copyright

[doctorno]

I Just want to make doubly sure - if I am extracting from the diaries - retyping into my book, that's OK as long as I acknowledge the source - as long as I dont use images of the diaries?

thanks

N

[martin_sole]

http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=175800&hl=flow#entry2084934

[Guest]

For unit war diaries, the Transcriptions are the copyright of the transcriber. All that is required is acknowledgment of the source I.e crown copyright material.

For private diaries it is different depending on a number of factors

1. If the diary was previously published; copyright lasts for 70 years from date of publication or 70 years from the date of death of the author whichever is later.

2. As above, but if published before 1925, copyright only lasts 50 years i.e. Copyright has expired. This is because the current '70 year rule' of UK copyright laws (amended in 1995) were, controversially, applied retrospectively for 70 years. Prior to this copyright lasted 50 years.

3. Copyright also applies for 25 years on the typesetting and layout of published material.

Under recent amendments of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (amended in Oct 2014) it is no longer a legal requirement to need permission to quote copyright material (published or unpublished). The amendment is under the fair dealing clause of the Act. The limitations are that the source should be acknowledged and there are limits on the amount of material that can be quoted. The amount is not defined, but current legal advice would suggest less than 10%. Some archives set limits. This is to prevent the clause being mis-used to quote entire books or articles.

MG

Edit. Some of the guidelines quoted in links from the previous post are out of date.

[martin_sole]

For unit war diaries, the Transcriptions are the copyright of the transcriber

Not true. Crown copyright remains. The material is used with permission but the transcriber has no copyright on it.

The flow chart in the previous thread is useful

http://www.bl.uk/reshelp/pdfs/copyrightflowchart.pdf

If it's for a published book or other commercial enterprise, the 2014 amendments don't really apply.

[keithmroberts]

The National Archives publish guidance. http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/re-using-public-sector-information/copyright-and-re-use/crown-copyright/

members are responsible for their own interpretation and application of that guidance.

That is no criticism of the replies above.

Keith Roberts

[Guest]

Not true. Crown copyright remains. The material is used with permission but the transcriber has no copyright on it.

I am afraid you are misinformed. Your flow chart states right at the top that it does not apply to Crown copyright material. It is also out of date.

The original war diary is crown copyright, the transcription work is a creation of the transcriber. In the same way if an artist copied an original - think Andy Warhol's silkscreen paintings of Marilyn Monroe. The paintings are his copyright despite the fact that they were based on another copyright image (in this case promotional photos from a film). If I copied (painted) another painting, the copy is my copyright. Similarly if I took a photo of a painting in, say, the National Gallery, it is my copyright as it is my creation. This is why art galleries ban photography as they make lots of money selling postcards and posters of these paintings despite the fact that copyright expired many years ago on most of their collections.

The transcriber 'creates' a new work when transcribing as he/she needs to make lots of small decisions i.e does one correct spelling mistakes or factual errors in timings etc, and a thousand other small decisions that make it a unique document. If someone wants to use transcribed material based on crown copyright material they need the permission of the transcriber as it is their creation despite the provenance of the source

With regards to war diaries:

1. The original is crown copyright. To show an image of an original war diary you need permission.

2. Transcriptions are the copyright of the transcriber (with acknowledgements). If someone transcribed a crown copyright war diary, all they need to do is acknowledge the source. The actual transcription is the copyright of the transcriber as he/she created it and made specific decisions on how to transcribe it.

3. Example. The Rifles (Berkshire and Wiltshire) Museum transcribed their unit war diaries and published them. These are the copyright of the Museum. If someone put images of these on a website they would need the permission of the Museum. All the published diaries have a copyright notices in them.

In the same way publishers have copyright of the formatting and typesetting of a work (lasts 25 years) because it is their unique creation. For example if a publisher decides to publish a work of Charles Dickens, despite the fact that the copyright expired some years ago, the publisher still has some rights on the typesetting and formatting of that particular edition.

I have had more than a few hours of meetings with the national Archives head of legal on this specific point. Separately I have paid for legal advice from specialist intellectual property lawyers. I own a transcription business that specialises in transcribing crown copyright material.

MG

[Bernard_Lewis]

Cheers MG.

Bernard

[Gareth Davies]

I am afraid you are misinformed. Your flow chart states right at the top that it does not apply to Crown copyright material. It is also out of date.

The original war diary is crown copyright, the transcription work is a creation of the transcriber. In the same way if an artist copied an original - think Andy Warhol's silkscreen paintings of Marilyn Monroe. The paintings are his copyright despite the fact that they were based on another copyright image (in this case promotional photos from a film). If I copied (painted) another painting, the copy is my copyright. Similarly if I took a photo of a painting in, say, the National Gallery, it is my copyright as it is my creation. This is why art galleries ban photography as they make lots of money selling postcards and posters of these paintings despite the fact that copyright expired many years ago on most of their collections.

The transcriber 'creates' a new work when transcribing as he/she needs to make lots of small decisions i.e does one correct spelling mistakes or factual errors in timings etc, and a thousand other small decisions that make it a unique document. If someone wants to use transcribed material based on crown copyright material they need the permission of the transcriber as it is their creation despite the provenance of the source

With regards to war diaries:

1. The original is crown copyright. To show an image of an original war diary you need permission.

2. Transcriptions are the copyright of the transcriber (with acknowledgements). If someone transcribed a crown copyright war diary, all they need to do is acknowledge the source. The actual transcription is the copyright of the transcriber as he/she created it and made specific decisions on how to transcribe it.

3. Example. The Rifles (Berkshire and Wiltshire) Museum transcribed their unit war diaries and published them. These are the copyright of the Museum. If someone put images of these on a website they would bee the permission of the Museum. All the published diaries have a copyright notice in them

In the same way publishers have copyright of the formatting and typesetting of a work (lasts 25 years) because it is their unique creation. For example if a publisher decides to publish a work of Charles Dickens, despite the fact that the copyright expired some years ago, the publisher still has some rights on the typesetting and formatting of that particular edition.

I have had more than a few hours of meetings with the national Archives head of legal on this specific point. Separately I have paid for legal advice from specialist intellectual property lawyers. I own a transcription business that specialises in transcribing crown copyright material.

MG

That's extremely clear and helpful, and in my case very timely. Thank you.

[Andy Wade]

That's a brilliant reply Martin. Can I make a copy of it please?
Just for my own personal reference of course...

[Malcolm]

I once got a " copywright material - message removed" from a Geneology Forum after quoting from my own book!! which Edinburgh Central Library has. Even giving title and author (me) they wouldn't accept it.

So I'll just sue myself!

Aye

Malcolm

[martin_sole]

I am afraid you are misinformed. Your flow chart states right at the top that it does not apply to Crown copyright material. It is also out of date.

The original war diary is crown copyright, the transcription work is a creation of the transcriber. In the same way if an artist copied an original - think Andy Warhol's silkscreen paintings of Marilyn Monroe. The paintings are his copyright despite the fact that they were based on another copyright image (in this case promotional photos from a film). If I copied (painted) another painting, the copy is my copyright. Similarly if I took a photo of a painting in, say, the National Gallery, it is my copyright as it is my creation. This is why art galleries ban photography as they make lots of money selling postcards and posters of these paintings despite the fact that copyright expired many years ago on most of their collections.

The transcriber 'creates' a new work when transcribing as he/she needs to make lots of small decisions i.e does one correct spelling mistakes or factual errors in timings etc, and a thousand other small decisions that make it a unique document. If someone wants to use transcribed material based on crown copyright material they need the permission of the transcriber as it is their creation despite the provenance of the source

With regards to war diaries:

1. The original is crown copyright. To show an image of an original war diary you need permission.

2. Transcriptions are the copyright of the transcriber (with acknowledgements). If someone transcribed a crown copyright war diary, all they need to do is acknowledge the source. The actual transcription is the copyright of the transcriber as he/she created it and made specific decisions on how to transcribe it.

3. Example. The Rifles (Berkshire and Wiltshire) Museum transcribed their unit war diaries and published them. These are the copyright of the Museum. If someone put images of these on a website they would need the permission of the Museum. All the published diaries have a copyright notices in them.

In the same way publishers have copyright of the formatting and typesetting of a work (lasts 25 years) because it is their unique creation. For example if a publisher decides to publish a work of Charles Dickens, despite the fact that the copyright expired some years ago, the publisher still has some rights on the typesetting and formatting of that particular edition.

I have had more than a few hours of meetings with the national Archives head of legal on this specific point. Separately I have paid for legal advice from specialist intellectual property lawyers. I own a transcription business that specialises in transcribing crown copyright material.

MG

Martin, I'm aware that the flow chart doesn't apply to Crown Copyright, but you are still mistaken in thinking that copyright can be transferred to someone who transcribes a piece from a CC work. It doesn't go that way. The NA is pretty clear about how free you are to use and re-use their material but this is NOT the same as having copyright on it. Nor is a photo of a picture in the National Gallery "your creation", even if copyright on the original has expired. Fees charged on out-of-copyright material are usually based on the idea of licensing the image, not on copyright grounds. The IWM will charge you a licensing fee for images it holds which are out of copyright, but they don't claim copyright themselvea - they simply put a fee on you using THEIR copy. If you found another copy somewhere else you could use it without any fee.

By your logic, all bootleg DVDs of Hollywood blockbusters would be copyright of the fellow with the camcorder in seat 23G.

Don't take my word for it though, have a chat with any professional corporate lawyer and see what they say

If The Rifles Museum think they have copyright on a CC transcribed War Diary, they are mistaken. It's highly unlikely that the Crown would ever go to the trouble of prosecuting them if they chose to sell those transcripts for money, but it would be well wihin the law for them to do so.

Andy Warhol's silkscreens, as with music that samples other artists' work, is a copyright grey area, where the border of originality and creation is fuzzy. It's one for the lawyers, who generally love grey areas. Grey areas pay for Tarquin and Hermione's education and two holidays a year in the Seychelles. There is no grey area in citing a piece of a war diary in a published book.

If you have honestly taken legal advice which has told you that transcribing National Archive material gives you your own copyright of a CC work (not permission, but COPYRIGHT), then I'd ask for my money back if I were you.

[martin_sole]

That's extremely clear and helpful, and in my case very timely. Thank you.

It's also wrong, but people seem to believe what they want to believe when it comes to the issue of copyright.

[Gareth Davies]

It's also wrong, but people seem to believe what they want to believe when it comes to the issue of copyright.

Who are these 'people'? I hope you aren't suggesting that I am someone who believes what I want to believe?

[martin_sole]

Who are these 'people'? I hope you aren't suggesting that I am someone who believes what I want to believe?

Some people seem to muddle the ideas of permission and ownership. Copyright is to do with ownership. The OP may use exerpts from war diaries with the automatic permission of the NA. That doesn't mean he owns the exerpts simply because he transcribed them. Just as I don't own your prrevious post by virtue of clicking the "quote" button, even though this forum gives me permission to do so.

Think about it - if copying something transferred ownership to the copier, then every case of copyright infringement would be thrown out of court.

[Gareth Davies]

Some people seem to muddle the ideas of permission and ownership. Copyright is to do with ownership. The OP may use exerpts from war diaries with the automatic permission of the NA. That doesn't mean he owns the exerpts simply because he transcribed them. Just as I don't own your prrevious post by virtue of clicking the "quote" button, even though this forum gives me permission to do so.

Think about it - if copying something transferred ownership to the copier, then every case of copyright infringement would be thrown out of court.

I am thinking about it and I am inclined to take Martin G's line, and here's why. Taking the example of the first 4 books to hand on my desk (Peter Barton's Arras 1917, Jonathan Walker's The Bood Tub, Michael LoCicero's A Moonlight Massacre, and Ben Kite's Stout Hearts (a WW2 book)), in all 4 of these books according to the edition notices/copyright pages the copyright of the text is with the authors. But all 4 books contain a considerable number of excerpts from other books and documents such as War Diaries. Does this mean that the statement "Text © A Author" is incorrect? Or does the author now have copyright of the whole text, including the war diary extracts? I think it is the latter which seems to back Martin G's take on the subject.

[martin_sole]

I am thinking about it and I am inclined to take Martin G's line, and here's why. Taking the example of the first 4 books to hand on my desk (Peter Barton's Arras 1917, Jonathan Walker's The Bood Tub, Michael LoCicero's A Moonlight Massacre, and Ben Kite's Stout Hearts (a WW2 book)), in all 4 of these books according to the edition notices/copyright pages the copyright of the text is with the authors. But all 4 books contain a considerable number of excerpts from other books and documents such as War Diaries. Does this mean that the statement "Text © A Author" is incorrect? Or does the author now have copyright of the whole text, including the war diary extracts? I think it is the latter which seems to back Martin G's take on the subject.

The text created by the author is copyright of the author. The war diary excerpts, although used with permission of the Crown, are not.

Believe whoever you want to. Makes no odds to me.

[Gareth Davies]

In that case why is there a copyright statement for the text (the authors in all 4 cases) and a copyright statement for the photographs (in 2 cases "as individually credited", in another "IWM") yet no copyright statement for the war diaries that have been transcribed (nor any other documents included and/or extracted from)?

[martin_sole]

In that case why is there a copyright statement for the text (the authors in all 4 cases) and a copyright statement for the photographs (in 2 cases "as individually credited", in another "IWM") yet no copyright statement for the war diaries that have been transcribed (nor any other documents included and/or extracted from)?

Maybe because the NA is already credited elsewhere, as per their requirements?

It makes no odds. Copyright of war diaries belongs to the Crown, whatever the statements of authors or publishers state or omit to state.

Let's say I copied a bit of your four books for my own publication - but only the war diary bits.

Are you saying I need to seek permission from the new authors to use material that belongs to the NA, as the copyright has now transferred to these authors by virtue of their transcriptions? Because that is what copyright law requires me to do.

I'd love to see that be presented before a court.

Once the laughter had died down, the difference of permission and copyright might be put forward by someone who you believe more than me.

[Gareth Davies]

Maybe because the NA is already credited elsewhere, as per their requirements?

It makes no odds. Copyright of war diaries belongs to the Crown, whatever the statements of authors or publishers state or omit to state.

Let's say I copied a bit of your four books for my own publication - but only the war diary bits.

Are you saying I need to seek permission from the new authors to use material that belongs to the NA, as the copyright has now transferred to these authors by virtue of their transcriptions? Because that is what copyright law requires me to do.

I'd love to see that be presented before a court.

Once the laughter had died down, the difference of permission and copyright might be put forward by someone who you believe more than me.

I am not saying, I am asking. I don't know the answer, I am trying to find it out.

[Moonraker]

... Are you saying I need to seek permission from the new authors to use material that belongs to the NA, as the copyright has now transferred to these authors by virtue of their transcriptions? Because that is what copyright law requires me to do...

In the past I've remarked on other threads about copyright about going around in ever-decreasing circles with grey areas still remaining at the end of the debate.

It can be difficult enough to trace original copyright owners without having to find out to which recent authors copyright has been transferred.

Moonraker

[martin_sole]

I am not saying, I am asking. I don't know the answer, I am trying to find it out.

Crown Copyright remains with Crown. That's really all there is to it. Its copyright doesn't get incorporated into another original work just beacause the copyright owner has allowed it to be used. Copyright still remains with the Crown.

[Sue Light]

Let's say I copied a bit of your four books for my own publication - but only the war diary bits.

Are you saying I need to seek permission from the new authors to use material that belongs to the NA, as the copyright has now transferred to these authors by virtue of their transcriptions? Because that is what copyright law requires me to do.

I have many transcriptions of documents from TNA on one of my websites, including all 4,000 pages of a single war diary. As required I give the TNA reference at the top of each page - as far as it goes, as each reference covers approximately 1,000 pages.

Over time many people have used those pages for their own books and the vast majority have given in their footnotes both the TNA reference and also credited me/my website as the source of their information.

There are one or two who have used my website and quoted extensively from my transcription of the diary but while crediting TNA and giving the reference, have failed to mention how and where they accessed the information. There's nothing to be done about it as if challenged they simply say 'I accessed the original at TNA.' And jolly clever of them to find, among 4,000 handwritten pages, some very obscure little bit of information which fits the point they're trying to make.

So yes, I have some copyright over the content of my website, but nothing I can do if they choose to use my transcriptions of TNA documents. Except file the incident away to use against them at some time in the future

Sue

[Guest]

Martin, I'm aware that the flow chart doesn't apply to Crown Copyright, but you are still mistaken in thinking that copyright can be transferred to someone who transcribes a piece from a CC work. It doesn't go that way. The NA is pretty clear about how free you are to use and re-use their material but this is NOT the same as having copyright on it. Nor is a photo of a picture in the National Gallery "your creation", even if copyright on the original has expired. Fees charged on out-of-copyright material are usually based on the idea of licensing the image, not on copyright grounds. The IWM will charge you a licensing fee for images it holds which are out of copyright, but they don't claim copyright themselvea - they simply put a fee on you using THEIR copy. If you found another copy somewhere else you could use it without any fee.

By your logic, all bootleg DVDs of Hollywood blockbusters would be copyright of the fellow with the camcorder in seat 23G.

Don't take my word for it though, have a chat with any professional corporate lawyer and see what they say

If The Rifles Museum think they have copyright on a CC transcribed War Diary, they are mistaken. It's highly unlikely that the Crown would ever go to the trouble of prosecuting them if they chose to sell those transcripts for money, but it would be well wihin the law for them to do so.

Andy Warhol's silkscreens, as with music that samples other artists' work, is a copyright grey area, where the border of originality and creation is fuzzy. It's one for the lawyers, who generally love grey areas. Grey areas pay for Tarquin and Hermione's education and two holidays a year in the Seychelles. There is no grey area in citing a piece of a war diary in a published book.

If you have honestly taken legal advice which has told you that transcribing National Archive material gives you your own copyright of a CC work (not permission, but COPYRIGHT), then I'd ask for my money back if I were you.

Martin

1. If you are aware that the flow chart does not apply to Crown copyright, then why quote it? Twice. It appears we are at least agreed on one thing; it is not relevant to this thread.

2. You are confusing 'copying' with 'transcribing'. They are different things.

3. I did not say copyright was 'transferred' (your words). I said that a transcription has its own copyright.

4. A photo of anything a person takes is their creation. The idea it is not simply beggars belief. What else could it be?

5. You also appear to be confusing ownership of material with copyright ownership. They are different things and archives and museums are only just beginning to get to grips with this concept.

6. I have had 'chats' (your words) with rather a few "corporate" (your words again) lawyers (I suspect you mean intellectual property-right lawyers) and paid for those''chats'. If your arguments are that your "corporate" lawyers disagree with my lawyers, let it be.

7. I could go on but life is rather too short.

Believe what you want to believe.

Whoever has given you your advice, I very politely suggest it is wrong. Seriously. Are you basing any of these claims on real experience or real legal advice, or simply quoting out-of-date website material? If you want to speak directly to my sources please PM me and I will very gladly provide them. MG

[Phil Wood]

By your logic, all bootleg DVDs of Hollywood blockbusters would be copyright of the fellow with the camcorder in seat 23G.

That is an entirely different scenario - equivalent to my downloading a war diary from the National Archives and then claiming the file I downloaded is my copyright and selling copies on the internet (get your cut price war diaries here!

Transcription involves effort and creates a new work - to which the transcriber has copyright. However, the transcriber only has copyright to their transcription, not the original or the file they downloaded or anyone else's transcription. In essence they do not own the words but they could sue someone who publishes a copy of their transcription without permission. At least one FHS I know of introduces false data into their parish register transcripts in order to mark them as their copyrighted work.

War diaries are classified as 'Public Records' which means they come under the terms of the Open Government License. TNA give straightforward guidance on what you can do:

'You are free to transcribe, translate, index and quote from published or unpublished Crown copyright material among the records as extensively as you wish and you may publish the results in any format and any medium: in accordance with the terms of the Open Government Licence.'

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/information-management/use-of-tna-materials.pdf

The terms of the License are pretty lax - http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/2/

Please note that this does not apply to everything - check that the record is marked as a Public Record in the TNA catalogue! And don't go away thinking you can type out the next J K Rowling blockbuster and sell it as a cut price e-book - she does own the words!

[martin_sole]

Martin

1. If you are aware that the flow chart does not apply to Crown copyright, then why quote it? Twice. It appears we are at least agreed on one thing; it is not relevant to this thread.

2. You are confusing 'copying' with 'transcribing'. They are different things.

3. I did not say copyright was 'transferred' (your words). I said that a transcription has its own copyright.

4. A photo of anything a person takes is their creation. The idea it is not simply beggars belief. What else could it be?

5. You also appear to be confusing ownership of material with copyright ownership. They are different things and archives and museums are only just beginning to get to grips with this concept.

6. I have had 'chats' (your words) with rather a few "corporate" (your words again) lawyers (I suspect you mean intellectual property-right lawyers) and paid for those''chats'. Have you? If your arguments are that your "corporate" lawyers disagree with my lawyers, let it be.

7. I could go on but life is rather too short.

Believe what you want to believe.

Whoever has given you your advice, I very politely suggest it is rubbish. Seriously. Are you basing any of these nonsensical claims on real experience or real legal advice, or simply quoting out-of-date website material? If you want to speak directly to my sources please PM me and I will very gladly provide them. MG

1. The flow chart is useful for working out whether you need copyright clearance for works other than CC material. it pertains to the idea of copyright in general, and if you take another look at the OP's initial post, which asked about "diaries" rather than regimental war diaries, it may or may not have been useful to him. it's not supposed to be the "GOTCHA" you seem to think it is.

2. A transcription is a copy, although not all copies are transcriptions. Neither will assign copyright to the transcriber/copier.

3. Yes, a transcription has its own copyright, but it's still the Crown's. You previously wrote that "transcriptions" become the copyright of the transcriber". That's flat out, 100% wrong

4. Not if it violates copyright of an existing work. Don't take my word for it though, go ahead and take your own photos of a few Cecil Beaton or Don McCullen prints - try and sell them on Amazon with the claim that you have copyright on them. Come back and show us the solicitor's letters you'll get.

5. I'm not confusing the two at all. You seem to be, though

6. Who did you speak to who gave you the advice that you have copyright over your transcriptions? Please do PM me their name and company and I'll speak to them myself.

I'd be happy to reccommend a corporate (my words) lawyer for you to have a chat (my words) with..