Changes to copyright law and guidance

[seaJane]

As issued by the Intellectual Property Office yesterday. An awful lot to plough through and I suspect may make it clear like mud, but for what it's worth:

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/hargreaves/hargreaves-copyright/hargreaves-copyright-techreview.htm

sJ

[Guest]

Thanks SJ Indeed much to go through, and clears as mud Probably good news though?

What is fair dealing?

“Fair dealing” is a legal term used to establish whether a use of copyright material is lawful or whether it infringes copyright. There is no statutory definition of fair dealing - it will always be a matter of fact, degree and impression in each case. The question to be asked is: how would a fair-minded and honest person have dealt with the work? Factors that have been identified by the courts as relevant in determining whether a particular dealing with a work is fair, include: • Does using the work affect the market for the original work? If a use of a work acts as a substitute for it, causing the owner to lose revenue, then it is not likely to be fair. • Is the amount of the work taken reasonable and appropriate? Was it necessary to use the amount that was taken? Usually only part of a work may be used. The relative importance of any one factor will vary according to the case in hand and the type of dealing in question.

Mike

[Jim Strawbridge]

This is brilliant, and long overdue, news. I particularly like "Does using the work affect the market for the original work? If a use of a work acts as a substitute for it, causing the owner to lose revenue, then it is not likely to be fair. • Is the amount of the work taken reasonable and appropriate? Was it necessary to use the amount that was taken? Usually only part of a work may be used" This seems to mean that a photograph or a shortish lifting of narrative will be allowed PROVIDING that the original owner does not lose out financially because of it. But nothing will end up that simple, I am sure.

[healdav]

This is brilliant, and long overdue, news. I particularly like "Does using the work affect the market for the original work? If a use of a work acts as a substitute for it, causing the owner to lose revenue, then it is not likely to be fair. • Is the amount of the work taken reasonable and appropriate? Was it necessary to use the amount that was taken? Usually only part of a work may be used" This seems to mean that a photograph or a shortish lifting of narrative will be allowed PROVIDING that the original owner does not lose out financially because of it. But nothing will end up that simple, I am sure.

As far as I am aware you are always entitled to 'lift' a short extract or extracts from other books.

Otherwise, reviewers would have a hopeless job - and that would impact on sales - "it's not fair, they won't review my book because I threatened them with legal action if they did".

And how many books quote one way or another other books? The vast majority, I think.

This whole copyright business needs a proper world wide conference of people involved, and not each country setting out what happens to be convenient at the time - "MY memoirs need to be sold in millions, so I will sue someone for quoting them, thus ensuring that people buy them to find out what the problem is".

[Jim Strawbridge]

Healdav, I know that reviewers have some leeway in quoting bits of articles. That helps sell original books. That is not what is being suggested here. If I read the proposal correctly it could mean that if I saw a photograph in someone elses book and wanted to use it in my own then I could so long as it would not cause a fall off in sales for the original ie no financial loss. For instance, if I were writing a book about Nottingham during the War (bombed by zeppelins) and lifted a photograph from a book about zeppelins to go in it then it seems that there would be no real falling away in sales of the zeppelin book. Don't get me wrong, I would still try and get permissions but in the matter of the Great War books published soon after the War unless reprints were produced then existing copyright probably covers it anyway. The truth is that existing copyright law is a very confusing and any effort to simplify it for the layman must be good news.

[Guest]

Intellectual Property Office

" Think you know your copyright stuff? Then why not take our quiz to find out? "

Copyright Quiz

Mike

Edit I think you'll manage it

[EastSurrey]

The advice my first publisher gave me back in 2011 was that quotes of up to 250 words, or a total of 800 words from a single previously published work did not require permission, although even a single line of poetry required permission. Even so, a publisher I approached then about a larger extract would not accept 800 and I had to cut back on what I had quoted to avoid a fee.

The new official guidance doesn't offer clarity on the size of quotes allowed - it seems it will take case law to decide. Furthermore, I don't believe it alters the situation regarding reproducing photographs and other illustrations that are still in copyright, nor unpublished works- as far as I can see these still require full permission from copyright owners, before any reproduction or quotation.

Michael

[healdav]

Healdav, I know that reviewers have some leeway in quoting bits of articles. That helps sell original books. That is not what is being suggested here. If I read the proposal correctly it could mean that if I saw a photograph in someone elses book and wanted to use it in my own then I could so long as it would not cause a fall off in sales for the original ie no financial loss. For instance, if I were writing a book about Nottingham during the War (bombed by zeppelins) and lifted a photograph from a book about zeppelins to go in it then it seems that there would be no real falling away in sales of the zeppelin book. Don't get me wrong, I would still try and get permissions but in the matter of the Great War books published soon after the War unless reprints were produced then existing copyright probably covers it anyway. The truth is that existing copyright law is a very confusing and any effort to simplify it for the layman must be good news.

I thought I said that the whole law is a shambles - and worldwide, not just in Britain. A proper international conference and law is the only solution.

[centurion]

I thought I said that the whole law is a shambles - and worldwide, not just in Britain. A proper international conference and law is the only solution.

Provided that one is prepared to wait another 50 years or so whilst the lawyers argue and grow fatter on their fees.

[healdav]

Provided that one is prepared to wait another 50 years or so whilst the lawyers argue and grow fatter on their fees.

Agreed, but the lawyers already grow fat on the shambles which exists at the moment. That is, I have two books, one published in France in French and on Kindle in English, and the other only on Kindle. Both can only be bought from the USA Kindle, for unknown reasons (outside the UK).

Now, is it Luxembourg law (I wrote them there and live there and loaded them on Kindle there), French law, US law or UK law? All different.

That's the trouble with the modern world, the 19th century just can't cope.

[bill24chev]

Intellectual Property Office

" Think you know your copyright stuff? Then why not take our quiz to find out? "

Copyright Quiz

Mike

Edit I think you'll manage it

just took this test got 6 out of 7.

i got the question on copying movies wrong.

I said you could make a copy of a DVD I had Bought,I thought that all digital data could be copied as a backup if original corrupted.

bil

[gwalchmai]

Another question regarding this. Lets say I use a photo of ww1 that I find on a website. I do not know who if anyone has copyright as the person whose website its on has not stated where it came from. Then off I go and do a talk to the W.I. using the photo. They pay me for the talk.

What are the copyright pitfalls that I may fall into?

Where can you get pics of ww1 that dont have any copyright?

[seaJane]

I think your safeguard there is probably (but don't quote me) that you made "all reasonable efforts" to find the copyright holder. This might involve, for example, contacting the website where you found the picture.

There are links to some "public domain" image resources here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Public_domain_image_resources

[healdav]

Interestingly, I took part in filming a documentary in February. In my research for this, I went to the town concerned and found a guy who had a large collection of postcards dating from 1888 onwards that were relevant. One or two of these might end up on-screen.

The production company were most insistent that the man I got the postcards from (well, scans, actually) sign a disclaimer saying that as licence holder he agreed to the use of the postcards in the production.

He was reluctant to do so. Not because he didn't hold the licence (he obviously doesn't hold anything as he bought the postcards from a stall somewhere), but because he didn't see the point. They are on the internet and anyone can use them, and any copyright holder can go hang - I look forward to seeing someone trying to sue an obscure postcard collector who shows his collection at an OAP meeting.

I think he eventually signed the form and sent it back. I gave up trying to explain to him, except to say, "just keep them happy".

Incidentally, there was no postcard firm or photographer mentioned anywhere. In any case, the photographer is dead, and the firm probably long since closed. Lawyers may love this, but in the real world................................

[centurion]

. Lawyers may love this, but in the real world................................

........the plot reads more and more like something W S Gilbert would have written -- and he you may recall was originally a lawyer

Government of the people for the lawyers by the lawyers

[joseph]

MMMMM,

I give lots of talks about the Great War, and only once have I been questioned about an image. My reaction was to apologize and tell them I had no idea it was copyright.

As I had charged for the talk and there was a lot of images, I offered him a pound for the use of the image, and informed him if he produced in writing his ownership of the 'Copyright' I would remove it from my talk, or discuss terms (the pound went into the poor box).

The photo (I have an original PC) did not have anything on it that would suggest copyright, so I did not look much further.

Not heard anything since (several years) and see the person on a regular basis, the photo is still in my talks.

Why did he state he had the rights to that photo, proof does run both ways, as long as due diligence is taken into account then any question of copyright would become obvious.

Regards Charles

[trajan]

Lawyers may love this, but in the real world................................

I do know this phrase is often quoted out of context, but 'First we hang the..." comes naturally to mind... Personally I think it should be bankers, but there again...

[David_Underdown]

The photo (I have an original PC) did not have anything on it that would suggest copyright, so I did not look much further.

There doesn't need to be any statement of copyright. It exists automatically (in British law - US is very different).

[gwalchmai]

thanks all

[joseph]

David,

A photo with no indication of ownership that is best part of one hundred years old, due diligence.

Copyright is an ownership not an assumed right, this needs to be proven, just someones say isnt enough.

Regards Charles

[David_Underdown]

Yes the person who claims copyright would have to prove they were the true owner, but the mere fact the photo is 100 years old does not mean it is likely to be out of copyright, you cannot simply assume and make no further checks. If the photo was unpublished at the time of the taker's death (which might perhaps not have been until the 1990s) it will be in coyright for 70 years after that. Sure you can take a risk based approach (and orphan works will be easier to deal with after these changes, but you will have to license the use), but you have to be aware it's a risk.

[Kath]

What is the position of the dealers in postcards which are shown online?

Are the sellers breaking copyright laws?

Kath.

[centurion]

What is the position of the dealers in postcards which are shown online?

Are the sellers breaking copyright laws?

Kath.

Presumably if they own the card or are agents for the person who does and the original copyright on the image has expired - no. In any case Amazon, AbeBooks et al show dust jackets on line

[joseph]

Hi,

Assumption the means of all evil.

I have a photograph that I can date to the period of the Great War, there is no name or studio on it, can I believe that someone owns the copyright and if so how do I find them.

Publish and deal with the problem if and when it arises?

Otherwise I am, the owner of a postcard that means nothing and is worthless in the due course of history.

Risk is not absolute, if someone approaches me and claims copyright I am not going to dismiss it out of hand.

I have taken many scans and photographs of supposed Copyright material, especially in libraries and archives without them proving anything to do with copyright, I would be cautious (due diligence) if I wanted to publish them for profit. But then who is the onus of proof on and how far up the judicial chain do we go.

Regards Charles

[healdav]

Funnily enough there is another thread on scams:

"I notice that you showed a photograph of General Haig in a talk last week. My father took this photograph, and I own the copyright. You are requested to send the sum of £1,000 to me immediately (in cash) otherwise I shall sue you. You are not to use this photgraph any more".

Sounds a good source of income to me.

Fortunately, where I am the city has a Photograph archive that is without any competition for its excellence (the earliest photos date from the 1850s). Anyone can buy a copy of any photograph, and can use it for what they like. The production fee (usually about 7 euros for an A4 sort of size in black and white) includes a fee for using the photo. The National Archives don't charge anything for using their documents, and you can photograph to your heart's content.

One museum curator said to me that he finds the whole business of copyright a nightmare as do the lawyers, but as he sees the Photograph archive stamp, he sighs with relief. No more worries.