ABSTRACT
Cuthbert will be in a similar position to the defendant in Nicols v Pitman (1884). Whilst there was an implied licence to take notes, there was no permission to use them for commercial purposes. Transformation of the work into Japanese will not suffice to confer a fresh copyright. Although translations of a traditional literary work may confer originality (Byrne v Statist (1914)), the provisions of the CDPA 1988 will render Cuthbert’s treatment of Valerie’s speech an infringement. Section 17(2) provides for reproduction of a work in any material form. Section 22 further provides that an adaptation or translation will be an infringement, so the work being transformed into an article in a Japanese business paper will amount to the creation of an infringing copy.
