Website Copyright Infringement Lawyers

Copyright Infringement Specialist Lawyer

Get Started

PAIL® Solicitors specialist niche area of practice is copyright infringement – as it relates to digital works including photographs; text; databases; video; music. Please use the above form or telephone us on +44(0)2027 305-7491, or by email to peter@pailsolicitors.co.uk to discuss your copyright infringement matter.

Every business needs clear and enforceable terms and conditions to protect against potential disputes. Learn how terms and conditions lawyers provide expert guidance for your agreements.

What prior copyright infringement cases have you worked on?

One of our successful cases in the UK High Court concerning website digital product catalogue and text is: Cornices Centre Ltd v (1) Fibrous Plasters Ltd (2) Angelika Zdrojewska (3) Andrzej Olenski IP-2017-000157.

In this case, we represented Cornices Centre Ltd, the Claimant, on behalf of PAIL® Solicitors. This case concerned website copyright infringement in various works including 356 photographs of plaster cornices products. The Claimant had for many years used the works to advertise its products and in its catalogues. A huge amount of work on the part of the Claimant’s director, Mr. Sledziewski, went into their creation. The attractive and clear presentation of the Claimant’s product range to its customers has undoubtedly been a significant contributor to its success over recent years.

Some infringements were denied. The principal defence to the claim was an alleged oral contract giving rise to an alleged licence. There was also a counterclaim in which it was claimed that the Claimant had infringed copyright belonging to the Third Defendant.

A CMC took place before Mr Recorder Douglas Campbell on 1 February 2018. Only after the CMC did the Claimant discover that on 24 January 2018 the First Defendant was wound up and accordingly the claim against it automatically stayed according to section 130(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986. The Claimant pursued the claim against the Second and Third Defendants, who were alleged to be jointly and severally liable for the First Defendant’s infringing activities. The Defendants should be understood as being the Second and Third Defendants.

Settlement of the claim and counterclaim

On 14 September 2018, shortly after the exchange of witness statements, the Claimant served an offer to settle all outstanding issues in the claim and counterclaim according to CPR Part 36. The Offer was accepted 21 September 2018, and the Defendants made a payment of £31,000 to the Claimant in respect of damages and interest; giving undertakings not to infringe the Claimant’s copyright works, acknowledging that the Claimant is the owner of the copyright in the works that were the subject of the counterclaim. The acceptance of the Offer amounted to total capitulation by the Defendants; the Claimant has obtained all significant non-monetary relief that it sought, and a substantial payment in respect of damages, and the counterclaim was, in effect, totally abandoned. I applied for the costs to be summarily assessed in the sum of £45,520.00, and the Court granted that judgement order on Friday 09 November.

How did this case add to our experience of copyright disputes?

This case is interesting for several reasons. One of these is the hot issue of – How much should an infringing user of another’s intellectual property right be made to pay for the infringement.

In our case, the copyright works consist of 356 separate photographs, created by Mr Sledziewski, and owned by our client. It is a matter of significant dispute as to the economic value placed on each photograph in these cases. The recent cases are Absolute Lofts v Artisan Home Improvements [2015] EWHC 2608 (IPEC) and Flogas Britain Limited v Calor Gas Limited [2013] EWHC 3060 (Ch). The User Principle applied: quantifies the sum payable to the successful claimant as to the licence royalty that the defendant would have had to pay to make the infringing acts lawful. As you can imagine Defendants will want to price each work at the price of comparable stock photographs which start from $0.16 per image. Our damages of £31,000 plus interest was, therefore, a significant award and victory. A leading law firm in The Legal 500 – Chambers & Partners – Boutique Firm of the Year The Lawyer represented the Defendants, and it ran for two years, but in the end, the Claimant was successful.