Ashdown v Telegraph Group Ltd
Freedom of expression may in rare cases justify a defence to copyright infringement, but a newspaper that published extensive extracts from a politician's confidential minute was not protected.
Facts
Paddy Ashdown, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, wrote a confidential minute of a meeting with the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, in 1997, about possible cooperation between their parties. The Sunday Telegraph obtained a copy of the minute and published long extracts from it. Mr Ashdown sued for infringement of copyright. The newspaper relied on the defences of fair dealing for the purpose of reporting current events and public interest, and on its right to freedom of expression under the Human Rights Act 1998.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that the newspaper had infringed copyright. Lord Phillips MR said that, in most cases, the fair dealing defences would give sufficient protection to freedom of expression, but that, in rare cases, the right of freedom of expression may come into conflict with the protection afforded by the Copyright Act, and the court would then have to apply the Act in a way that gave effect to the right. Here, the newspaper had used extensive verbatim extracts from the minute, for commercial reasons, which went beyond what was necessary to report the story, so the dealing was not fair.
Related cases on copyright: infringement and defences
- Baigent v Random House Group Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 247
- Deckmyn v Vandersteen Case C-201/13, EU:C:2014:2132
- Designers Guild Ltd v Russell Williams (Textiles) Ltd [2000] 1 WLR 2416
- Francis Day & Hunter Ltd v Bron [1963] Ch 587
- GS Media BV v Sanoma Media Netherlands BV Case C-160/15, EU:C:2016:644
- Hubbard v Vosper [1972] 2 QB 84
- Hyde Park Residence Ltd v Yelland [2001] Ch 143
- LB (Plastics) Ltd v Swish Products Ltd [1979] RPC 551
Studying intellectual property law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
