The pioneering Sciencewise initiative aims to increase levels of public engagement in science, in particular to identify if any health, safety, environmental or ethical issues are raised by new and emerging technologies. Bringing together members of the public with leading science, technology and industry bodies, as well as commercial partners and universities, the seven Sciencewise grants will cover key areas set out in the Science and Innovation Framework 2004 - 2014, Science and Society Agenda.

Science and Innovation Minister, Lord Sainsbury welcomed the announcement of the grants during National Science Week.

This announcement coincides with the publication today of a report from the Council or Science and Technology, the Government's top-level advisory body on science and technology policy, encouraging the government to do more to engage the public in the development of science and technology based policies.

For more information on the Sciencewise grants please see: http://www.sciencewise.org.uk

CST's report 'Policy through dialogue: informing policies based on science and technology' is available from http://www.cst.gov.uk.

See: http://www.computerweekly.com

The claimant was the publisher of a weekly magazine 'What's on TV' and owner of the copyright in the magazine logo and layout. One of the defendant's newspapers, The Sun, ran an advertisement that reproduced the front cover of an edition of the claimant's magazine together with the front cover of another magazine, and the front cover from The Sun's own new magazine. The claimant contended that reproduction of its logo and front covers breached its copyright and that the defendant's use of its material was not fair dealing under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 s.30(1) and s.30(2) as the purpose of running the advertisement was to reduce sales of the claimant's magazine.

It was held that the defendant's use did not fall within the meaning of s.30(1) of the Act. All the defendant needed to do was to identify the claimant's product for the purposes of comparative advertising. This could have been achieved without infringing the claimant's copyright. In copying the work to advance its own competing purposes at the claimant's expense, the defendant was advancing its own work, which did not amount to fair dealing within s.30(1) or s.30(2 of the Act.

The applicant sought summary judgment on its claim against the respondents for infringement of a performer's rights in respect of performances given in 1969 by Jimmy Hendrix and two others in Stockholm, Sweden. The respondent then went on to make copies and sell copies of a recording of the Stockholm performances. The applicant brought proceedings under the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 s.182A and s.182B. The respondent argued that the Stockholm performances were not "qualifying performances" under because, at the date of the performances, Sweden was not a qualifying country under s.206 of the Act. To hold the performances as qualifying performances would be to give them retrospective effect. In addition, the respondent argued that the performer had, by agreement, assigned his intellectual property rights in all performances to the respondent with the result that it had been entitled to make copies and distribute copies of the Stockholm performances to the public. The claimant argued that s180(3) specifically provided for retrospective effect in respect of performances performed before the commencement of the Act. Such retrospectivity applied to performances given in the United Kingdom by s.206(1)(a) and to place a different construction in respect of countries falling within s.206(1)(b) and (c) was unwarranted by the language of the Act and involved discrimination on grounds of nationality.

It was held that performances given in the UK prior to the commencement of the Act were qualifying performances. As Sweden fell within s.206(1)(b), the Stockholm performances were qualifying performances for the purposes of s.181. In addition, the agreement did not contain an assignment of the performer's rights. Neither did it entitle the respondent to sell the performer's services to third parties and to take all the proceeds for itself.

The toolkit can be found at: http://www.innovation.gov.uk/lambertagreements/

The Lambert Report can be found at: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/consultations_and_legislation/lambert/consult_lambert_index.cfm

The Government's Science and Innovation Framework 2004 - 2014 can be found at http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/spending_review/spend_sr04/associated_documents/spending_sr04_science.cfm

See: http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/HMCSJudgments/View.do?id=3051&searchTerm=&ascending=&index=106&maxIndex=199

See http://www.computerweekly.com