concept which can in some cases provide a defence for copyright infringement. In the case of
Lion Laboratories Ltd versus Evans [1984] 2 All ER 417 the Defendant‘s newspaper editor
intended to publish information concerning doubts about the reliability of a certain product. The
product was used to test motorists suspected of being unfit to drive due to intoxication levels in
their breath. An injunction was granted by the trial court and in an appeal against the injunction
order; the appeal was allowed on the ground that the defence of public interest applied because it
was in the public interest that the information about whether the product did what it was
supposed to do should be published. A summary of the principles relevant to an application of
the defence of public interest summarised by David Bainbridge in his textbook 'Intellectual
Property' at page 191 is as follows:
There was a difference between what was interesting to the public and what was in the
public interest.
It was the fact that the media, for example newspaper proprietors, had a private interest to
increase circulation by publishing what appealed to the public;
the public interest might be best served by giving the information to the police or some
other responsible body rather than to the press;
The public interest did not arise only when there was an iniquity to be disclosed, and the
Defendant ought not to be restrained solely because what he wanted to publish was
misconduct on the part of the claimant.
The above summary demonstrates that what should be published should amount to criticism of
the work and not a use of the work for another collateral interest such as propagating a campaign
for conserving forests as in the Defendant's case. This is because the Plaintiff‘s work is not in
issue and it is not the purpose of the Defendant to inform the public about the Plaintiff‘s work.
Illustrations of public interest cases include publication involving the disclosure of criminal
conduct or misconduct generally of the copyright owner. It involves review or criticism of the
work and how much of the work can be used fairly depends on the circumstances of each case.
In the case of Hubbard and another v Vosper and another [1972] 1 All ER 1023 Lord
Denning MR at page 1027 considered the definition of ―fair dealing‖ in the context of a defence
to copyright infringement through publication of the work. He said:
―It is impossible to define what is ‗fair dealing‘. It must be a question of degree. You
must consider first the number and extent of the quotations and extracts. Are they
altogether too many and too long to be fair? Then you must consider the use made of
them. If they are used as a basis for comment, criticism or review, that may be a fair
dealing. If they are used to convey the same information as the author, for a rival
purpose, that may be unfair. Next, you must consider the proportions. To take long
extracts and attach short comments may be unfair. But, short extracts and long comments
may be fair. Other considerations may come to mind also. But, after all is said and done,
it must be a matter of impression. As with fair comment in the law of libel, so with fair