Website-law.co.uk

One of the oddities of ICANN’s Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution is that they require the complainant to affirm, in the complaint, that a copy of the complaint has been sent to the domain name holder (Rule 3(b)(xii)).

In theory, this requirement could give a fast-moving domain name holder the chance to transfer the domain to another person before the proceedings formally begin (from which point such “cyberflying” transfers are forbidden under Rule 8(a)).

WIPO panelists (at least) have developed a jurisprudential solution to this problem, illustrated by the majority decision in Gloria-Werke H. Schulte-Frankenfeld GmbH & Co v. Internet Development Corporation and Gloria MacKenzie.

In that case, the panel treated the domain transferor as the “primary” respondent, whilst acknowledging that the transferee also had an interest in the domain name.

As the UDRP system has no formal system of precedent, you should be wary of relying upon this non-Rules based argument. The best way to reduce the risk of having to do so is to notify the relevant arbitration centre and registrar electronically, but put the registrant’s notice in the post.

Clients usually think that joint ownership of copyright is a good thing; lawyers (in the UK at least) usually think that it is a bad thing. Why?

A number of old English cases (e.g. Lauri v Renad in 1892, Powell v Head in 1879) established that a joint owner will not be allowed to exploit a copyright work without the agreement of the other joint owner or owners.

These old cases were expressly incorporated into the “new” law (i.e. the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988).

The principle leads to a problem: where the joint owners get into a dispute, it may become impossible to exploit the copyright work at all, as each joint owner thwarts the other’s exploitation plans.

From the commercial perspective, this is less than ideal, as it means that a potentially valuable asset is locked-up.

The effects of this law can be lessened by an initial contract specifying the forms of exploitation permitted by each joint owner, but contractual restrictions are often less certain than statutory rights - and gaps can sometimes be found in contractual provisions, not matter how careful the drafting.

So, before you agree to a joint ownership arrangement, you need to think very carefully about how the relevant copyright work may be exploited in future. You should also consider other possibilities (e.g. one party owning all the rights, and licensing rights to the other party). Whatever you decide, you should ensure that the agreement is properly documented.

When you take a photograph, you own the rights in it, don’t you?

Yes. And no.

The person who takes a photograph will usually be the first owner of the copyright in the photograph (unless that person is an employee acting in the course of his or her employment). However, there are other rights to consider.

For instance, under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, where a person commissions a photo for private and domestic purposes, that person has a right not to have the work shown in public (subject to certain exceptions).

And if you take a photograph of another copyright work (such as a painting in a gallery or a corporate logo) the publication of your photo on your website could infringe the copyright in that work.

It will not be an infringement if the inclusion of the underlying copyright work is merely incidental.

In addition, there is a special exception which means that photographs of buildings, and photographs of sculptures and models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship which are on permanent public display, will not infringe the copyright in the underlying work.

This is one area where a little legal research usually pays off.

However, if you are in any doubt and there is any risk of a complaint, you should seek professional advice.