Donna Molavi v Virginia Gilbert & Ors
[2023] EWHC 646 (Ch)
Joyce Carole Becker-Douglas v Bonnier Books UK Group Holdings Limited & Ors
5 February 2024
[2024] EWHC 77 (Ch)
High Court
Someone sued because they thought a published book series copied their unpublished stories. The judge threw out the case because there was no proof the book writers ever saw the unpublished stories, and the similarities weren't enough to prove copying.
Key Facts
- •Claimant (acting in person) alleges copyright infringement and misuse of confidential information by Defendants (represented by counsel) regarding the 'Flying Fergus' book series.
- •Claimant's works ('Jimmy Whizz' series) feature a boy with a special flying bicycle, similar to 'Flying Fergus'.
- •Claimant alleges indirect access to her unpublished works through former employees of Bloomsbury who later worked for Hot Key Books (publisher of 'Flying Fergus').
- •Defendants deny access and provide evidence of independent creation of 'Flying Fergus'.
- •The case hinges on whether the similarities between the two series are sufficient to infer copying, given the lack of direct evidence of access.
Legal Principles
Summary judgment should be granted if the claimant has no realistic prospect of success.
Easyair Ltd v Opal Telecom Ltd [2009] EWHC 339 (Ch), AC Ward & Sons Ltd v Catlin (Five) Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 1098
The court must not conduct a 'mini-trial' when considering summary judgment applications, but it can evaluate evidence and assess plausibility.
Swain v Hillman [2001] 1 All E.R. 91, ED & F Man Liquid Products v Patel [2003] EWCA Civ 472, King v Stiefel [2021] EWHC 1045 (Comm)
Copyright protects the expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves.
Baigent v Random House Group Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 247, IPC Media Ltd v Highbury Leisure Publishing Ltd (No.2) [2004] EWHC 2985 (Ch)
Proof of similarity between works, coupled with proof of access, is prima facie evidence of copying.
Francis, Day & Hunter Ltd v Bron [1963] Ch 587
In copyright infringement cases, the claimant must prove both similarity and access; access may be inferred from similarity if there's no other explanation.
Sheeran (referenced in section 26)
Outcomes
Summary judgment granted for the Defendants.
The Claimant failed to provide evidence of access to her works by the Defendants, and the similarities between the works are not sufficient to infer copying. The Defendants provided compelling evidence of independent creation.