“Copyright infringement occurs when someone other than the copyright holder copies the “expression” of a work. This means that the idea or information behind the work is not protected, but how the idea is expressed is protected”. In this case, Mr. Samuel Johnson is clearly the holder of the copyright, although he did not label it with a copyright symbol. It however bears his name and address and it is fixed in a tangible form. Ms. Helen Smith obviously used Mr. Johnson’s work without getting his permission. She could have easily contacted Mr. Johnson and asked for his permission because the work has Mr. Johnson’s address. Ms. Smith may not have copied the work entirely but she copied a large portion of Mr. Johnson’s novel.
The case of Ms. Smith does not fall on the exceptions for copyright infringement. The work of Mr. Johnson cannot be considered public domain; thus, Ms. Smith cannot simply copy parts of the novel without Mr. Johnson’s knowledge. The case of Ms. Smith does not fall under fair use either. She did not use it for the purpose of teaching, reviewing or for literary criticism; but rather, she even presented it as a play for public viewing. What is worst is that she even sold copies of the play without giving credit to Mr. Johnson.
Ms. Smith is definitely guilty of copyright infringement. The infringing play is “substantially” similar to Mr. Johnson’s novel, Bloody Scotland. Mr. Johnson, as copyright holder of the novel has the sole right to reproduce the work, right to derivative work, right to distribution, public display right and public performance right. All these rights were assumed by Ms. Smith, when in fact they are Mr. Johnson’s rights and not hers. One can therefore conclude that Ms. Smith is guilty of copyright infringement.
Works Cited
Click Industries, Ltd. "Copyright infringement." n.d. clickandcopyright.com. Web. 1 December 2012
