Protected Works Uk Vs Us

20 Jan 2026 --
0 Comments

1. Introduction to Protected Works

Protected works are creative works that receive legal protection under copyright law. Protection prevents unauthorized copying, distribution, adaptation, or public performance.

Key points:

Purpose: Encourage creation by giving authors exclusive rights.

Scope: Includes literary, dramatic, musical, artistic works, sound recordings, films, broadcasts, and software.

Duration: Varies by country and type of work.

The UK and US differ in scope, formalities, and exceptions, and their case law illustrates these differences.

2. UK: Protected Works

The UK follows the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA 1988).

Scope of Protected Works in the UK

Literary works: Books, articles, computer programs.

Dramatic works: Plays, choreographies, film scripts.

Musical works: Compositions.

Artistic works: Paintings, sculptures, photographs.

Sound recordings: Recordings of music or other sounds.

Films and broadcasts.

Typographical arrangements: Layout of published editions.

Automatic Protection: No registration required; protection arises upon creation.

Key UK Case Laws

University of London Press Ltd v University Tutorial Press Ltd [1916] 2 Ch 601

Issue: Copyright in exam papers.

Held: Exam papers are literary works, protected automatically.

Significance: Confirms broad literary work definition.

Designers Guild Ltd v Russell Williams (Textiles) Ltd [2000] 1 WLR 2416

Issue: Textile designs copied without permission.

Held: Original artistic expression is protected; substantial copying constitutes infringement.

Remedy: Injunction and damages awarded.

Significance: Clarified originality and substantial part test for artistic works.

Lucasfilm Ltd v Ainsworth [2011] UKSC 39

Issue: Replica Star Wars helmets.

Held: Physical objects not protected as artistic works; copyright applies to artistic expressions, not functional objects.

Significance: Distinguishes functional items from protected works.

Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening [2009] UKSC 14

Issue: Text snippets in press articles used for summaries.

Held: Using a substantial part (even 11 words) can infringe literary copyright.

Significance: Reinforced idea of originality and substantiality.

Football Association Premier League Ltd v QC Leisure [2012] UKSC 39

Issue: Unlicensed live streaming of football games.

Held: Broadcasts are protected; unauthorized streaming infringes.

Remedy: Injunction and damages for lost revenue.

Observation:
UK law emphasizes original expression, substantial copying, and automatic protection; registration is not needed.

3. US: Protected Works

The US follows Copyright Act of 1976, codified in 17 U.S.C.

Scope of Protected Works in the US

Literary works: Books, articles, software code.

Musical works: Including lyrics.

Dramatic works: Plays, choreography.

Pantomimes and choreographic works.

Pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works.

Motion pictures and audiovisual works.

Sound recordings.

Architectural works.

Key Differences from UK:

Registration: Not required for protection, but necessary to sue for statutory damages or attorneys’ fees.

Formalities: Notice not required (post-1978), but prior registration enhances remedies.

Key US Case Laws

Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991)

Issue: Copyright in phone directory listings.

Held: Facts are not protected; originality is required.

Significance: Introduced originality requirement in US law.

Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53 (1884)

Issue: Copyright in photographs.

Held: Photographs are protected as artistic works.

Significance: Early recognition of non-literary works as protected.

Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp., 714 F.2d 1240 (3d Cir. 1983)

Issue: Copying of computer software.

Held: Software code is a literary work; copying infringes copyright.

Significance: Established software protection under literary works category.

Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994)

Issue: Parody of Roy Orbison song.

Held: Fair use defense allowed for parody; not infringement if transformative.

Significance: Established scope of fair use in creative works.

Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 804 F.3d 202 (2d Cir. 2015)

Issue: Google Books scanning without permission.

Held: Transformative use and public benefit justify fair use.

Significance: Balances copyright protection with innovation.

Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201 (1954)

Issue: Copyright in lamp design.

Held: Artistic works incorporated in functional objects are protected if separable.

Significance: Similar to Lucasfilm in UK; functional items may be partially protected.

4. UK vs US Comparison

Feature	UK	US
Statutory Basis	CDPA 1988	Copyright Act 1976 (17 U.S.C.)
Protected Works	Literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, sound recordings, films, broadcasts	Same + choreographic, pictorial, sculptural, architectural
Formalities	Automatic protection; no registration needed	Automatic protection; registration needed for statutory damages & litigation
Originality	Original expression required	Originality and minimal creativity required
Duration	Life of author + 70 years	Life of author + 70 years (works for hire: 95 yrs from publication)
Key Doctrines	Substantial part, originality, functional vs artistic	Fair use, originality, separability doctrine for functional items
Landmark Cases	Lucasfilm v Ainsworth, Infopaq, Premier League v QC Leisure	Feist v Rural, Campbell v Acuff-Rose, Mazer v Stein

Observation:

UK emphasizes originality and substantiality; no registration needed.

US emphasizes originality and includes fair use defense; registration is procedural but strategic.

Both protect similar types of works but differ in doctrines like fair use vs exceptions.

5. Conclusion

UK Protected Works: Broad protection under CDPA 1988, covering literary, artistic, musical, and other works. Courts focus on originality, substantial copying, and automatic protection.

US Protected Works: Broad under 17 U.S.C.; includes additional categories like architectural works. Courts apply fair use, transformative use, and originality standards.

Key Distinction: US provides fair use defenses and requires registration for full remedies, while UK protection is automatic and relies on substantial part and originality tests.