{"id":412,"date":"2019-04-17T11:22:47","date_gmt":"2019-04-17T11:22:47","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2019-06-11T08:06:43","modified_gmt":"2019-06-11T08:06:43","slug":"copyright-law-creative-work-8262","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/free-law-essays\/copyright-law\/copyright-law-creative-work-8262.php","title":{"rendered":"Copyright Law: Music as Creative Work"},"content":{"rendered":"

Music can be defined in various ways;
\nit is said to be \u201cvocal or instrumental sounds combined in such a way to
\nproduce beauty of form, harmony and expression of emotion\u201d[1]<\/a>
\nor it could even be described as \u201cthe written or printed signs representing
\nvocal or instrumental sound\u201d[2]<\/a>.
\nIn the United Kingdom the law that protects different types of works including
\nmusic is regarded as copyright. This essay will analyse the copyright law in
\nregards to the creativity of music as a musical work. It will also give
\narguments for and against the English law not addressing the creative aspect of
\nmusic with the help of cases and legislation.<\/p>\n

According to Bainbridge \u201ccopyright is a property right that subsists in certain specified types of work provided for by the Copyright Designs and Patent Act 1988<\/a>.\u201d[3]<\/a> There are certain necessary preconditions that need to be fulfilled before copyright can exist in any type of work that was created[4]<\/a>.  One of the necessary conditions for copyright to subsist is subject matter[5]<\/a>. When dealing with copyright the subject matter is very important; it protects (i) certain types of works done by the author, (ii) that are original to the author, (iii) that are fixed in certain forms and (iv) that are expressions of ideas and not ideas themselves[6]<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Copyright looks at the authorship of
\nthe dramatic, literary, musical and artistic work[7]<\/a>.
\nIt seeks to protect the rights of individuals that created the work. Section 9
\nof the Copyright Designs and Patent Act (CDPA) 1988 addresses the issue of
\nauthorship and it can be seen that it also lists out sound recording, film,
\nbroadcasting and typographical arrangement[8]<\/a>.
\nWhen new forms of authorship arise they are placed into one of the existing
\ncategories stated out in the CDPA 1988 by case law[9]<\/a>.
\nLightman J explained in the case of Robin Ray v Classic FM plc[10]<\/strong><\/a>
\n<\/em>someone acting as a mere scribe producing the copyright expression
\naccurately in accordance with instructions but without making any creative
\ncontributions whatsoever can never be an author or co-author of a work[11]<\/a>.
\nLightman J was of the view that there must be an essential creative input to be
\nregarded as an author or to satisfy the test of authorship.  <\/p>\n

Authorship can be categorised as joint authorship and co-authorship<\/a>. Joint authorship is simply when a \u201cwork is produced by the collaboration of two or more authors in which the contribution of each author is not distinct from that of the other author or authors.\u201d[12]<\/a> It is important to note that each author must contribute to the making of the work and the contributions must be significant and original.[13]<\/a> This was illustrated in the case of Godfrey v Lees [1995]<\/em>.[14]<\/a> The court described the test for joint authorship in a work of music which was \u2018the claimant to joint authorship of a work must establish that he has made a significant and original contribution to the creation of the work and that he has done so pursuant to a common design. It is not necessary that his contribution to the work is equal in terms of quantity, quality or originality to that of his collaborators. Nor, in the case of a song, does it matter that his contribution is to the orchestral arrangement of the song rather than to the song itself.\u2019[15]<\/a> The case of Tate v Thomas[16]<\/strong><\/a><\/em> also applied the principle of joint authorship that was seen in Godfrey v Lees [1995][17]<\/a> . Co-authorship on the other hand is when \u201ca work produced by the collaboration of the author of a musical work and the author of a literary work where the two works are created in order to be used together\u201d[18]<\/a>. Co-authorship usually occurs in the production of musical works and this is as a result of the change in the EU legislation[19]<\/a>. <\/p>\n

The CDPA 1988 has an extensive list
\nof the specific types of creation automatically protected by copyright law[20]<\/a>.
\nThe fact that the list is extensive has resulted in the exclusion from UK
\ncopyright law of \u2018works\u2019 which would otherwise be protected in other countries.[21]<\/a>
\nAn example of this would be the case of Lancome Parfums v. Kecofa [2006]<\/em>[22]<\/a>.
\n<\/em>The Dutch Supreme Court protected perfumes by copyright[23]<\/a>
\nwhich would not be possible under English law[24]<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The second condition for copyright to
\nexist is originality. This is one of the important factors when referring to copyright.
\nSection 1 of the CDPA 1988 makes reference to the originality of literary,
\ndramatic, musical and artistic work. According to Oxford dictionary originality
\nis the \u2018ability to think independently.\u2019[25]<\/a>
\nIn Walter v Lane<\/em>[26]<\/a>
\nthe House of Lords held that the reporters were authors under the Copyright Act
\n1842. They went on by saying that the effort, skill and time spent on the
\nwritten speeches given by the Earl of Roseberry were enough to make them original;
\ntherefore the work was covered by copyright.[27]<\/a>
\nThe test for originality in English law has customarily been a limited one[28]<\/a>.
\nThe test shows that there is no need for the work to express original or
\ninventive thought but the expression of the thought should originate from the
\nauthor[29]<\/a>;
\nit should originate from the author in the sense that it should not be copied
\nfrom another source[30]<\/a>.
\nThis test can be seen in the judgement of Peterson J in the case of University
\nof London Press Ltd v University Tutorial Press Ltd [1916].<\/em>[31]<\/a><\/p>\n

In addition to originality, fixation
\nis also another condition that has to be satisfied before a work can be
\nprotected by copyright. When deciding the subject matter of any work the
\nfixation of that particular work that has been created has to be looked at. \u2018It
\nmust be fixed in a tangible medium of expression\u2019[32]<\/a>.
\nWork is regarded as fixed when it is kept in a medium which can be perceived,
\nreproduced and communicated[33]<\/a>.
\nFor example, writing a song lyric on a piece of paper. In this case the paper
\nwould be the medium. Also, the song is fixed the moment the author records it
\non a voice recorder. Fixation brings about different benefits. One of such is
\nthat it produces certainty about the work that is being claimed[34]<\/a>
\nand it also encourages authors to produce works in a form that can be used by
\nthe society.[35]<\/a>
\nAnother example of fixation would be a musician improvising a new tune while performing on stage, without ever
\nwriting it down or recording it[36]<\/a>.
\nUnless the improvised tune is fixed it will not be protected by copyright[37]<\/a>.
\n\u2018UK copyright law expressly states that copyright will not exist in a literary,
\ndramatic or musical work \u2018unless and until it is recorded, in writing or
\notherwise\u2019, although it does not matter whether the fixation is carried out by
\nthe author or by someone else; what matters is that the work is fixed\u2019[38]<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Other than fixation the final
\ncondition for a work to be protectable by copyright is the expressions of ideas and not ideas
\nthemselves. Copyright protects only the expression of the idea, and not the
\nunderlying idea, method, or process[39]<\/a>
\nhence there may be occasions where the originator of the information that forms
\nthe basis of the work in question will not be seen as the author of the work[40]<\/a>.
\nFor example in the case of Springfield v Thame<\/em>[41]<\/a>the claimant, a journalist supplied newspaper with information in the form
\nof an article[42]<\/a>.
\nThe editor of the Daily Mail, from that information composed a paragraph which
\nappeared in the newspaper[43]<\/a>.
\nIt was held that the claimant was not the author of the paragraph printed in
\nthe newspaper[44]<\/a>.
\nAnother example can also be seen in the case of Walter v Lane.[45]<\/a>\n<\/p>\n

In order for copyright to protect any
\nwork these four conditions have to be met. Looking specifically at musical
\nworks section 3(1) of the CDPA 1988 covers what a musical work consists of. According
\nto s3(1) CDPA 1988 \u201cmusical
\nwork means a work consisting of music, exclusive of any words or action
\nintended to be sung, spoken or performed with the music\u201d[46]<\/a>.
\nIn England there is a closed list system for copyright. A musical work does not
\nnecessarily give itself a clean split between the lyrics and the music itself
\nas seen in the earlier paragraph regarding authorship.  A musical work can include lyrics which fall
\nunder literary copyright while dance and performances that go with music are
\nclassified as dramatic copyright[47]<\/a>.
\nMusic may also include sound recording and soundtracks that are used in films.<\/p>\n

An argument that could be made against
\nthe English courts having little regards towards creativity of music would be
\nin relations to authorship. The case of Robin Ray v Classic FM plc[48]<\/strong><\/a><\/em>
\nas previously mentioned shows that the English Courts pay some level of attention
\ntowards the creativity of musical works. This was evident in Lightman J\u2019s
\njudgement where he made reference to creative input being essential for a
\nperson to be regarded as an author or co-author.<\/p>\n

In addition to this, the moral rights
\nof an author can be said to protect creativity. Moral rights are described in
\narticle 6 of the Berne Convention for Protection of Literacy and Artistic Works
\n1886[49]<\/a>.  Works often mean more than just economic
\nvalue; they can be very special to the author who had invested a lot in the
\nwork emotionally and intellectually[50]<\/a>.
\nHence copyright works need to be protected in different ways compared to the
\ntraditional forms of property[51]<\/a>.
\n\u2018Moral rights are only available for literary, dramatic, musical and artistic
\nworks and film, as well as some performances\u2019[52]<\/a>.
\nThere are four moral rights recognised in the UK which are (i) the right to
\nattribution, (ii) the right to object to derogatory treatment of a work, (iii)
\nthe right to object to false attribution and (iv) the right to privacy of
\ncertain photographs and films[53]<\/a>.
\nFor the purpose of the question, only two moral rights will be looked at.<\/p>\n

The right to object to derogatory
\ntreatment of work can be used as evidence to show that the English courts
\nconsider creativity when it comes to music. Firstly this moral right covers
\nmusical works. Derogatory treatment is defined as any alterations made to the
\nwork that will amount to an alteration or damage of the work[54]<\/a>;
\nor is harmful to the reputation of the author[55]<\/a>.
\nIt can be seen that this right preserves the idea of creativity and originality
\nas well as protecting these key features from being abused in a way that could
\nbe offensive to the author of the work.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, the right to object to
\nfalse attribution is the right not to be named as the author of a work you did
\nnot create[56]<\/a>.  This would prevent, for example, a well-known
\nauthor being named as the author of a story they did not write[57]<\/a>.
\n This right is infringed where copies of
\na work containing false acknowledgment are handed out to the public[58]<\/a>.
\n\u2018The rights may be further infringed where a falsely attributed work is
\nperformed in public or broadcasted where a person knows or has reason to
\nbelieve that the attribution is false\u2019[59]<\/a>.
\nThis moral right can also be said to protect the intellectual creativity of an
\nauthor and it has been adopted by English law. A case that gives effect to this
\nis Clark v Associated Newspaper [1998]<\/em>[60]<\/a>.<\/p>\n

In rebutting these arguments the
\noriginality factor will be used. In Britain there have been some criticisms
\nthat the English courts tend to focus more on labour and skill without mush
\nreference to intellectual effort or creativity.[61]<\/a>
\n\u2018The approach to creativity is similar to that of originality. Even a small
\namount of creative labour will allow an individual to be treated as an author\u2019[62]<\/a>.
\nAn example of this can be seen in the case of Cummins v Bond [1927]<\/em>.[63]<\/a>In
\nthis case a spiritualist said that she had taken down words from dictation at a
\ns\u00e9ance in automatic writing[64]<\/a>.
\nThe dictation came at great speed and the words had to be translated from an
\nunknown tongue into archaic English. The medium had exercised sufficient skill
\nto be an author of the resulting work[65]<\/a>.
\nIn the UK, the courts have set a low standard for satisfying the originality
\nrequirement[66]<\/a>.
\nThey have no expectations of the work to be innovative, creative or even
\nuseful. Nor do they judge the quality of the work[67]<\/a>.  As long as the creation of the work involves
\nsome labour, skill, judgement or effort, the work will be considered to be
\noriginal[68]<\/a>. <\/p>\n

However, not all types of labour,
\nskill and judgement will be adequate in a copyright context[69]<\/a>;
\nif the effort involved in the creation of the work is trivial this will not be
\nenough[70]<\/a>.
\nIn this way, the original factor ensures that copyright protects only an author\u2019s
\nown intellectual creation[71]<\/a>.<\/p>\n

 With regards to originality, musical works can
\ninclude an adaptation or arrangement of existing musical work which may result
\nin a separate musical copyright if it is sufficiently original[72]<\/a>.  In Sawkins v Hyperion Records Ltd<\/em>[73]<\/a>
\nit was seen that a music editor named Lionel sawkins had created performing
\nedition of Lalande\u2019s works. These were held to be copyright works in their own
\nright[74]<\/a>.
\nThe corrections and additions necessary to allow the music to be played by
\nmodern performers were of sufficient audio and musical significance to attract copyright
\nprotection[75]<\/a>. Originality
\nrequired merely skill and labour, and was evident here[76]<\/a>.
\nMummery LJ explained in this case that \u2018the essence of music is combining
\nsounds for listening to. Music is not the same as mere noise. The sound of
\nmusic is intended to produce effects of some kind on the listener\u2019s emotions
\nand intellect\u2026..\u2019[77]<\/a>
\nThis case shows how the English courts look more to originality rather than the
\ncreative aspect of musical works.<\/p>\n

Other than this, the expression of an
\nidea and not the idea itself factor can be used as an argument to support the
\nnotion that English Courts do not pay too much regard to creativity. This feature
\nlooks at the style of the idea; that is, more like an outer appearance of the
\nidea and not the underlying technique or method that was used to achieve the idea
\nitself which would reflect the creative aspect. As mentioned earlier the case
\nof Springfield v Thame[78]<\/strong><\/a><\/em>
\nis a good illustration of the English courts paying little regards to
\ncreativity but rather look to the expression of the idea.<\/p>\n

Looking at the influence of the
\nEuropean Union (EU) on the English courts it can be seen that on some level the
\nEU has had some impact on Britain. In Infopaq International A\/S v Danske
\nDagblades Forening[79]<\/strong><\/a><\/em>
\nthe CJEU held that a work is only protected on the grounds of originality if it
\nis the author\u2019s own intellectual creation even though the Directive does not
\nprovide for originality and there was no need to seek to harmonise the concept.[80]<\/a>
\nThe decision that was made in Infopaq[81]<\/strong><\/a><\/em>
\nwas considered and
\napplied in the case of Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd v Meltwater Holding BV
\n[2010]<\/em>[82]<\/a>
\nin the UK. It should be noted that Infopaq<\/em> has influenced the UK courts
\nrelating to computer programs, database or photographs. All these works are
\nprotected by copyright only if they are original in the sense that they were
\nformed from the author\u2019s own intellectual creation[83]<\/a>.
\nThis can be found under a number of EU Directives[84]<\/a>.
\nAnother case whereby it can be seen that the EU has had some influence on
\nEnglish Law is Temple Island Collections Ltd v New England Teas Ltd [2012]<\/em>[85]<\/a>.
\n<\/em>However the influence of referring to intellectual creativity has not yet
\nextended to musical works in England.<\/p>\n

In conclusion, English courts
\nconsider the subject matter of all works which covers authorship, originality,
\nfixation and the expression of ideas as conditions to be satisfied for it to be
\nprotected by copyright. Originality is a major factor in which the English
\ncourts have adopted a test for. The test has a very low threshold whereby
\nlittle innovation is needed to pass the test; based on the arguments and cases
\ngiven the statement which make reference to English courts paying little
\nregards to the creative aspects of music can be considered as true to a large
\nextent.<\/p>\n

\n

[1]<\/a>
\nOxforddictionaries.com, \u2018Music\u2019 https:\/\/en.oxforddictionaries.com\/definition\/music<\/a>
\naccessed 23 April 2017<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a>  Oxforddictionaries.com, \u2018Music\u2019 https:\/\/en.oxforddictionaries.com\/definition\/music<\/a>
\n accessed 23 April 2017<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a>
\nDavid Bainbridge, Intellectual Property, <\/em>(9th<\/sup> edn, Pearson
\nEducation Limited, 2012)p31 <\/p>\n

[4]<\/a> Daniel
\nHunter and Dennis Patterson, The Oxford Introductions to U.S. Law:
\nIntellectual Property<\/em>, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012) <\/p>\n

[5]<\/a> Daniel
\nHunter and Dennis Patterson, The Oxford Introductions to U.S. Law:
\nIntellectual Property<\/em>, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012)<\/p>\n

[6]<\/a> Daniel
\nHunter and Dennis Patterson, The Oxford Introductions to U.S. Law:
\nIntellectual Property<\/em>, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012)<\/p>\n

[7]<\/a> Catherine
\nSeville, Newnham College Cambridge, \u2018Copyright: authorship\u2019, (29 October 2015) https:\/\/login.westlaw.co.uk\/maf\/wluk\/app\/document?&srguid=i0ad8289e0000015b9c43bf51850a8970&docguid=IC4B074A003FB11E384D0AEA3440C8C89&hitguid=IC4B074A003FB11E384D0AEA3440C8C89&rank=7&spos=7&epos=7&td=4000&crumb-action=append&context=12&resolvein=true<\/a>
\naccessed 23April 2017<\/p>\n

[8]<\/a>
\nCopyright, Designs and Patent Act 1988 s9                     <\/p>\n

[9]<\/a> Daniel
\nHunter and Dennis Patterson, The Oxford Introductions to U.S. Law:
\nIntellectual Property<\/em>, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012)<\/p>\n

[10]<\/a> Robin
\nRay v Classic FM Plc [1988] ECC 488<\/p>\n

[11]<\/a> Robin
\nRay v Classic FM Plc [1988] ECC 488<\/p>\n

[12]<\/a> Copyright,
\nDesigns and Patent Act 1988 s10(1)<\/p>\n

[13]<\/a> Catherine
\nSeville, Newnham College Cambridge, \u2018Copyright: authorship\u2019, (29 October 2015) https:\/\/login.westlaw.co.uk\/maf\/wluk\/app\/document?&srguid=i0ad8289e0000015b9c43bf51850a8970&docguid=IC4B074A003FB11E384D0AEA3440C8C89&hitguid=IC4B074A003FB11E384D0AEA3440C8C89&rank=7&spos=7&epos=7&td=4000&crumb-action=append&context=12&resolvein=true<\/a>
\naccessed 25 April 2017<\/p>\n

[14]<\/a> Godfrey
\nv Lees [1995] EMLR 307<\/p>\n

[15]<\/a> Godfrey
\nv Lees [1995] EMLR 307<\/p>\n

[16]<\/a> Tate
\nv Thomas [1921] 1 Ch. 503<\/p>\n

[17]<\/a> Godfrey
\nv Lees [1995] EMLR 307<\/p>\n

[18]<\/a> Copyright,
\nDesigns and Patent Act 1988 s10A(1)<\/p>\n

[19]<\/a> Catherine
\nSeville, Newnham College Cambridge, \u2018Copyright: authorship\u2019, (29 October 2015) https:\/\/login.westlaw.co.uk\/maf\/wluk\/app\/document?&srguid=i0ad8289e0000015b9c43bf51850a8970&docguid=IC4B074A003FB11E384D0AEA3440C8C89&hitguid=IC4B074A003FB11E384D0AEA3440C8C89&rank=7&spos=7&epos=7&td=4000&crumb-action=append&context=12&resolvein=true<\/a>
\naccessed 25 April 2017<\/p>\n

[20]<\/a>
\nOxbridgenotes.co.uk, \u2018Copyright Subject Matter Notes\u2019, https:\/\/www.oxbridgenotes.co.uk\/revision_notes\/law-intellectual-property-law\/samples\/copyright-subject-matter<\/a>
\naccessed 23 April 2017 <\/p>\n

[21]<\/a> Oxbridgenotes.co.uk,
\n\u2018Copyright Subject Matter Notes\u2019, https:\/\/www.oxbridgenotes.co.uk\/revision_notes\/law-intellectual-property-law\/samples\/copyright-subject-matter<\/a>
\naccessed 23 April 2017<\/p>\n

[22]<\/a>
\nLancome Parfums v. Kecofa [2006] ECDR (26) 363 (Dutch Supreme Court)<\/p>\n

[23]<\/a>
\nLancome Parfums v. Kecofa [2006] ECDR (26) 363 (Dutch Supreme Court)<\/p>\n

[24]<\/a>
\nOxbridgenotes.co.uk, \u2018Copyright Subject Matter Notes\u2019, https:\/\/www.oxbridgenotes.co.uk\/revision_notes\/law-intellectual-property-law\/samples\/copyright-subject-matter<\/a>
\n accessed 23 April 2017<\/p>\n

[25]<\/a>
\nOxforddictionaries.com, \u2018Originality\u2019, https:\/\/en.oxforddictionaries.com\/definition\/originality<\/a>
\naccessed 23 April 2017<\/p>\n

[26]<\/a>
\nWalter v Lane [1900] AC 539<\/p>\n

[27]<\/a>
\nWalter v Lane [1900] AC 539<\/p>\n

[28]<\/a>
\nCatherine Seville, Newnham College Cambridge, \u2018Copyright: classification of
\nworks\u2019, (30 October 2015) < https:\/\/login.westlaw.co.uk\/maf\/wluk\/app\/document?&srguid=i0ad832f20000015b9c8439126d0005dc&docguid=IC4AFB15003FB11E384D0AEA3440C8C89&hitguid=IC4AFB15003FB11E384D0AEA3440C8C89&rank=6&spos=6&epos=6&td=4000&crumb-action=append&context=12&resolvein=true<\/a>>
\naccessed 23 April 2017<\/p>\n

[29]<\/a>
\nCatherine Seville, Newnham College Cambridge, \u2018Copyright: classification of
\nworks\u2019, (30 October 2015) https:\/\/login.westlaw.co.uk\/maf\/wluk\/app\/document?&srguid=i0ad832f20000015b9c8439126d0005dc&docguid=IC4AFB15003FB11E384D0AEA3440C8C89&hitguid=IC4AFB15003FB11E384D0AEA3440C8C89&rank=6&spos=6&epos=6&td=4000&crumb-action=append&context=12&resolvein=true<\/a>
\naccessed 23 April 2017<\/p>\n

[30]<\/a>
\nCatherine Seville, Newnham College Cambridge, \u2018Copyright: classification of
\nworks\u2019, (30 October 2015) https:\/\/login.westlaw.co.uk\/maf\/wluk\/app\/document?&srguid=i0ad832f20000015b9c8439126d0005dc&docguid=IC4AFB15003FB11E384D0AEA3440C8C89&hitguid=IC4AFB15003FB11E384D0AEA3440C8C89&rank=6&spos=6&epos=6&td=4000&crumb-action=append&context=12&resolvein=true<\/a>
\naccessed 23 April 2017<\/p>\n

[31]<\/a> University
\nof London Press Ltd v University Tutorial Press Ltd [1916] [1916] 2 Ch. 601<\/p>\n

[32]<\/a>   Bitlaw, \u2018Obtaining Copyright Protection\u2019, http:\/\/www.bitlaw.com\/copyright\/obtaining.html<\/a>
\naccessed 25 April 2017<\/p>\n

[33]<\/a>   Bitlaw, \u2018Obtaining Copyright Protection\u2019, http:\/\/www.bitlaw.com\/copyright\/obtaining.html<\/a>
\naccessed 25 April 2017<\/p>\n

[34]<\/a> Daniel
\nHunter and Dennis Patterson, The Oxford Introductions to U.S. Law:
\nIntellectual Property<\/em>, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012)<\/p>\n

[35]<\/a> Daniel
\nHunter and Dennis Patterson, The Oxford Introductions to U.S. Law:
\nIntellectual Property<\/em>, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012)<\/p>\n

[36]<\/a> CopyrightUser.Org,
\n\u2018Case File #14: THE MISSING MANUSCRIPT\u2019, http:\/\/copyrightuser.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/CU_CaseFile_14.pdf<\/a>
\naccessed 25 April 2017<\/p>\n

[37]<\/a> CopyrightUser.Org,
\n\u2018Case File #14: THE MISSING MANUSCRIPT\u2019, http:\/\/copyrightuser.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/CU_CaseFile_14.pdf<\/a>
\naccessed 25 April 2017<\/p>\n

[38]<\/a> CopyrightUser.Org,
\n\u2018Case File #14: THE MISSING MANUSCRIPT\u2019, http:\/\/copyrightuser.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/CU_CaseFile_14.pdf<\/a>
\naccessed 25 April 2017<\/p>\n

[39]<\/a>   Daniel Hunter and Dennis Patterson, The
\nOxford Introductions to U.S. Law: Intellectual Property<\/em>, (New York: Oxford University
\nPress, 2012)<\/p>\n

[40]<\/a> David
\nBainbridge, Intellectual Property, (9th edn, Pearson Education Limited, 2012)
\np94<\/p>\n

[41]<\/a> Springfield
\nv Thame (1903) 19 TLR 650<\/p>\n

[42]<\/a> Springfield
\nv Thame (1903) 19 TLR 650<\/p>\n

[43]<\/a> Springfield
\nv Thame (1903) 19 TLR 650<\/p>\n

[44]<\/a> Springfield
\nv Thame (1903) 19 TLR 650<\/p>\n

[45]<\/a> Walter
\nv Lane [1900] AC 539<\/p>\n

[46]<\/a> Copyright,
\nDesigns and Patent Act 1988 S3(1)<\/p>\n

[47]<\/a> Catherine
\nSeville, Newnham College Cambridge, \u2018Copyright: classification of works\u2019, (30
\nOctober 2015) https:\/\/login.westlaw.co.uk\/maf\/wluk\/app\/document?&srguid=i0ad832f20000015b9c8439126d0005dc&docguid=IC4AFB15003FB11E384D0AEA3440C8C89&hitguid=IC4AFB15003FB11E384D0AEA3440C8C89&rank=6&spos=6&epos=6&td=4000&crumb-action=append&context=12&resolvein=true<\/a>
\n accessed 23 April 2017<\/p>\n

[48]<\/a> Robin
\nRay v Classic FM Plc [1988] ECC 488<\/p>\n

[49]<\/a> Berne
\nConvention for Protection of Literacy and Artistic Works 1886 Article 6<\/p>\n

[50]<\/a> GOV.UK,
\n\u2018The rights granted by copyright\u2019, https:\/\/www.gov.uk\/guidance\/the-rights-granted-by-copyright<\/a>
\naccessed 25 April 2017<\/p>\n

[51]<\/a> GOV.UK,
\n\u2018The rights granted by copyright\u2019, https:\/\/www.gov.uk\/guidance\/the-rights-granted-by-copyright<\/a>
\naccessed 25 April 2017<\/p>\n

[52]<\/a> GOV.UK,
\n\u2018The rights granted by copyright\u2019, https:\/\/www.gov.uk\/guidance\/the-rights-granted-by-copyright<\/a>
\naccessed 25 April 2017<\/p>\n

[53]<\/a> GOV.UK,
\n\u2018The rights granted by copyright\u2019, https:\/\/www.gov.uk\/guidance\/the-rights-granted-by-copyright<\/a>
\naccessed 25 April 2017<\/p>\n

[54]<\/a> GOV.UK,
\n\u2018The rights granted by copyright\u2019, https:\/\/www.gov.uk\/guidance\/the-rights-granted-by-copyright<\/a>
\naccessed 25 April 2017<\/p>\n

[55]<\/a> GOV.UK,
\n\u2018The rights granted by copyright\u2019, https:\/\/www.gov.uk\/guidance\/the-rights-granted-by-copyright<\/a>
\naccessed 25 April 2017<\/p>\n

[56]<\/a>
\n  GOV.UK, \u2018The rights granted by
\ncopyright\u2019, https:\/\/www.gov.uk\/guidance\/the-rights-granted-by-copyright<\/a>
\naccessed 25 April 2017                     <\/p>\n

[57]<\/a>   GOV.UK, \u2018The rights granted by copyright\u2019, https:\/\/www.gov.uk\/guidance\/the-rights-granted-by-copyright<\/a>
\naccessed 25 April 2017<\/p>\n

[58]<\/a> Mylawyer,
\n\u2018Moral Rights\u2019, http:\/\/www.mylawyer.co.uk\/moral-rights-of-a-work-a-A76063D76416\/<\/a>
\naccessed 25 April 2017<\/p>\n

[59]<\/a> Mylawyer,
\n\u2018Moral Rights\u2019, http:\/\/www.mylawyer.co.uk\/moral-rights-of-a-work-a-A76063D76416\/<\/a>
\naccessed 25 April 2017<\/p>\n

[60]<\/a> Alan
\nKenneth McKenzie Clark v Associated Newspapers Ltd [1998] 1 WLR 1558<\/p>\n

[61]<\/a> Catherine
\nSeville, Newnham College Cambridge, \u2018Copyright: classification of works\u2019, (30
\nOctober 2015) https:\/\/login.westlaw.co.uk\/maf\/wluk\/app\/document?&srguid=i0ad832f20000015b9c8439126d0005dc&docguid=IC4AFB15003FB11E384D0AEA3440C8C89&hitguid=IC4AFB15003FB11E384D0AEA3440C8C89&rank=6&spos=6&epos=6&td=4000&crumb-action=append&context=12&resolvein=true<\/a>
\naccessed 23 April 2017 <\/p>\n

[62]<\/a> Catherine
\nSeville, Newnham College Cambridge, \u2018Copyright: classification of works\u2019, (30
\nOctober 2015) https:\/\/login.westlaw.co.uk\/maf\/wluk\/app\/document?&srguid=i0ad832f20000015b9c8439126d0005dc&docguid=IC4AFB15003FB11E384D0AEA3440C8C89&hitguid=IC4AFB15003FB11E384D0AEA3440C8C89&rank=6&spos=6&epos=6&td=4000&crumb-action=append&context=12&resolvein=true<\/a>
\naccessed 23 April 2017 <\/p>\n

[63]<\/a> Cummins
\nv Bond [1927] 1 Ch. 167<\/p>\n

[64]<\/a> Cummins
\nv Bond [1927] 1 Ch. 167<\/p>\n

[65]<\/a> Cummins
\nv Bond [1927] 1 Ch. 167<\/p>\n

[66]<\/a> CopyrightUser.Org,
\n\u2018Case File #14: THE MISSING MANUSCRIPT\u2019, http:\/\/copyrightuser.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/CU_CaseFile_14.pdf<\/a>
\naccessed 25 April 2017<\/p>\n

[67]<\/a> CopyrightUser.Org,
\n\u2018Case File #14: THE MISSING MANUSCRIPT\u2019, http:\/\/copyrightuser.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/CU_CaseFile_14.pdf<\/a>
\naccessed 25 April 2017<\/p>\n

[68]<\/a> CopyrightUser.Org,
\n\u2018Case File #14: THE MISSING MANUSCRIPT\u2019, http:\/\/copyrightuser.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/CU_CaseFile_14.pdf<\/a>
\naccessed 25 April 2017<\/p>\n

[69]<\/a> CopyrightUser.Org,
\n\u2018Case File #14: THE MISSING MANUSCRIPT\u2019, http:\/\/copyrightuser.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/CU_CaseFile_14.pdf<\/a>
\naccessed 25 April 2017<\/p>\n

[70]<\/a> CopyrightUser.Org,
\n\u2018Case File #14: THE MISSING MANUSCRIPT\u2019, http:\/\/copyrightuser.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/CU_CaseFile_14.pdf<\/a>
\naccessed 25 April 2017<\/p>\n

[71]<\/a> CopyrightUser.Org,
\n\u2018Case File #14: THE MISSING MANUSCRIPT\u2019, http:\/\/copyrightuser.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/CU_CaseFile_14.pdf<\/a>
\naccessed 25 April 2017<\/p>\n

[72]<\/a> Catherine
\nSeville, Newnham College Cambridge, \u2018Copyright: classification of works\u2019, (30
\nOctober 2015) https:\/\/login.westlaw.co.uk\/maf\/wluk\/app\/document?&srguid=i0ad832f20000015b9c8439126d0005dc&docguid=IC4AFB15003FB11E384D0AEA3440C8C89&hitguid=IC4AFB15003FB11E384D0AEA3440C8C89&rank=6&spos=6&epos=6&td=4000&crumb-action=append&context=12&resolvein=true<\/a>
\naccessed 23 April 2017<\/p>\n

[73]<\/a>Sawkins  v. Hyperion Records [2005] 1 W.L.R. 3281, <\/p>\n

[74]<\/a> Sawkins  v. Hyperion Records [2005] 1 W.L.R. 3281, <\/p>\n

[75]<\/a> Sawkins  v. Hyperion Records [2005] 1 W.L.R. 3281, <\/p>\n

[76]<\/a> Catherine
\nSeville, Newnham College Cambridge, \u2018Copyright: classification of works\u2019, (30
\nOctober 2015) https:\/\/login.westlaw.co.uk\/maf\/wluk\/app\/document?&srguid=i0ad832f20000015b9c8439126d0005dc&docguid=IC4AFB15003FB11E384D0AEA3440C8C89&hitguid=IC4AFB15003FB11E384D0AEA3440C8C89&rank=6&spos=6&epos=6&td=4000&crumb-action=append&context=12&resolvein=true<\/a>
\n accessed 23 April 2017<\/p>\n

[77]<\/a> Sawkins  v. Hyperion Records [2005] 1 W.L.R. 3281,
\n3295<\/p>\n

[78]<\/a> Springfield v Thame (1903) 19 TLR
\n650<\/p>\n

[79]<\/a> Case C-5\/08 Infopaq International
\nA\/S v Danske Dagblades Forening<\/p>\n

[80]<\/a> Case C-5\/08 Infopaq International
\nA\/S v Danske Dagblades Forening<\/p>\n

[81]<\/a> Case C-5\/08 Infopaq International A\/S v
\nDanske Dagblades Forening<\/p>\n

[82]<\/a> Newspaper
\nLicensing Agency Ltd v Meltwater Holding BV [2010]  EWHC 3099 (Ch)<\/p>\n

[83]<\/a> Catherine
\nSeville, Newnham College Cambridge, \u2018Copyright: classification of works\u2019, (30
\nOctober 2015) https:\/\/login.westlaw.co.uk\/maf\/wluk\/app\/document?&srguid=i0ad832f20000015b9c8439126d0005dc&docguid=IC4AFB15003FB11E384D0AEA3440C8C89&hitguid=IC4AFB15003FB11E384D0AEA3440C8C89&rank=6&spos=6&epos=6&td=4000&crumb-action=append&context=12&resolvein=true<\/a>
\n accessed 23 April 2017<\/p>\n

[84]<\/a> Catherine
\nSeville, Newnham College Cambridge, \u2018Copyright: classification of works\u2019, (30
\nOctober 2015) https:\/\/login.westlaw.co.uk\/maf\/wluk\/app\/document?&srguid=i0ad832f20000015b9c8439126d0005dc&docguid=IC4AFB15003FB11E384D0AEA3440C8C89&hitguid=IC4AFB15003FB11E384D0AEA3440C8C89&rank=6&spos=6&epos=6&td=4000&crumb-action=append&context=12&resolvein=true<\/a>
\n accessed 23 April 2017<\/p>\n

[85]<\/a> Temple
\nIsland Collections Ltd v New England Teas Ltd [2012]  EWPCC 1<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This essay will analyse the copyright law in regards to the creativity of music as a musical work.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[25],"tags":[85],"class_list":["post-412","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-free-law-essayscopyright-law","tag-uk-law"],"yoast_head":"\nCopyright Law: Music as Creative Work | LawTeacher.net<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"This essay will analyse the copyright law in regards to the creativity of music as a musical work.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/free-law-essays\/copyright-law\/copyright-law-creative-work-8262.php\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_GB\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Copyright Law: Music as Creative Work\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"This essay will analyse the copyright law in regards to the creativity of music as a musical work.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/free-law-essays\/copyright-law\/copyright-law-creative-work-8262.php\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"LawTeacher.net\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:author\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-large-logo.webp\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1920\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1080\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/webp\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"LawTeacher\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@LawTeacherNet\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@LawTeacherNet\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"LawTeacher\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Estimated reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"ScholarlyArticle\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/copyright-law\/copyright-law-creative-work-8262.php#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/copyright-law\/copyright-law-creative-work-8262.php\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"LawTeacher\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/b99962c073c877c4ab8ee3d2486cd56e\"},\"headline\":\"Copyright Law: Music as Creative Work\",\"datePublished\":\"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/copyright-law\/copyright-law-creative-work-8262.php\"},\"wordCount\":4405,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"UK Law\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Copyright Law\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/copyright-law\/copyright-law-creative-work-8262.php\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/copyright-law\/copyright-law-creative-work-8262.php\",\"name\":\"Copyright Law: Music as Creative Work | LawTeacher.net\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00\",\"description\":\"This essay will analyse the copyright law in regards to the creativity of music as a musical work.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/copyright-law\/copyright-law-creative-work-8262.php#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/copyright-law\/copyright-law-creative-work-8262.php\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/copyright-law\/copyright-law-creative-work-8262.php#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Copyright Law: Music as Creative Work\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/\",\"name\":\"Law Teacher\",\"description\":\"The Law Essay Professionals\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"LawTeacher.net\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Law Teacher\",\"alternateName\":\"LawTeacher.net\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-logo.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-logo.jpg\",\"width\":250,\"height\":250,\"caption\":\"Law Teacher\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/LawTeacherNet\",\"https:\/\/api.whatsapp.com\/send\/?phone=447723491966&text&type=phone_number&app_absent=0\"],\"description\":\"Law Teacher provides academic writing services for law students throughout the world.\",\"email\":\"contact@lawteacher.net\",\"telephone\":\"+44 115 966 7966\",\"numberOfEmployees\":{\"@type\":\"QuantitativeValue\",\"minValue\":\"51\",\"maxValue\":\"200\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/b99962c073c877c4ab8ee3d2486cd56e\",\"name\":\"LawTeacher\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4fdfab0a9ef25209f111018ecc8a983e19e57c5066a9277217a119582ccbeed3?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4fdfab0a9ef25209f111018ecc8a983e19e57c5066a9277217a119582ccbeed3?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"LawTeacher\"},\"description\":\"LawTeacher.net is the UK's leading provider of academic legal support, offering both writing services and an extensive collection of law study resources for students in the UK and overseas. Founded in 2003 by Grey's Inn graduate Barclay Littlewood, the Company was built on a commitment to excellence, with unique guarantees and a high standard of service from day one. The team includes over 500 UK legally qualified writing experts, with many practising solicitors and barristers, and several former lecturers.\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\",\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/LawTeacherNet\",\"https:\/\/gravatar.com\/lawteacherprofile\"],\"knowsAbout\":[\"Contract Law\",\"Criminal Law\",\"Constitutional and Administrative Law\",\"EU Law\",\"Tort Law\",\"Property Law\",\"Equity and Trusts\",\"Jurisprudence\",\"Company Law\",\"Commercial Law\",\"Family Law\",\"Human Rights Law\",\"Employment Law\",\"Evidence\",\"Public International Law\",\"Legal Research and Methods\",\"Dispute Resolution\",\"Business Law and Practice\",\"Civil Litigation\",\"Criminal Litigation\",\"Professional Conduct\",\"Taxation\",\"Wills and Administration of Estates\",\"Solicitors\u2019 Accounts\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/author\/lawteacher\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Copyright Law: Music as Creative Work | LawTeacher.net","description":"This essay will analyse the copyright law in regards to the creativity of music as a musical work.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/free-law-essays\/copyright-law\/copyright-law-creative-work-8262.php","og_locale":"en_GB","og_type":"article","og_title":"Copyright Law: Music as Creative Work","og_description":"This essay will analyse the copyright law in regards to the creativity of music as a musical work.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/free-law-essays\/copyright-law\/copyright-law-creative-work-8262.php","og_site_name":"LawTeacher.net","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\/","article_author":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet","article_published_time":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1920,"height":1080,"url":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-large-logo.webp","type":"image\/webp"}],"author":"LawTeacher","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@LawTeacherNet","twitter_site":"@LawTeacherNet","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"LawTeacher","Estimated reading time":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"ScholarlyArticle","@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/copyright-law\/copyright-law-creative-work-8262.php#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/copyright-law\/copyright-law-creative-work-8262.php"},"author":{"name":"LawTeacher","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/b99962c073c877c4ab8ee3d2486cd56e"},"headline":"Copyright Law: Music as Creative Work","datePublished":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/copyright-law\/copyright-law-creative-work-8262.php"},"wordCount":4405,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization"},"keywords":["UK Law"],"articleSection":["Copyright Law"],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/copyright-law\/copyright-law-creative-work-8262.php","url":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/copyright-law\/copyright-law-creative-work-8262.php","name":"Copyright Law: Music as Creative Work | LawTeacher.net","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#website"},"datePublished":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00","description":"This essay will analyse the copyright law in regards to the creativity of music as a musical work.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/copyright-law\/copyright-law-creative-work-8262.php#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/copyright-law\/copyright-law-creative-work-8262.php"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/copyright-law\/copyright-law-creative-work-8262.php#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Copyright Law: Music as Creative Work"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#website","url":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/","name":"Law Teacher","description":"The Law Essay Professionals","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization"},"alternateName":"LawTeacher.net","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization","name":"Law Teacher","alternateName":"LawTeacher.net","url":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-logo.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-logo.jpg","width":250,"height":250,"caption":"Law Teacher"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\/","https:\/\/x.com\/LawTeacherNet","https:\/\/api.whatsapp.com\/send\/?phone=447723491966&text&type=phone_number&app_absent=0"],"description":"Law Teacher provides academic writing services for law students throughout the world.","email":"contact@lawteacher.net","telephone":"+44 115 966 7966","numberOfEmployees":{"@type":"QuantitativeValue","minValue":"51","maxValue":"200"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/b99962c073c877c4ab8ee3d2486cd56e","name":"LawTeacher","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4fdfab0a9ef25209f111018ecc8a983e19e57c5066a9277217a119582ccbeed3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4fdfab0a9ef25209f111018ecc8a983e19e57c5066a9277217a119582ccbeed3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"LawTeacher"},"description":"LawTeacher.net is the UK's leading provider of academic legal support, offering both writing services and an extensive collection of law study resources for students in the UK and overseas. Founded in 2003 by Grey's Inn graduate Barclay Littlewood, the Company was built on a commitment to excellence, with unique guarantees and a high standard of service from day one. The team includes over 500 UK legally qualified writing experts, with many practising solicitors and barristers, and several former lecturers.","sameAs":["https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net","https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet","https:\/\/x.com\/LawTeacherNet","https:\/\/gravatar.com\/lawteacherprofile"],"knowsAbout":["Contract Law","Criminal Law","Constitutional and Administrative Law","EU Law","Tort Law","Property Law","Equity and Trusts","Jurisprudence","Company Law","Commercial Law","Family Law","Human Rights Law","Employment Law","Evidence","Public International Law","Legal Research and Methods","Dispute Resolution","Business Law and Practice","Civil Litigation","Criminal Litigation","Professional Conduct","Taxation","Wills and Administration of Estates","Solicitors\u2019 Accounts"],"url":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/author\/lawteacher"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/412","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=412"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/412\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=412"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=412"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=412"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}