaged"." (Sutti)

According to Walker, the right to freedom of expression was cited in the newspaper's argument that the Act was incapable of satisfying the requirement of being 'necessary in a democratic society'. At first instance this argument was rejected with Morritt V-C stating that, "The provisions of the Act alone can and do satisfy the 3rd requirement of article 10(2) as well.