Building a Shed to Beat the Credit Crunch
The great thing about building a shed is the freedom to construct it yourself, to the level of comfort that you require. Many store bought sheds are flimsy and only suitable for storing garden tools. You however, can build something a lot better yourself to suit your space and needs.
How you use this additional space will vary, the most simple is a storage shed to free up space in the main house. Another popular route is a garden office which enables a division to be drawn between work and home – an important thing according to experts. I could give examples all day, the most extravagant I have come across was someone constructing a building in the garden to house a swimming pool, gym and solarium.
Building a shed to suit your own requirements starts off with a plan that shows the structural layout but also includes the insulation, wiring, heating and finishes. Take time at this stage to make your shed a place you can relax and want to spend time, rather than a haven for spiders!
In my view building a shed offers the best value out. With a little research you can build something in your garden to the same standards as a house, for less than the estate agent fees that would be incurred in moving. Plus you will be adding value to your house that you can realise when it is time to move.
In the current climate of declining house prices it can be difficult to sell and move somewhere bigger to accommodate your growing needs. Why not stay at home and have some fun with a new building project by creating some living space in the garden? With a little research you may be surprised to find the size of building that you can construct in your garden without complex permission. The starting point here is to go along to your local Council offices to find out about local zoning laws regarding the construction of garden buildings.
Building a Shed to Beat the Credit Crunch
John Coupe is a Professional Engineer who just happens to Love sheds. Secrets-of-shed-building.com gives him an outlet to help people design and build their own shed.
–
The Court of Appeal in the case of Nova Productions Ltd v Mazooma Games Ltd; Nova Productions Ltd v Bell Fruit Games Ltd [2007] has ruled that producing a computer program which emulates another program, without actually copying that program’s code or graphics, does not breach copyright laws. The case is likely to be of immense interest (and of potential concern) to software developers as well as the owners of copyright in computer programs.
Commentators believe that the purpose of the case is to act as a reminder that it is not, and should not, be an infringement of copyright simply to use ideas that are expressed in a copyright work. Lord Justice Jacob’s conclusion that this would turn copyright into an instrument of oppression, rather than a means of encouraging creativity, is to be very much welcomed.
The claimant, Nova Productions, had created a pool-based computer game called ‘Pocket Money’. Nova alleged that Mazooma Games and Bell Fruit Games – both were also games producers – had come up with very similar pool games, ‘Jackpot Pool’ and ‘Trick Shot’. Both games contained ideas and functionality similar to those in ‘Pocket Money’. Nova did not suggest that either of the defendants had directly copied the software code of ‘Pocket Money’. The High Court accepted that some parts of the games may have been “inspired by” Nova, and so held there was no copyright infringement.
Nova appealed on the grounds that the animation sequences used in ‘Pocket Money’ amounted to “artistic works” and there would therefore be copyright in the sequence of frames. It was also alleged that the other similar features of the game were “literary works”, also protected by copyright. The claim to artistic copyright was in respect of the visual appearance of ‘Pocket Money’, whereas the claim to literary copyright was in respect of the software code and preparatory design material for the software.
The Court of Appeal held that copyright must not be used to stifle the creation of individual works which are actually very different. But as well as its general importance in affirming the scope of copyright protection, the decision is particularly important in relation to two specific points covered in the appeal:
Whether in assessing the artistic quality of a drawing that forms part of a series of stills, such as in a cartoon, the differences between the stills can be taken into account as part of the graphical quality. The court held that a series of drawings is simply a series of graphic works, and that by putting together a series of still images an additional copyright work or protection above and beyond the still images is not created.
The Court of Appeal has affirmed the principle established in Navitaire v Easyjet, that there is no infringement of copyright in a computer code based on similarities in the visual outputs from this code. In determining whether literary copyright in a computer code has been infringed this has to be based on careful analysis of whether the code itself has been copied, rather than an analysis of whether there is any visual similarity in the outputs of that program.
Please contact us for more information on assessing damages due under termination of a contract at enquiries@rtcoopers.com
RT COOPERS, 2007. This Briefing Note does not provide a comprehensive or complete statement of the law relating to the issues discussed nor does it constitute legal advice. It is intended only to highlight general issues. Specialist legal advice should always be sought in relation to particular circumstances.
Intellectual property law, intellectual property licensing, intellectual property lawyers, intellectual property solicitors, IP law, IP lawyers, IP law firm, IP solicitors, copyright law, copyright, copyright infringement, Intellectual property infringement, copyright lawyers, copyright lawyer, copyright solicitors, copyright law firm, patent law, patents, patent lawyer, patent lawyers, patent solicitors, patent law firm, law, legal, law firm, lawyers, solicitors, solicitors in wapping, Solicitors in Docklands, Solicitors in E1, patent licensing, deposit copyright work, how to protect copyright work, copyright registration, trademark law, trademark searches, reademark licensing, trademark infringement, patent infringement, confidentiality agreements, know-how, registered designs, start up business, Internet law, website agreements, passing off, technology law firm in London, legal advice in IT Law, it law, it lawyers, information technology, intellectual property lawyers, intellectual property solicitors, technology attorneys.
Permalink Comments off