Wheat v Google LLC

Wheat v Google LLC

The acts complained of against Google were not communications to a new public nor by a new technical means, as all internet users were within the scope of Mr Wheat’s original consent to make the images freely available. Therefore, there was no infringement of copyright under section 20 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

Parties
Appellant: Christopher Wheat; Respondent: Google LLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Copyright Infringement, Service Out of Jurisdiction, Communication to the Public, Internet Law
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Copyright Infringement Service Out of Jurisdiction Communication to the Public Internet Law

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher Wheat

Appellant

Google LLC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Google LLC infringed Mr Wheat’s UK copyright by communicating his images to the public via search results and hotlinking websites without his licence
  2. 2 Whether the acts complained of constitute communication to a new public or by a new technical means under section 20 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988
  3. 3 Whether the English court has jurisdiction to hear the claim against Google LLC

Ratio Decidendi

The acts complained of against Google were not communications to a new public nor by a new technical means, as all internet users were within the scope of Mr Wheat’s original consent to make the images freely available. Therefore, there was no infringement of copyright under section 20 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The hearing is adjourned to consider consequential matters, including costs.