“Only Fools The (cushty) Dining Experience is an immersive theatre show created in loving tribute to the BBC’s Only Fools & Horses TV Series. The ITI show does not use script or music from the TV series”
“The issues of (a) whether the Works or any of them were copied and (b) if so, whether the Works or any of them were copied in substantial part shall be determined by reference to the foregoing 30 features only.”
“108. I find the Defendant’s Show difficult to watch (I have watched a recording made for the purposes of gathering evidence of infringement for these proceedings) and not just because it is, in my opinion, of poor quality, but because of how much of it is ripped from the original scripts written by my Dad. It uses history, lore, characters, traits, relationships, themes, ideas and specific dialogue and well-crafted jokes (set-ups, structures and pay-offs) that originated in my Dad’s scripts. The Defendants have, essentially, written a new episode of Only Fools (albeit, in my opinion, very badly) and in doing so, have copied my Dad’s work.” “110. The Claimant has not licensed the Defendant’s Show and therefore I have no control over the use of what they have taken from my Dad’s scripts, nor can I do anything to regulate the quality and therefore mitigate the adverse impact the Defendants’ Show might have on the integrity and credibility of Only Fools….”
“Our brief from Alison was essentially to write a new storyline for the characters from [OFAH].”
“it was very exaggerated comical, not just comical, in Sullivan’s idea of comedy but a more exaggerated representation of the characters. So they were taken to less of a naturalistic level and slightly more overt”
“Q. If Del Boy did not use any mangled French – A. It would not be Del, yes”
“For example, Del’s involvement in dodgy deals is an intrinsic part of his character, so of course we used that characteristic in OFDE but we did so in the context of new and original storylines we had created. Without reference to such characteristics a tribute show cannot exist and the audience would be disappointed because we hadn’t portrayed the characters in a way that they recognized”
“I think saying that it feels like you are inside an episode would be a good, or Alison described it as if it almost feels they are in the real world of it, as if they are there. They feel like “I am having an actual conversation with Del Boy I am not watching him on the telly, I am not separated from him. I am interacting with him, wow, that is exciting.”
“We want them to have the feeling that they were in presence of characters they are likely to know but not to feel that they were in any of the episodes”
“So the characters are incredibly well-loved characters and people often, it is a fame thing, they want to be able to interact with, which is something that they cannot actually do on the television because there is a fourth wall obviously. So when I say an homage, we are giving the characters as much as we possibly can the same life that the actors gave them. So we intend to impersonate very much how they spoke, how they moved, how they, their little finger movements …”
“I do not want them to go over the top that it becomes like a massive caricature, no. I want them to be able to have fun with characters that they love and to be able to ask them questions and feel that they are taking part in the experience”
“1. Copyright and copyright works. (1) Copyright is a property right which subsists in accordance with this Part in the following descriptions of work— (a) original literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works, (b) sound recordings, films or broadcasts, and (c) the typographical arrangement of published editions. (2) In this Part “copyright work” means a work of any of those descriptions in which copyright subsists. (3) Copyright does not subsist in a work unless the requirements of this Part with respect to qualification for copyright protection are met (see section 153 and the provisions referred to there).”
“a dramatic work is a work of action, with or without words or music, which is capable of being performed before an audience.”
“As was pointed out in the Court of Appeal in the case of Corelli v Gray (30 T.L.R. 116) a new kind of right has been created by s. 1(2) of the [Copyright Act 1919 ] – as statutory monopoly of a special character; and protection is now given if the performance in public of a play founded on the novel involves the representation of these situations in a dramatic form; but I do not think it follows that mere ideas contained in the novel can be protected. If the plot of a story, whether it be found in a play or in a novel, is taken bodily with or without some minor additions and subtractions for the purposes of a stage play or a cinema film, there is no doubt about the case. But if a character only is, so to speak ‘lifted’ or one or two single situations, the problem becomes more difficult. Can it be said that in relation to performing right, and to that right alone, individual ideas can be protected under the Act?”
“Thus the question is whether the situations or plot have been copied from the novel and then represented in dramatic form. This is not to say that mere ideas or a character can be protected in this way, certainly if the character or ideas are not novel, but if the combination of events which has been taken is not merely trivial, but involves the expression of intellectual creation, there will be an infringement.”
“Where characters from a film are copied borrowing the name and other identifying features but without details of plot or dialogue, a claim for infringement of copyright is unlikely to be successful.”
“First, … that there exist an original subject matter, in the sense of being the author’s own intellectual creation. Second, classification as a work is reserved to the elements that are the expression of such creation”
“I took the archetypal fly pitcher with the gold watch and the battered suitcase and decided to give him a family and a home life… I made him a guy with a burning ambition to make it big – but who never quite managed it… Other aspects of, like buying drinks for people down the pub even when he couldn’t really afford to, came from people I knew in the car trade. They always wanted to keep face and even if they were doing badly, they’d borrow money to flash about to let everyone think they were doing well. Wearing lots of gold rings was also part of that”
“I had written a one-page treatment thing explaining the idea. It was all about modern working-class London. I was sick to death of the kind of comedies I saw on telly which were based in the forties or earlier with toffs and that sort of tugging the forelock ‘Gor, bless you guv’ type of stuff which didn’t exist. Now we had a modern, vibrant, multi-racial, new slang London where a lot of working class guys had suits and a bit of dosh in their pockets and that was a very different thing.”
“I remember saying to Lennard and Nick in the bar: ‘I think we have got something really unusual here and we’re going to have to play this very differently’. They said: ‘What do you mean?’ and I said ‘Well I don’t see it as a situational comedy. It is more of a comedy drama. It isn’t just obvious jokes, its all about people and characters, there’s more to it than that’”
“Del (studying his reflection in the mirror): S’il vous plait, s’il vous plait what an enigma. I get better looking every day. I can’t wait for tomorrow”
“Look at you, you have three or four changes of clothes a day”
“Look at you, you have three or four changes of clothes a day”
“[21] … In a similar way to the protection of figures in drawings in the fine arts or applied art, a literary description also can create in the mind’s eye of the reader an equally clear “picture” of a character in a book. It must be borne in mind that, with the means of language, precisely the formative character qualities of a fictitious person can be portrayed in a much more differentiated way than with the means of fine art. Consequently a detailed description of character qualities can readily compensate for a representation of the external appearance of a person which can be conveyed by means of language to only a limited extent. [22] Copyright protection of a fictitious person may also exist independently of the specific intertwining relationships and the framework of the action as expressed in the plot of the novel. It is true that the characters in a story gain their individual characteristics usually through their actions and interactions with other persons who are depicted. However, that does not rule out the possibility that the personality expressed therein will become independent if its typical character qualities and patterns of behaviour recur regularly in different action and relationship context, particularly in the case of serialized stories. [23] Separate protection for a fictitious character therefore depends on the creator endowing the character with an unmistakable personality by means of a combination of distinctive character qualities and particular external features. The test for that purpose must be stringent. A mere description of the external form of a character or his or her appearance will not as a rule be sufficient”
“The more vague, the less ‘complete,’ a character, the less likely it is to qualify for copyright protection. An author ‘could not copyright a character described merely as an unexpectedly knowledgeable old wino,’ but could copyright ‘a character that has a specific name and a specific appearance Cogliostro A fictional character in a comic series. ’s age, obviously phony title (‘Count’), what he knows and says, his name, and his faintly Mosaic facial features combine to create a distinctive character. No more is required for a character copyright.Gaiman v. McFarlane, 360 F.3d 644, 660 (7th Cir. 2004); see also Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp., 45 F.2d 119, 121 (2d Cir. 1930) (L. Hand, J.). “It follows that the less developed the characters, the less they can be copyrighted; that is the penalty an author must bear for marking them too indistinctly”
“Apres moi c’est da louge” f. Item 9 (Feature 56) - Del’s eternal optimism. This is a key character trait and is appears in many episodes. It is reflected in two specific phrases associated with Del Boy: “He who dares, wins” and “This time next year, we will be millionaires”
“You are the [chosen] ones, the crème de menthe”
“Member States may provide for exceptions or limitations to the rights provided for in Articles 2 and 3 in the following cases: (k) use for the purpose of caricature, parody or pastiche;”
“The exceptions and limitations provided for in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 shall only be applied in certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work or other subject-matter and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightholder.”
"It is impossible to lay down any hard-and-fast definition of what is fair dealing, for it is a matter of fact, degree and impression. However, by far the most important factor is whether the alleged fair dealing is in fact commercially competing with the proprietor's exploitation of the copyright work, a substitute for the probable purchase of authorised copies, and the like. If it is, the fair dealing defence will almost certainly fail. If it is not and there is a moderate taking and there are no special adverse factors, the defence is likely to succeed, especially if the defendant's additional purpose is to right a wrong, to ventilate an honest grievance, to engage in political controversy, and so on. The second most important factor is whether the work has already been published or otherwise exposed to the public. If it has not, and especially if the material has been obtained by a breach of confidence or other mean or underhand dealing, the courts will be reluctant to say this is fair. However, this is by no means conclusive, for sometimes it is necessary for the purposes of legitimate public controversy to make use of 'leaked' information. The third most important factor is the amount and importance of the work that has been taken. For, although it is permissible to take a substantial part of the work (if not, there could be no question of infringement in the first place), in some circumstances the taking of an excessive amount, or the taking of even a small amount if on a regular basis, would negative fair dealing."
“Probably, in order to come within an exception, the act in question must not only satisfy the terms of the exception but must also conform to the three-step test laid down in Art.5(5) of the Directive.”
“A parody is an imitation which exaggerates the characteristics of a work or style for comic effect. Such is the broad definition on which most dictionaries or reference books agree”
“A n. 1. prose, verse or (occas.) artistic composition in which the characteristic themes and style of a particular work, author, etc., are exaggerated or applied to an inappropriate subject, esp. for the purposes of ridicule… 2. Fig. A poor or feeble imitation, a travesty M19. B. v 1. V.t. Compose a parody of; be a parody of M18. B v.i. Parody a composition rare L19 2. V.t. fig. imitate in a poor or feeble manner, travesty”
“1. Is the concept of ‘parody’ an autonomous concept of EU law? “2. If so, must a parody satisfy the following conditions or conform to the following characteristics: —display an original character of its own (originality); —display that character in such a manner that the parody cannot reasonably be ascribed to the author of the original work; —seek to be humorous or to mock, regardless of whether any criticism thereby expressed applies to the original work or to something or someone else;—mention the source of the parodied work? “3. Must a work satisfy any other conditions or conform to other characteristics in order to be capable of being labelled as a parody?”
“The Advocate General convincingly explained that parodies do not have to “target” an underlying copyright work and that contemporary cultural practice encompasses parodies which adapt works in order to comment on social practices and behaviour beyond the boundaries of the underlying work (so-called “weapon parodies”). However, a parody must target something. The editor of The Oxford Book of Parodiessays “A parody is no longer worthy of the name, however, if it loses sight of its target”
“Although parody and imitation are close, what distinguishes them is that parody focuses on criticizing or mocking the original whereas imitation merely pays tribute to the original work, thereby lacking the critical distance which is so important to in a work of parody”
“it does express some kind of opinion by means of its imitation, but noticeable difference, from the work parodied”
“As I have already stated, EU copyright law takes account of various rights and interests which could conflict with the exclusive rights of authors and other rightholders, in particular the freedom of the arts. Exceptions to the exclusive rights such as the quotation, and caricature, parody and pastiche exceptions facilitate dialogue and artistic confrontation through references to pre-existing works”
“As for the concept of pastiche, it consists in the imitation of the style of a work or an author without necessarily taking any elements of that work. However, the present case concerns the reverse situation whereby a phonogram is taken to create a work in a completely different style.”
“the ordinary meanings of pastiche suggest that it exhibits features that are distinct from, and operate well outside of, the genres of parody and caricature.”
“Returning to s.30A, the copyright definition of pastiche should reflect the term’s essential meaning, which covers two key activities: imitation of the style of pre-existing works, and the utilisation or assemblage of pre-existing works in new works.”