Talk:Hubbard v Vosper

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hubbard v Vosper article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Scientology Mid‑importance

	This article is supported by WikiProject Scientology, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scientology. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics. See WikiProject Scientology and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.ScientologyWikipedia:WikiProject ScientologyTemplate:WikiProject ScientologyScientology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WP:DGAF but since I was the original WP:NPP reviewer and added the neutrality tags, I'm including my notes to the initial author below:

as a disinterested party: repeatedly calling a judgement "leading" means it supports your view. Plaintiffs won an initial injunction, so they had some sort of valid argument, completely unrepresented here. Needs to be more neutral.---MJH (talk) 22:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First author here. Moving discussion from my talk page. Not sure you understand the context of "leading" used in this context. The word has nothing to do with "points of view" - it is in fact described legally as a leading judgment on the doctrine of fair dealing in UK copyright law. There is no "viewpoint" in this article, it is merely a summary of facts and the case. See, for example, this case described as the "leading judgment in fair dealing" in:

Colston, Catherine, "Fair Dealing: What Is Fair" (1995) 10 Denning LJ at p 91: "in Hubbard v Vosper, [...] it was a matter for the court's discretion in what has become the leading case on fair dealing, having been cited in Beloff v Pressdram Ltd., Sillitoe v McGraw- Hill Book Co (UK) Ltd. and BBC v British Satellite Broadcasting Ltd."
Bradshaw, David, "'Fair Dealing' as a Defence to Copyright Infringement in UK Law: An Historical Excursion from 1802 to the Clockwork Orange Case 1993" : "One of the most important cases under the 1956 Act was not decided until some 15 years after its enactment. This was the decision of the Court of Appeal in Hubbard v. Vosper, which is often referred to as "the Scientology case."" Later, "In giving the leading judgment of the Court of Appeal in this case, Lord Denning M.R. pointed out ..."
D'Agostino, Giuseppina, "Healing Fair Dealing? A Comparative Copyright Analysis of Canada’s Fair Dealing to U.K. Fair Dealing and U.S. Fair Use" (2008) McGill LJ 309: "For some scholars, Hubbard “represents the first major judicial attempt to define the concept of ‘fairness’ with respect to the fair dealing provisions contained, at that time, in section 6 of the 1956 Copyright Act.”

In writing "leading" I am merely repeating what is the academic consensus on the state of UK Copyright Law. It is not inherently non-neutral or "weasely". See other law-related articles for similar use of language such as "leading case" or "landmark case" or "important case". Unavoidable (talk) 05:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]