Hubbard v Vosper
Whether a use of a copyright work is fair dealing for criticism or review depends on all the circumstances, including the number and extent of the quotations and the purpose of the use.
Facts
Mr Vosper, a former member of the Church of Scientology, wrote a book criticising Scientology, which contained substantial quotations from the writings of Mr Hubbard, the founder of Scientology, including from confidential course materials. Mr Hubbard sought an interim injunction to prevent publication, claiming infringement of copyright and breach of confidence.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal refused the injunction, because Mr Vosper had an arguable defence of fair dealing for the purpose of criticism or review. Lord Denning MR said that it is impossible to define what is fair dealing, which is a question of degree, and that the court must consider the number and extent of the quotations and extracts, the use made of them, and the proportions of the work used. The court also said that there was a public interest in exposing the dangerous practices of Scientology, which was relevant to the breach of confidence claim.
Related cases on copyright: infringement and defences
- Ashdown v Telegraph Group Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1142, [2002] Ch 149
- 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
- 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.
