As discussed above, section 7 (1) of the Copyrights Act provides for exclusive control by the
author over protected artistic work. However the legal protection accorded to artists by
copyright is not always easy to enforce. The authors Jeremy Philips and Alison Firth in their
book an Introduction to Intellectual Property Law 3rd Edition Butterworth at 221
observe that the legal protection accorded to the artist in his intellectual creations has
sometimes been criticized for it inadequacy. This is because the law of copyright as originally
conceived was for the protection of unlawful publication and reproduction of books before it
was extended to art works. Furthermore the manner in which authors of books and art works
derive financial benefit from their works is different. The author of the book principally gets
revenue from the reproduction of copies of his work while the artist is largely limited sale of
the work that he or she has personally created. Furthermore reproduction of original art
works rarely gets a higher value unless it is reproduced on greeting cards souvenirs,
calendars and similar materials which can be protected like books.
In Interlego AG .v. Tyco Industries Inc and others (1988) 3 ALLER 949 Lord Oliver
of Aylmerton held that the essence of artistic work is that which is visually significant.
Court therefore has to inquire into what is in the defendant’s drawings that is visually
significant and which was contained in and directly copied from the plaintiff’s drawings?
To address this issue Court reviewed the various art pieces that were taken into custody
when the Anton pillar order was made against the defendants. The plaintiff also made
available to the court several original pieces of her artwork that she alleged had had been
infringed by the defendant. It is not in doubt that the defendant herself did not produce the
art work she sold as she described herself as a business woman. Her method of work was
that she facilitated other artists to produce the artwork that she sold. She testified that when
she fell out with the plaintiff she got work from other artists who she named as Peter Otim
and Kiganda. These artists however did not come to give evidence so Court will take her as
the beneficial owner (but not author) of the art pieces that the plaintiff alleges infringed on
11