injunction, which was refused, and appealed to the Court of Appeal. Lord Denning MR, who had to decide whether the plaintiff had a good arguable case, accepted that Mr Hubbard’s works were protected by copyright as literary works, and went on:

doi:10.4324/9781843142928-61

Chapter

injunction, which was refused, and appealed to the Court of Appeal. Lord Denning MR, who had to decide whether the plaintiff had a good arguable case, accepted that Mr Hubbard’s works were protected by copyright as literary works, and went on:

Chapter

ABSTRACT

In writing The Mind Benders Mr Vosper has made free use of Mr Hubbard’s books, letters and bulletins. He has taken very little from some, but from others he has taken very substantial parts. For instance, he has taken quite big extracts from the Introduction to Scientology Ethics and put them in his book ... The parts are so substantial that Mr Vosper will be guilty of infringement of copyright unless he can make good his defence. And his defence is that his use of them is fair dealing within s 6(2) of the Copyright Act 1956 [which is in substantially the same terms as s 30 of the 1988 Act]. This says:

No fair dealing with a literary, dramatic or musical work shall constitute an infringement of copyright in the work if it is for purposes of criticism or review, whether of that work or of another work, and is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgment.