- 22 A B A 98. It was submitted that the Glamulet products were B infringements of P1’s copyright works. Mr Clark submitted that D1 and C D D2 have copied P1’s products. Photographs are then taken of the copied products. These are copies of copies and these copies are then placed on C D the internet. As he submitted, taking a photograph of an infringing work E F is the making of a copy in two dimensions of the infringing work. Causing that photograph to appear on a screen on the internet is a E F reproduction in a material form. G H G 99. There is some support for the submissions of Mr Clark in the H obiter dictum of Rogers VP in his judgment in the Court of Appeal I J (CACV 3523/2001, 7 February 2002, Rogers VP, Le Pichon JA and Sakhrani J) in Solar System International Company Ltd v Unison-Watch I J Manufacturing Ltd and another, an appeal in a matter of contempt of court K by the 2nd respondent. L L 100. Rogers VP said at para 16: M N O P Q R S T U V K M “ Infringement on an internet site is, if at all, dealt with under section 26 of the Copyright Ordinance which reads as follows: ‘ 26(1) The making available of copies of the work to the public is an act restricted by copyright in every description of copyright work. (2) References in this part to the making available of copies of the work by wire or wireless means in such a way that members of the public in Hong Kong or elsewhere may access the work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, such as the making available of copies of works through the service commonly known as ‘the INTERNET’.’ If one turns then to the notice of motion alleging contempt, that provision would not fit well with what is alleged because the allegation in the notice of motion is that watches are offered or exposed for sale. The most that might possibly be argued in N O P Q R S T U V