Francis, Day & Hunter Ltd. v. Twentieth Century Fox Corp.
 |
This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (December 2009) |
 |
This article is an orphan, as few or no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles; suggestions may be available. (December 2009) |
Francis, Day & Hunter Ltd. v. Twentieth Century Fox Corp. [1939] 4 D.L.R. 353 is a leading Judicial Committee of the Privy Council opinion on copyright law. The Council held that copyright cannot subsist in non-original work or in the title of a work alone unless it is original and distinctive.
Francis, Day and Hunter had released a song titled "The man who broke the bank at Monte Carlo". Years later, 20th Century Fox put out a movie by the same title, but had no other connections to the song. Francis sued for copyright infringement.
Lord Wright held that a name alone cannot possess copyright unless it is sufficiently original and distinctive. "To break the bank" is a hackneyed expression, and Monte Carlo is or was the most obvious place at which that achievement or accident might take place."
[edit] See also
- John Brodel v Telstra Corporation - similar Australian case
- Dick v. Yates (1881) 18 Ch D 76
 |
This case law article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
