Slashdot Mirror

If a single one of these points can't be proven with valid evidence, than either it was someone else or no copyright infringement has happened at all.

Just in case anyone here might mistake the above wishful thinking for, you know, law... It is not even close to what the law actually says or how courts actually work in this country.

In England, copyright infringement is usually a civil rather than criminal matter, so the standard of proof required is merely the balance of probabilities.

See also the Top 10 Copyright Myths page from the UK Copyright Service.

Understanding fair use

The UK does have 'Fair Use', but the rules are vague and generally not as good as the US's more legally fleshed out rules.

Basically, digitizing them automatically extends the copyright

I'm not saying you're definitely wrong, but I'm sceptical that you're right. There are a lot of half-truths, myths and downright misunderstandings around. On what basis do you hold this belief- is it something you think *should* be the case, something you *think* actually is the case based on some vague understanding, or do you know for sure that this is what UK law says?

Bearing in mind that "digitizing" is essentially just the process of making a copy of an analogue source using a digital format (rather than, say analogue to analogue or digital to digital) are you sure that this is covered?

From here;

"If the original work is in the public domain, it will remain in the public domain; you cannot prevent anyone else using the same public domain work for their own purposes.", and

"Provided it is significantly different to the original work the derivative work will be subject to copyright in its own right, and you will own copyright to the new content you have created as a result of your actions. Bear in mind that to be subject to copyright the creation of the derivative work must itself be an original work of skill, labour and judgement; minor alterations that do not substantially alter the original would not qualify."

, since it's "remastering"

Does "remastering" have any legal meaning? You could make any copy and claim that it's a new "master".

I gather you have never heard of fair use.

I gather you're not from the UK, or at least are not familiar with our copyright laws. There is no "fair use" provision. There is a "fair dealing" provision, but by my reading of the details this does not fall under it.

Only the owner, or his exclusive licensee can bring proceedings in the courts.

Under the same law it's technically "illegal" to tape something off the TV

No it is not; in fact time-shifting is explicitly listed as an exception in the law. For example, see section 8 of this page. What is illegal is recording broadcasts in order to build up a library of recordings (i.e. you can't keep the recordings forever), but time-shifting is definitely not illegal.

That's no problem, just put in your last will and testament that your library of recordings has to be erased 70 years after your death. You'll be good.

Therefore we can't time or format shift

Format shifting is illegal, which is utterly ridiculous, however time shifting is explicitly legal (see section 8).

Under the same law it's technically "illegal" to tape something off the TV

No it is not; in fact time-shifting is explicitly listed as an exception in the law. For example, see section 8 of this page. What is illegal is recording broadcasts in order to build up a library of recordings (i.e. you can't keep the recordings forever), but time-shifting is definitely not illegal.

Yes we do. It is called "fair dealing".

It is perfectly legal to make a copy if you own the master copy.

Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988

Or a quick factsheet http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p01_uk_copyright_law

Acts that are allowed

Fair dealing is a term used to describe acts which are permitted to a certain degree without infringing the work, these acts are:

        Private and research study purposes.
        Performance, copies or lending for educational purposes.
        Criticism and news reporting.
        Incidental inclusion.
        Copies and lending by librarians.
        Acts for the purposes of royal commissions, statutory enquiries, judicial proceedings and parliamentary purposes.
        Recording of broadcasts for the purposes of listening to or viewing at a more convenient time, this is known as "time shifting".
        Producing a back up copy for personal use of a computer program.
        Playing sound recording for a non profit making organisation, club or society.

        (Profit making organisations and individuals should obtain a license from PRS for Music.)

So it would be perfectly okay for me to write a suite of novels entitled :-

Angus Pigsnot and the Philosopher's Stone Angus Pigsnot and the Chamber of Secrets Angus Pigsnot and the Prisoner of Azkaban Angus Pigsnot and the Goblet of Fire Angus Pigsnot and the Order of the Phoenix Angus Pigsnot and the Half-Blood Prince Angus Pigsnot and the Deathly Hallows

And J.K.Rowling cannot get even the slightest bit upset ? After all, the "main" trademark is not being abused.

Now perhaps, you see how silly your argument sounds ?

bad example, as long as you wrote your own material (i.e your story wasn't about a teen Wizard - unless it's a parody), you'd be fine; book titles fall into copyright law and usually cannot be copyrighted. Furthermore, the Philosopher's Stone existed long before JK Rowling used it, and "chamber of secrets", "goblet of fire", "Order of the Phoenix" etc. are really quite generic concepts so can't be TMed - about the only one that isn't is the Prisoner of Azkaban, as Azkaban is a fictional place. If you don't believe me, just look at the number of Novels and films called Night Watch, for example.

That aside, I think that this is a classic case of Trademark law being applied correctly.

This won't work for one very good reason. The postal service is not obliged to ensure that your package or envelope is sealed at time of posting.

"Very clever, Mr NSN. Now, prove to the court that the envelope was sealed at the time of posting and that you didn't just mail yourself a Special Delivery package unsealed, in which you later placed the work you claim to hold copyright to."

UK Copyright Service site with more info on "Poor Man's Copyright"

IANAL, but the UK does not have "fair use", it has "fair dealing", which is a fair bit stricter as I understand it.
An interesting by-product of this is that it looks that accessing the Wikipedia in the UK can break UK's copyright laws simply as there are a lot of images which aren't Creative Commons, but are "fair use" under the US interpretation.
So I'm guessing it could be possible that the lords of copyright could accuse you of copyright infringement by reading Wikipedia. And cut you off after logging you accessing particular images a few times.

(An aside which irks me, these headlines in the press and the attacks expressly against "Downloading copyrighted material". Pretty much _all_ things "copyrighted" (except Public Domain and lapsed copyright). This post is copyrighted, that photo you publish to to Flickr is copyrighted, that audio file of your 3 year old singing "twinkle twinkle little star" and the Ubuntu CD ISO is copyrighted. Accessing the Nike website is also "downloading copyrighted material". Just please make it clear to friends/MP's etc that "Downloading copyrighted material is not illegal" in itself.)

So it expired a while back.

I'm afraid not, it was amended in 1995/6 to life + 70. A human readable summary of UK copyright law is here. In short:

Duration of copyright

The 1988 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act states the duration as:

      1. For literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works

            70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the last remaining author of the work dies.

            If the author is unknown, copyright will last for 70 years from end of the calendar year in which the work was created, although if it is made available to the public during that time, (by publication, authorised performance, broadcast, exhibition, etc.), then the duration will be 70 years from the end of the year that the work was first made available.
      2. Sound Recordings and broadcasts

            50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was created, or,

            if the work is released within that time: 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was first released.
      3. Films

            70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the last principal director, author or composer dies.

            If the work is of unknown authorship: 70 years from end of the calendar year of creation, or if made available to the public in that time, 70 years from the end of the year the film was first made available.
      4. Typographical arrangement of published editions

            25 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was first published.
      5. Broadcasts and cable programmes

            50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the broadcast was made.

Facts are good, but they need reading. The page you linked to is a general commentary on copyright law, and specifically states:

      "The actual specifics of what is acceptable will be governed by national laws"

The page you want for uk law is: http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p01_uk_copyright_law

It explicitly covers the uk law "fair dealing" provisions, which is NOT the same as "fair use". Stating that the UK does not have fair use (in comparison with the US) is technically correct - it isn't called fair use, it doesn't appear to have had the same aims, and it defintely doesn't provide the same rights / exemptions.

Facts, they are relevant to your arguments.

Bollocks. It may not be called "fair use" but it exists.

Fact sheet P-01: UK Copyright Law
8 Acts that are allowed
Fair dealing is a term used to describe acts which are permitted to a certain degree without infringing the work, these acts are:

• Private and research study purposes.
• Performance, copies or lending for educational purposes.
• Criticism and news reporting.
• Incidental inclusion.
• Copies and lending by librarians.
• Acts for the purposes of royal commissions, statutory enquiries, judicial proceedings and parliamentary purposes.
• Recording of broadcasts for the purposes of listening to or viewing at a more convenient time, this is known as time shifting".
• Producing a back up copy for personal use of a computer program.
• Playing sound recording for a non profit making organisation, club or society.

As someone who enjoys taking photos I buy a couple of photo mags a month ( no not that sort....) and two of them have an article this month on your legal rights (I am a UK citizen YMMV) and in the UK designs such as buildings and cars for example are designs under copyright.

Anyway have a look at http://copyrightservice.co.uk/protect/p15_design_rights

After reading about the terrorist laws been used against random photographers/people I decide I had to join liberty http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/ So my hobby has done some good.

copywrited music

http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/miss_spellings

UK copyright law is kind of odd. There are 2 different categories that their music would fall under. Recordings, which is 50 years as you said, and a literary one for the lyrics (maybe the music also?) which is life+70. So I guess you would be free to share the original recordings (they would have to be the original issue? what about a remaster?), but not be able to publish any lyrics with it, or perform a cover, etc.

http://copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p01_uk_copyright_law

Although most classical music is obviously too old to be under copyright, the rights to specific editions of pieces are owned by the publishers.

This is true, but in the UK at least the typographical rights (rights to the specific layout) on any work expire relatively quickly, compared to rights on the work itself. In the UK this is 25 years after publication.

So why did they buy the rights to anything? If they simply bought a set printed in the UK not after 1980, they would have been able to copy the music itself for free. They may not have been able to copy the whole cover design, and any editorial notes would have been off-limits too, but the main thing's the music, and that is completely free.

HAL.

No, IANAL, but a 20 second google search found this:

Interpretation is related to the independent creation rather than the idea behind the creation. For example, your idea for a book would not itself be protected, but the actual content of a book you write would be. In other words, someone else is still entitled to write their own book around the same idea, provided they do not directly copy or adapt yours to do so.

From here.

Really though, this is utterly, utterly basic stuff. Ideas are not copyrightable, only a particular expression of the idea. Thus, I can write all the books I want about kids going to a school for wizards and having adventures, but if I try to write about Harry Potter, *then* I'm up shit creek.

If it were otherwise, then the fiction book trade would die over night as people sued each other left and right. There really aren't very many different plots, once you strip them down to the essential details.

The fact that Peter Pan is a "cultural treasure" is all the more reason to let him pass into the public domain, rather than remain in the hands of a single comany that could (say) whore him out in commercials when it's running low on cash...

The condition for the extension of copyright in this case was that the copyight be donated to a charity that had come to be associated with the character (the Great Ormond Street Hospital). Click here and search for "peter pan" for more info.

So, with Dracula, for instance, Bram Stoker held the textual copyright, which expired decades ago--but the publishing company (Penguin, in this case) owns the typographical copyright.

google is your friend: From here: Sound Recordings and broadcast programmes are 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which work was created/released. Everything else, including the copyright of the actual music, is life+70 years, or "an insane length of time" as I like to call it.

Sometimes these actions are considered tryable because no precedence current exists. It might be that there's no current ruling as to whether two differently written pieces of software which act the same are copies or not. So it might be that this case is tryable not because the plaintiff might win but because he or she might lose and so set a ruling.

With respect to ideas, computer programs and the like. These are all specifically covered by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 which is the latest version of acts that date all the way back to 1709, common law and the Statute of Anne.

British Law specifically excludes the copyrighting of ideas. You can find all about it here.

There's no formal procedure - in the UK or the US. If you write it, it's yours.
If you so desire, you can register it with a copyright agency (such as this one in the UK), but that's only to establish precedence in case someone claims to have written your stuff before you did. Of course, if you're that paranoid, sending a copy to yourself by registered mail and not opening it is just as safe - and probably a lot cheaper.