Back then, the whole staff at the store had a passion for taking pictures – including Iris, who went on to a career in sports photography. At their wedding, the manager of Ritz Camera was the photographer. He would drive more than an hour from his home in Clearwater just to see her after work.Įventually, Daryl asked her to marry him. When she finished work, her boyfriend at the time, Daryl Solodar, would sometimes be waiting for her in the mall hallways with a bouquet of carnations. 22, 1982, was the place to be in the late 20th century. broadcast.The DeSoto Square Mall, seen here on Nov.British Shorinji Kempo Federation v Shorinji Kempo Unity.British Academy and Others v Business Secretary.Birmingham and Solihull Mental Mental Health NUS Trust.Bilateral Investment Treaties: Czech Republic v European Media Ventures SA.Astronics Advanced Electronics Systems Ltd.application to amend particulars of claim.400th post SAFE Port Act Diana Wallis MEP.His lordship endorsed the test proposed by Laddie, Prescott and Vitoria in the second edition of The Modern Law of Copyright and Designs at paragraph 2-108 of whether the infringer has incorporated a substantial part of the independent skill and labour of the original author. In the first type of case, the question whether the copying of the part constitutes an infringement depends on the qualitative importance of the part that has been copied, assessed in relation to the copyright work as a whole. The other is where the copying has not been exact and where the copying has been with modifications such as the translation of a book or the adaptation of a novel. One is where an identifiable part of the whole, but not the whole, has been copied such as a section of a picture, a sentence or two, or even a phrase, from a poem or book, or a bar or two of a piece of music. Russell Williams (Textiles) Limite d UKHL 58 Lord Scott of Foscote said that s.16 (3) may come into play in two quite different types of case. In an artistic work, it is the artistic originality of that which has been copied. In literary copyright, where copyright is conferred irrespective of literary merit upon an original literary work, the quality relevant for the purposes of substantiality is the literary originality of that which has been copied. Marks and Spencer Plc UKHL 38 of what quality is one looking for? In his view it must be answered by referring to the reason why the work is given copyright protection. The question then arises, as Lord Hoffmann observed at paragraph of N ewspaper Licensing Agency Limited v. v Eisinger 1 Ch 508 where the volume of material that had been copied was considerable but such material did not constitute a substantial part of the claimant's work because it had itself been copied from an earlier work. A case that illustrates that point better than most is Warwick Film Productions Ltd.
273 their lordships emphasized that the test of substantiality was qualitative rather than quantitative. The question what is a "substantial part" for the purposes of this Act has been considered by the House of Lords on no less than three occasions.
16 (3) (a) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 provides that references in Part I of the Act to the doing of an act restricted by the copyright in a work are to the doing of it in relation to the work as a whole or any substantial par t of it.