Case Number
CA 3616/92
Date Decided
12-10-1997
Decision Type
Appellate
Document Type
Full Opinion
Abstract
Facts: Appellant sued respondent for damages under the Copyright Ordinance, arguing that respondent had copied several price lists that appellant had published in at least eleven different booklets. The district court found that the respondent, despite copying from several different sources, had, for the purposes of section 3A of the Copyright Ordinance, only committed one single act of infringement. The district court also held that once appellant had failed to prove actual damages, it could not sue for statutory damages.
Held: The Court held that, for the purposes of section 3A of the Copyright Ordinance, an "infringement" should be interpreted as each infringement of a separate copyright, and not as each separate act of infringement. The Court held that respondent should be liable for eleven counts of infringement, as each booklet that it copied had "independent economic value," and, as such, constituted a separate work, with its own copyright. The Court further held that even if the appellant had failed to prove actual damages, he was still entitled to statutory damages. Furthermore, in proving statutory damages, appellant could make use of evidence with which he had attempted to prove actual damages.
Keywords
Copyright -- Remedies
Recommended Citation
Strasberg-Cohen, Tova; Beinisch, Dorit; and Turkel, Jacob, "Dekel Computer Engineering Services Ltd. v. Heshev Inter-Kibbutz" (1997). Translated Opinions. 122.
https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/iscp-opinions/122
