Slightly off topic for this blog but 'educational' nonetheless; there has recently been a flurry of legal interest in photographs posted by individuals to social media sites and what the sites then permit others to do with them. A pet project of mine was to produce a reasonable summary of the terms of a number of the most popular ones last year for work, as so many people were asking me what could happen to their content on the sites by virtue of posting it. Sites such as Facebook (and more recently, Instagram) have discovered to their detriment that they cannot change their terms on a whim to force users to assign copyright of content which they have created themselves; this type of 'rights-grab' is unacceptable in the digital world, mostly because no-one wants to see a photograph that they have taken being used as an advert for telecommunications or similar without their knowledge.
But what happens when a newspaper wants to use a photograph posted to a social media site to report on a breaking story? We live in the age of the visual, which means that images are highly sought after to depict events as they unfold. In a US judgment just announced this week, we have the culmination of a case which has taken 2 years to process. Daniel Morel, a photographer, was in Haiti at the time of the earthquake and took some iconic photographs of the devastation. He then posted them to his TwitPic account. Another individual, Lisandro Suero, copied the images and posted them to his TwitPic account. Both Morel and Suero were contacted by several press agencies, but it was Agence France Presse (AFP) who used the images (crediting Suero as the photographer) and transmitted them to Getty Images for further licensing to CNN and CBS. Morel sued for copyright infringement and the terms of TwitPic and Twitter were examined in court. The judge found that AFP could not claim to be a partner or affiliate of either social network, nor was it a sub-licensee, and had therefore infringed Morel's copyright. The ruling this week has limited the damages payable to Morel but is seen as a victory for photographers who post their work to social media sites.
In a similar fashion, the terms for social media have been upheld in the UK, with an interim judgment (paras 42-44) stating that Facebook's terms and conditions do not automatically give a newspaper the right to publish photographs posted to Facebook by a user. In RocknRoll v News Group Newspapers Ltd, a heady mix of privacy and copyright do battle against freedom of expression, with the judge stating that if this case was purely a commercial one (i.e. with no privacy implications) then damages would be an appropriate remedy for the individual who would lose out as a result of the infringement. But because the individual (Mr RocknRoll) is depicted in photos (for which he has subsequently had copyright assigned to him) which he would rather not have published for fear of damage to his reputation / relationship, the judge has placed an injunction on the press from publishing those photos for the time being. Case law has shown that in exceptional circumstances where the public interest is high (e.g. where there is evidence of criminal activity), newspapers can publish photographs without permission and not suffer the consequences of copyright infringement.
Rather encouragingly, this article in The Guardian today suggests that media outlets recognise users' rights in the content they post and that most newspapers seek permission to publish before doing so. This offers users who happen to be 'in the right place at the right time' an opportunity to commercialise their photos, although I have a lot of respect for the Twitter user mentioned in the article who refused to make money from his photographs of yesterday's tragic helicopter crash in London.
Thursday, 17 January 2013
Thursday, 6 December 2012
EU Directive on Public Sector Information: a Quick Look at the Proposed Amendments
It's been a shockingly long time since I posted anything on my blog - apologies for that. But things are picking up in the education and copyright world, so expect to hear a lot more in 2013! I thought I'd take the opportunity to have a quick look at the tabled amendments to the EU's Directive on Public Sector Information. This is going to plenary in the first half of 2013 and it looks like it will become fully fledged legislation shortly after.
The original PSI Directive (adopted by the UK in 2005) does not apply to documents held by educational and research establishments, such as schools and universities, and also does not apply to documents for which third parties hold intellectual property rights. The proposed amendments (inconveniently held in two separate documents, one short one which provides the context and the initial text of the Commission , and the 70 page list of amendments to that text) will however remove the exemption for public service broadcasters and their subsidiaries, and specifically mentions university libraries as separate from universities themselves (more on that later). A document is defined as any type of work, including software source code and broadcasts.
But it is the cultural heritage sector which is most concerned with the amendments being proposed. Libraries, archives, museums and public bodies managing archaeological and cultural sites will become subject to the Public Sector Information Regulations and therefore will be required to respond to requests for re-use of their documents and data. However, there are a number of criteria which, if the amendments are accepted, will apply to the cultural heritage sector (note that the PSI Directive ONLY applies to material for which the organisation holds the copyright - any documents for which the copyright is held by a third party are exempt):
This amendment is intended to clarify that the directive does not apply to documents held by a library which forms part of the university which holds the intellectual property right (IPR) in the document. A university and its libraries may constitute a single legal entity. Without amendment, the exclusion of documents subject to third-party IPR would not apply where a library holds the document but the IPR is held by the university because the university would not be a separate (i.e. third) party.
My personal thoughts on this statement is that the last 'not' shouldn't be there, but I have emailed the PSI Directive people over at the EU and eagerly await their response... I'll keep you posted. In the meantime, if anyone could shed any light on this, that would be useful!
The original PSI Directive (adopted by the UK in 2005) does not apply to documents held by educational and research establishments, such as schools and universities, and also does not apply to documents for which third parties hold intellectual property rights. The proposed amendments (inconveniently held in two separate documents, one short one which provides the context and the initial text of the Commission , and the 70 page list of amendments to that text) will however remove the exemption for public service broadcasters and their subsidiaries, and specifically mentions university libraries as separate from universities themselves (more on that later). A document is defined as any type of work, including software source code and broadcasts.
But it is the cultural heritage sector which is most concerned with the amendments being proposed. Libraries, archives, museums and public bodies managing archaeological and cultural sites will become subject to the Public Sector Information Regulations and therefore will be required to respond to requests for re-use of their documents and data. However, there are a number of criteria which, if the amendments are accepted, will apply to the cultural heritage sector (note that the PSI Directive ONLY applies to material for which the organisation holds the copyright - any documents for which the copyright is held by a third party are exempt):
- The cultural heritage sector should be allowed to charge more for the re-use of their documents than other public sector bodies.Charges should be set according to objective, transparent and verifiable criteria (the Directive doesn't elaborate on how this will be achieved);
- Conditions for re-use must be imposed on the user (at the very least, attribution of source). Re-use may be for either commercial or non-commercial purposes;
- Documents held which are of a particularly sensitive religious nature or that involve traditional knowledge (no definition of what traditional knowledge is) are exempt;
- Where there is third party copyright in a document, the library, archive or museum is not required to refer the requestor to the third party rightsholder (this feels a bit out of keeping with the public service ethic of helping people...);
- Complying with the request for re-use should not involve disproportionate effort - it feels as though the Directive is a little conflicted here, as in one part it mentions that documents should be made available via machine-readable formats in a way that ensures interoperability, yet later it suggests that there should be no obligation for a body to create, adapt or digitise documents to comply with a request. This will be solved at the plenary stage, I imagine, as these are suggestions by a number of individuals.
- Exclusive arrangements already in existence should be made transparent;
- Exclusive arrangements to digitise information and data of a cultural nature may be made but will be limited to a number of years, after which the digital copies may be re-used. The terms of the Directive will not be retrospective but will permit exclusive licences negotiated after the date from which the Directive comes into force to run for a number of years. The organisation with which the exclusive arrangement is made must provide digital copies of the material to the library or archive. Once the exclusive arrangement has terminated, there is nothing to stop the library or archive to make the material available on a subscription-only basis. Cultural institutions are still free to choose organisations for public-private partnerships.
This amendment is intended to clarify that the directive does not apply to documents held by a library which forms part of the university which holds the intellectual property right (IPR) in the document. A university and its libraries may constitute a single legal entity. Without amendment, the exclusion of documents subject to third-party IPR would not apply where a library holds the document but the IPR is held by the university because the university would not be a separate (i.e. third) party.
My personal thoughts on this statement is that the last 'not' shouldn't be there, but I have emailed the PSI Directive people over at the EU and eagerly await their response... I'll keep you posted. In the meantime, if anyone could shed any light on this, that would be useful!
Tuesday, 17 January 2012
The Copyright Consultation and education exceptions: what is proposed and how you can get involved
The Government's recently released Consultation on Copyright, a 160 page document to consider proposals for changes in the UK copyright regime to encourage innovation and economic growth, has already come under fire from a number of sectors. And it didn't take long for the consultation's proposals for the education sector to spark concerns. Only yesterday, the Authors' Licensing and Collecting Society wrote that the changes proposed in the consultation to the education exceptions in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (CDPA) could effectively "eradicate the income that ALCS receives from educational sources" (quoted from the 1709 blog article by IpKat Jeremy Phillips). So what is it that has the collecting societies so concerned?
Updating and enabling provisions for teaching (use of materials)
Section 32 of the CDPA allows anyone (anywhere, not just in an educational establishment) to copy works for the purposes of giving instruction or examination. Great, you might think. Wrong. It specifically states that copying may not be done by means of a "reprographic process". So all photocopying, printing, copy-and-pasting etc is out. Now, without wanting to show my age too much, going back to when I was at (primary) school, this sort of copying was fine - the teacher had a blackboard and a piece of chalk, and would copy something out of a book on to the board. Flash forward to 2012, and teachers all have interactive whiteboards or Smartboards, and presentation software. The instruction part of this section has become redundant in an age where all we CAN do is copy by means of a reprographic process.
Having spoken to a lot of teachers and lecturers, they either need or are required to make their lessons engaging, interactive, and eye-catching; often the best way to do this is to include images related to the subject being taught. Teachers are often confounded when copyright officers or librarians tell them that (under copyright law) they can't just go to Google Images and get a picture to use as an illustration in their lesson, but instead have to try to justify its use under the defence of fair dealing for criticism and review. This is not always easy to do when, in your lesson, you want an image to illustrate your slide to emphasise a point and engage the students. The Government therefore proposes to expand this exception to enable the use of materials for teaching with digital technology, thereby removing the counterintuitive position on copyright that those of us trying to teach best practice daily face.
Widening provisions for copying course materials
Herein lies a more contentious part of the proposed changes to copyright exceptions for education. Section 36, the section which spawned the creation of collecting societies such as the Copyright Licensing Agency (CLA), has long been a redundant and overlooked section in the CDPA because of its curious provisions. It says that reprographic copies of passages from literary, dramatic or musical works may be made by an educational establishment BUT that no more than 1% of any work may be copied in any quarter of the calendar year. Sir Hugh Laddie, the late great copyright judge, bemoaning the fact that diagrams can't be copied under this provision, sums this up as "a serious, and somewhat unrealistic, limitation" (Laddie, Prescott & Vitoria, 2011, The Modern Law of Copyright and Designs -4th ed).
And it is! How do you quantify 1% of a work? Admittedly, the longer the work, the better your chances, but how about a headline which may be considered a literary work under copyright following the NLA v Meltwater case? 1% of ten words is.. one word. Useful. So this is why educational establishments pay annually for a licence to cover the photocopying and scanning of literary and dramatic works, and artistic works insomuch as they form part of the other works. The CLA licence, for example, allows an institution to copy up to 5% or one chapter of a book, one article from a journal, and one paper from a set of conference proceedings.
The Government proposes to amend this exception so that it allows fair dealing with a work. Bear in mind that a lot of student copying occurs under fair dealing for non-commercial research, which doesn't have to be licensed. What the proposal is NOT saying is that licensing schemes should be scrapped altogether, something you could be forgiven for thinking if you only read what ALCS say. Any use where the copying is extensive and could effectively substitute for the purchase of a copyright work would have to be licensed. Through this consultation the Government wants to collect data on the impact of educational licensing schemes and in particular the impact on incentives to creators who create works specifically for use in education. Some authors who write for the education sector, however, have indicated that they are already paid by the public sector as part of their contractual role, and that the income they receive from these schemes is marginal. They would be happier for educational establishments to keep the money and plough it back into the library for the purchase of new books, journals and electronic resources, so publishers and authors ultimately wouldn't lose out.
Getting involved
Personally, I'm all in favour of bringing copyright exceptions for education up to date. Gowers, in his 2006 Review, highlighted the flaws but nothing was done to take forward his proposed changes. Delivery of education has changed beyond all recognition over the past 20 years or so, but sadly the copyright areas relating to it have not. That said, I am a firm believer in just reward for creative efforts, and am the last person who would advocate the withdrawal of revenues from creators. I doubt I am alone in saying that educational establishments are happy to pay for a licence if they understand the fee structure, know exactly what they are buying into and are happy that the money they spend is being channelled directly to those who have created or contributed to the material being used. I would urge any and all of the education sector to respond to the consultation because it is important that the views and struggles of the sector are heard in order to form a balanced opinion. The consultation is open until the 21st March and the proposed changes for education can be found on pp 89-95.
Updating and enabling provisions for teaching (use of materials)
Section 32 of the CDPA allows anyone (anywhere, not just in an educational establishment) to copy works for the purposes of giving instruction or examination. Great, you might think. Wrong. It specifically states that copying may not be done by means of a "reprographic process". So all photocopying, printing, copy-and-pasting etc is out. Now, without wanting to show my age too much, going back to when I was at (primary) school, this sort of copying was fine - the teacher had a blackboard and a piece of chalk, and would copy something out of a book on to the board. Flash forward to 2012, and teachers all have interactive whiteboards or Smartboards, and presentation software. The instruction part of this section has become redundant in an age where all we CAN do is copy by means of a reprographic process.
Having spoken to a lot of teachers and lecturers, they either need or are required to make their lessons engaging, interactive, and eye-catching; often the best way to do this is to include images related to the subject being taught. Teachers are often confounded when copyright officers or librarians tell them that (under copyright law) they can't just go to Google Images and get a picture to use as an illustration in their lesson, but instead have to try to justify its use under the defence of fair dealing for criticism and review. This is not always easy to do when, in your lesson, you want an image to illustrate your slide to emphasise a point and engage the students. The Government therefore proposes to expand this exception to enable the use of materials for teaching with digital technology, thereby removing the counterintuitive position on copyright that those of us trying to teach best practice daily face.
Widening provisions for copying course materials
Herein lies a more contentious part of the proposed changes to copyright exceptions for education. Section 36, the section which spawned the creation of collecting societies such as the Copyright Licensing Agency (CLA), has long been a redundant and overlooked section in the CDPA because of its curious provisions. It says that reprographic copies of passages from literary, dramatic or musical works may be made by an educational establishment BUT that no more than 1% of any work may be copied in any quarter of the calendar year. Sir Hugh Laddie, the late great copyright judge, bemoaning the fact that diagrams can't be copied under this provision, sums this up as "a serious, and somewhat unrealistic, limitation" (Laddie, Prescott & Vitoria, 2011, The Modern Law of Copyright and Designs -4th ed).
And it is! How do you quantify 1% of a work? Admittedly, the longer the work, the better your chances, but how about a headline which may be considered a literary work under copyright following the NLA v Meltwater case? 1% of ten words is.. one word. Useful. So this is why educational establishments pay annually for a licence to cover the photocopying and scanning of literary and dramatic works, and artistic works insomuch as they form part of the other works. The CLA licence, for example, allows an institution to copy up to 5% or one chapter of a book, one article from a journal, and one paper from a set of conference proceedings.
The Government proposes to amend this exception so that it allows fair dealing with a work. Bear in mind that a lot of student copying occurs under fair dealing for non-commercial research, which doesn't have to be licensed. What the proposal is NOT saying is that licensing schemes should be scrapped altogether, something you could be forgiven for thinking if you only read what ALCS say. Any use where the copying is extensive and could effectively substitute for the purchase of a copyright work would have to be licensed. Through this consultation the Government wants to collect data on the impact of educational licensing schemes and in particular the impact on incentives to creators who create works specifically for use in education. Some authors who write for the education sector, however, have indicated that they are already paid by the public sector as part of their contractual role, and that the income they receive from these schemes is marginal. They would be happier for educational establishments to keep the money and plough it back into the library for the purchase of new books, journals and electronic resources, so publishers and authors ultimately wouldn't lose out.
Getting involved
Personally, I'm all in favour of bringing copyright exceptions for education up to date. Gowers, in his 2006 Review, highlighted the flaws but nothing was done to take forward his proposed changes. Delivery of education has changed beyond all recognition over the past 20 years or so, but sadly the copyright areas relating to it have not. That said, I am a firm believer in just reward for creative efforts, and am the last person who would advocate the withdrawal of revenues from creators. I doubt I am alone in saying that educational establishments are happy to pay for a licence if they understand the fee structure, know exactly what they are buying into and are happy that the money they spend is being channelled directly to those who have created or contributed to the material being used. I would urge any and all of the education sector to respond to the consultation because it is important that the views and struggles of the sector are heard in order to form a balanced opinion. The consultation is open until the 21st March and the proposed changes for education can be found on pp 89-95.
Tuesday, 9 August 2011
Government’s Response to Hargreaves Review of IP: a good start or more to be done?
Last week the Government released their formal response to the Hargreaves Review of Intellectual Property and Growth . The Response broadly accepts the recommendations made and outlines how the Government proposes to act on each recommendation. Having read the response and taken some time to digest its contents, my overall view is that this is a significant step towards a long overdue copyright reform. However, it is a very ambitious move by the Government, given the tight timescales which have been set to achieve the desired changes to the IP framework. The Government is committed to creating favourable conditions for the encouragement of innovation and growth, but are leaving many of the finer practical details to the wider UK public, most likely those with a vested interest such as consumers, creators and businesses.
So what does the Government actually propose to do? Here’s my brief critical take on what I think are the most ground-breaking of the Government’s plans for action in the areas of copyright:
A longer post than I anticipated, and much more that could be said, but overall it is a good start. Those more cynical than I question whether this will go the same way as the Gowers Review and come to nothing despite the Government’s best intentions. But I remain positive; I think for once a lot of sensible truths based on evidence have been declared and at this difficult point in the economy businesses and the creative industries should be working hard to implement innovative schemes to enable their business to flourish in the digital age. Organised criminal piracy should be countered and prevented, and the Government should take a serious look at the support it needs to offer to creative industries in the form of tax breaks and advice. Education in particular should be able to thrive without fear of infringement of copyright, and the law needs to be brought up to date with digital technology and legitimise activities (i.e. copying a CD to a cassette tape) that have been innocently happening for decades.
So what does the Government actually propose to do? Here’s my brief critical take on what I think are the most ground-breaking of the Government’s plans for action in the areas of copyright:
- Evidence surrounding the economic issues of IP will be fundamental in shaping policy. Fairness and social impact will also be considered. This is absolutely essential; evidence should drive policy and it is imperative that evidence is high quality and carries no bias. The recognition that fairness and social impact also have a part to play widens the conversation to include moral rights for creators and any potential impact on consumers. Historically, copyright policy has been swayed by opinion and effective lobbying, but the proposals for policy changes will now be looking for hard evidence adhering to Intellectual Property Office (IPO) guidance which will be published later this year.
- The creation of a Digital Copyright Exchange or similar to enable rights clearance by facilitating copyright licensing. My speculation is that the Government envisages a type of portal incorporating databases of rights information which would allow an organisation or an individual to pick and choose the works they wanted to use and the way they wanted to use them. Similar to a Rights Direct model but on a much larger scale; perhaps a sort of shopping basket approach similar to that of Amazon when you buy multiple items from a range of different sellers. In theory, a great idea - a vast digital marketplace where licensing of works is quick and easy. However, it is not an ideal solution for those rights holders who don't store works in database form already, as uploading individual works into a suitable rights database with metadata and ownership records will take time, skill and effort. It will be interesting to see the development of this proposal. The requirements for the DCE are outlined as follows:
a. It must be free to use
b. It must attract a ‘critical mass’ of material that is available and readily licensable
c. Prices to be set or negotiated with rights holders subject to controls on unfair competition
d. Voluntary scheme, not compulsory
e. Self-funding, running on licensing transactions - Proposals for an orphan works scheme which will allow for both commercial and cultural uses of orphan works. As this topic is prevalent in Europe at the moment, it was always likely that the Government were going to take an active role in tackling orphan works. This will be a hotly contested area, particularly with regards to commercial use of orphan works, but the mention of diligent searches and market rates for the use of orphan works is a good start. The unspoken question though is always going to be: where does the licence fee go? Into the DCE? Perhaps one to muse... The proposals for extended collective licensing are more vague, however, leaving a very unclear picture as to how that aspect will function.
- Widen the exceptions to copyright within the existing EU framework, provided that harm to rights holders is minimal, EU law and international treaties are adhered to, and that restrictions removed by exceptions are not re-imposed by contract. The exceptions will allow for limited private copying, more materials available to copy under the proviso of non-commercial research, text and data mining, archiving and parody. This will be widely consulted on and the scope of the exceptions will be determined from sound evidence. The proposals to widen copyright exceptions to make use of all the exceptions listed in the EU Information Society Directive will immensely benefit education and research and it is very promising that they have been recognised in such a way.
- Develop a three-pronged attack comprising enforcement of IP rights, education of users, and appropriation of business models. The Government has outlined in its IP Crime Strategy that it is committed to tackling ‘piracy’ (one hopes with the talk of prosecution under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act that this report is not referring to file-sharing but rather the more criminal acts of copyright infringement such as mass sale of pirate copies for commercial gain). With civil infringements, rights holders will still have to deal with those themselves, but they (and especially smaller businesses) will be better supported with the introduction of a small claims track in the Patent County Court for claims under £5000 (assuming the cost of introducing one is not prohibitive).For me, the most encouraging aspect of this section is the recognition that business models need to change and adapt to the digital age. As such, the Government has pledged to work with industry to support efforts to develop new legitimate digital markets. File-sharing as an issue is unlikely to disappear, but the availability of high quality desirable digital content at affordable prices in an easy-to-access format should at least provide an incentive to entice people to acquire it via legitimate means.
- IPO to deliver copyright opinions service to clarify the applicability of copyright law. This may not look like a significant point but it really is. This will give the IPO a role not dissimilar to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) in terms of delivering opinions on complex copyright interpretations, and the IPO will become more of a ‘go-to’ service for educators struggling to make judgment calls, particularly in relation to new technology. But more than this: the Government hints that a copyright opinions service may shape the future of copyright legislation, identifying areas of uncertainty and supplementing the judgements of the legal profession and academic community. On the one hand, I see a copyright opinions service being quite fruitful – it’s often useful to be able to go to a public sector body and ask for a definite opinion on a matter. But on the other hand, could this be seen as the more easy way: rather than calling for a large scale review of the Copyright Act, this approach is quite piecemeal, which historically has not benefited copyright law. And how will the IPO interpret the law? Narrowly, as by the precedents set in the ECJ and other significant courts? Or more liberally, applying UK case law and interpretations? One major difference between the ICO and this newly appointed function of the IPO is that Freedom of Information legislation is home-grown and largely unaffected by EU case law, whereas copyright law is hugely influenced by the EU. It remains to be seen whether this will be a viable service or not, particularly where it relates to commercial enterprise.
A longer post than I anticipated, and much more that could be said, but overall it is a good start. Those more cynical than I question whether this will go the same way as the Gowers Review and come to nothing despite the Government’s best intentions. But I remain positive; I think for once a lot of sensible truths based on evidence have been declared and at this difficult point in the economy businesses and the creative industries should be working hard to implement innovative schemes to enable their business to flourish in the digital age. Organised criminal piracy should be countered and prevented, and the Government should take a serious look at the support it needs to offer to creative industries in the form of tax breaks and advice. Education in particular should be able to thrive without fear of infringement of copyright, and the law needs to be brought up to date with digital technology and legitimise activities (i.e. copying a CD to a cassette tape) that have been innocently happening for decades.
Thursday, 14 July 2011
File-sharing: a research opportunity for Higher Education?
A question asked by @Ottua at the 1709 Big Copyright Debate organised by @Ipkat earlier this week got me thinking: how can we know for sure how much damage really IS being done to the creative industries by file-sharing?
This question comes up time and again. Surveys churn out various statistics, which show that file-sharing is extremely damaging to the industry which is suffering hugely as a result. Yet often these surveys are found to be commissioned by the industries themselves, which leaves the more sceptical among us wondering if this is really the true picture. Of course, it doesn’t help when we notice some obvious anomales, such as when Avatar managed to be both number one at the box office AND the number one most downloaded film, or the figures which show that alleged pirates are also the largest purchasers of legitimate content.
Let it be clear: I am not advocating piracy or wilful infringement. I am a firm believer that piracy (definition: making a large-scale profit from copies of the original with no remuneration to the rights holder) is a crime, akin to counterfeiting, which is purely for an individual’s or company’s financial gain and motivated by making money at someone else’s expense. However, file-sharing (definition: the upload and download of creative content to freely share for no commercial gain) is a civil infringement, because you are breaching the communication to the public right under copyright. This says (effectively) that when you upload a work which is not your own and without permission from the rights owner, you are infringing copyright. Yet it still happens. Why?
I think that from an early age we learn to share (some also argue that we learn to copy, but I see this as more by way of mimicking rather than copying work per se). Everyone has differing tastes and interests, making each of us a unique individual. And when we encounter others who have similar tastes and interests, our natural enthusiasm for those interests leads us to talking about them and sharing information. And when our interests tend to be, say, a mutual enjoyment of 80s rock music (yes really), we are likely to ask ‘have you heard of Band XYZ?’ They say no, and our immediate response is ‘oh you must! I’ll lend you the CD’. How many of us have lost many of our most treasured possessions this way? (My dad @davecg69 foolishly lent his Beatles 'Let it Be' vinyl with the booklet to a friend and never got it back, regretting it ever since!). So when the technology becomes available in the form of recording to cassette / CD, instead of saying ‘I’ll lend you the CD’, we say ‘I’ll make you a copy’. And the thought of copyright infringement does not even cross our minds.
This has given me food for thought: if file-sharing is damaging, what about all the other ways in which we share content where the rights owner receives little or, more often, no recompense? And for which there is no defence in UK copyright law? What about when one person buys a DVD and a group of flatmates all sit down after a meal one night to watch it? What about when a parent puts on a Disney films for 20 kids at a sleepover or party (usually so they can have an hour’s rest!)? And how many of us read, watch, or listen to something, and when finished with it list it on eBay to sell to someone else? Or give it to a charity shop?
How many of these constitute ‘lost sales’? When you consider the UK alone, almost 62 million people, have been doing these sorts of activities for years, without a private use exception in copyright, how damaging has that been? Yes it is true that you can reach the world through the medium of the Internet, and so instead of just a few people to share with, you can now share with thousands, if not millions. But that is not to say that everyone on the Internet is file-sharing copyright content. And on the flip side: how many people are using other sites where content can be legitimately acquired and paid for? Such as iTunes, or LoveFilm? Perhaps rather than focusing on the damage that file-sharing is having on the creative economy, industries should be comparing those statistics with the growth and use of legitimate downloads. I have little doubt that these sites have steadily increased in use over the past few years as more and more desirable content has become available to purchase.
As I said at the debate, more research needs to be done into this area, and not just industry-led research either, but strong verified independent research. And who better to lead on this than universities? Only the other week I was delighted to read about the Arts & Humanities Research Council’s funding opportunity for a Centre for Copyright and New Business Models in the Creative Economy. This is a first-class opportunity for universities to do some highly valuable research which will benefit the creative economy, looking at (I hope) all the issues I’ve outlined above and more. Research could measure the impact of the recession (people refraining from spend on items for pleasure or luxury, such as film/cinema and books) on the creative economy, contextualising it within the economic climate, as that undoubtedly has had an effect. But universities could also collaborate with businesses and the technology industry to experiment with new and innovative business models, measuring their impact and effectiveness and assessing long-term benefits.
I would urge Higher Education institutions to communicate and collaborate with one another on this project, which has the potential to revolutionise the way that research is being done in this area. A £5 million funding grant is not a figure you should ignore. Don't let this opportunity pass you by - get involved!
This question comes up time and again. Surveys churn out various statistics, which show that file-sharing is extremely damaging to the industry which is suffering hugely as a result. Yet often these surveys are found to be commissioned by the industries themselves, which leaves the more sceptical among us wondering if this is really the true picture. Of course, it doesn’t help when we notice some obvious anomales, such as when Avatar managed to be both number one at the box office AND the number one most downloaded film, or the figures which show that alleged pirates are also the largest purchasers of legitimate content.
Let it be clear: I am not advocating piracy or wilful infringement. I am a firm believer that piracy (definition: making a large-scale profit from copies of the original with no remuneration to the rights holder) is a crime, akin to counterfeiting, which is purely for an individual’s or company’s financial gain and motivated by making money at someone else’s expense. However, file-sharing (definition: the upload and download of creative content to freely share for no commercial gain) is a civil infringement, because you are breaching the communication to the public right under copyright. This says (effectively) that when you upload a work which is not your own and without permission from the rights owner, you are infringing copyright. Yet it still happens. Why?
I think that from an early age we learn to share (some also argue that we learn to copy, but I see this as more by way of mimicking rather than copying work per se). Everyone has differing tastes and interests, making each of us a unique individual. And when we encounter others who have similar tastes and interests, our natural enthusiasm for those interests leads us to talking about them and sharing information. And when our interests tend to be, say, a mutual enjoyment of 80s rock music (yes really), we are likely to ask ‘have you heard of Band XYZ?’ They say no, and our immediate response is ‘oh you must! I’ll lend you the CD’. How many of us have lost many of our most treasured possessions this way? (My dad @davecg69 foolishly lent his Beatles 'Let it Be' vinyl with the booklet to a friend and never got it back, regretting it ever since!). So when the technology becomes available in the form of recording to cassette / CD, instead of saying ‘I’ll lend you the CD’, we say ‘I’ll make you a copy’. And the thought of copyright infringement does not even cross our minds.
This has given me food for thought: if file-sharing is damaging, what about all the other ways in which we share content where the rights owner receives little or, more often, no recompense? And for which there is no defence in UK copyright law? What about when one person buys a DVD and a group of flatmates all sit down after a meal one night to watch it? What about when a parent puts on a Disney films for 20 kids at a sleepover or party (usually so they can have an hour’s rest!)? And how many of us read, watch, or listen to something, and when finished with it list it on eBay to sell to someone else? Or give it to a charity shop?
How many of these constitute ‘lost sales’? When you consider the UK alone, almost 62 million people, have been doing these sorts of activities for years, without a private use exception in copyright, how damaging has that been? Yes it is true that you can reach the world through the medium of the Internet, and so instead of just a few people to share with, you can now share with thousands, if not millions. But that is not to say that everyone on the Internet is file-sharing copyright content. And on the flip side: how many people are using other sites where content can be legitimately acquired and paid for? Such as iTunes, or LoveFilm? Perhaps rather than focusing on the damage that file-sharing is having on the creative economy, industries should be comparing those statistics with the growth and use of legitimate downloads. I have little doubt that these sites have steadily increased in use over the past few years as more and more desirable content has become available to purchase.
As I said at the debate, more research needs to be done into this area, and not just industry-led research either, but strong verified independent research. And who better to lead on this than universities? Only the other week I was delighted to read about the Arts & Humanities Research Council’s funding opportunity for a Centre for Copyright and New Business Models in the Creative Economy. This is a first-class opportunity for universities to do some highly valuable research which will benefit the creative economy, looking at (I hope) all the issues I’ve outlined above and more. Research could measure the impact of the recession (people refraining from spend on items for pleasure or luxury, such as film/cinema and books) on the creative economy, contextualising it within the economic climate, as that undoubtedly has had an effect. But universities could also collaborate with businesses and the technology industry to experiment with new and innovative business models, measuring their impact and effectiveness and assessing long-term benefits.
I would urge Higher Education institutions to communicate and collaborate with one another on this project, which has the potential to revolutionise the way that research is being done in this area. A £5 million funding grant is not a figure you should ignore. Don't let this opportunity pass you by - get involved!
Thursday, 30 June 2011
Images & Copyright Part 1: Photographs
A little while ago I crowd-sourced Twitter for copyright questions about images. These questions helped inform a talk that I gave to the Art Libraries Society (ARLIS) on images and copyright, looking at the issues are faced by information professionals dealing with visual resources in the digital age.
What I found most interesting about the questions I received was that most of them concerned photographs. Fascinating, but not surprising, as photographs are a very unique type of artistic work and as with audiovisual works can include other types of copyright work. Fortunately, I’m very interested in photographers’ rights and deliver talks regularly to photography societies. Questions about photographs usually fall into two distinct categories: the actual taking of a photograph, and the subsequent use of a photograph. I will address both.
Photographing people (individuals and groups)
@chr1staylor questioned whether consent is required from people when taking photographs. But in order to answer this question, it must be placed in context; you have to look at the circumstances surrounding the taking of the photo. There is no law which prevents the actual taking of a photo, with the exception of s.41 of the Criminal Justice Act which prohibits the taking of photos in and around court. However, you must respect people’s privacy: Article 8 of the Human Rights Act says that everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. Using a telephoto lens to snap someone through their bedroom window, for example, would violate their privacy right. It is not illegal or unlawful to take pictures of people in public, but crucially it is what you do with the photograph which is the real issue.
Publicity or image rights are not codified in UK law but are bound up in intellectual property and media law. Jane Coyle’s article in lawdit offers a concise exploration of the subject. When it comes to use in advertising, the Advertising Standards Authority states that:
Advertisers should seek written permission from those whose image will be used in any promotional campaign especially in respect of commercial activity and endorsement.
You must get consent from any individual whose photograph you want to use commercially (and this includes websites which are seen as advertising and marketing tools). Celebrities often have a strong sense of the rights to their own image (some even take it to the extreme). Using a photograph of a celebrity that you snapped at a red carpet event to endorse your latest brand will most likely land you a lawsuit (unless they had agreed to promote your brand). Photographers taking pictures of models will need signed written consent in order to licence the photos to stock image galleries.
The following situations do not require consent: taking photographs of people or individuals at public events for non-commercial purposes (including uploading the photos to social networks) or for the purposes of news reporting. A question from @grantreilly asked whether consent would be required when taking photographs of people playing sport on university fields and then uploading those photos to Facebook; the short answer is no.
Photographing things
In the UK, some photography could get you into trouble with the relevant applicable law. These are predominantly photographing sensitive locations (e.g. military bases), protected species of wildlife at their nesting places, bank notes, logos and trademarks, and artwork which is still in copyright and isn’t permanently situated in a public place.
In other circumstances, it is usually the purpose for which the photo is intended to be used which is the crucial element. If a copyright work is the main focus of the photo, you will need permission from the copyright holder to use the image commercially. Bear in mind that some iconic buildings may be brands in their own right and contain intellectual property rights (for example, the Sears Tower). @glynmoody pointed me towards a blog containing questions on photography; I’ll include a couple of them here:
* Can I take a picture of a model in a designer dress and sell or give away copies of the picture with only the model’s permission? – yes; there is some discrepancy over whether clothing attracts sufficient protection under copyright as a work of artistic craftsmanship. It would be wise not to use this photograph for any type of advertising purpose.
* Can I take a picture of a room papered with designer wallpaper and sell or give away copies of the picture? – as long as the wallpaper is not the focus of the photograph (i.e. a close up shot of the wallpaper), then yes this would be ok.
You don’t have to obtain specific permission to take photographs of copyright works and use them to accompany news reports, reviews and critiques, or to advertise their sale. Nor do you have to obtain permission where the protected item is not the focus of the picture or where the photograph is for your own private use. Logos are always tricky because they can often be covered by other intellectual property rights such as trade marks or design rights. @richardberryuk queried whether a logo appearing in an image should be blurred out; if the logo is incidentally included in the photograph, this would be unnecessary – deliberate inclusion, on the other hand, may be seen as infringement.
What I found most interesting about the questions I received was that most of them concerned photographs. Fascinating, but not surprising, as photographs are a very unique type of artistic work and as with audiovisual works can include other types of copyright work. Fortunately, I’m very interested in photographers’ rights and deliver talks regularly to photography societies. Questions about photographs usually fall into two distinct categories: the actual taking of a photograph, and the subsequent use of a photograph. I will address both.
Photographing people (individuals and groups)
@chr1staylor questioned whether consent is required from people when taking photographs. But in order to answer this question, it must be placed in context; you have to look at the circumstances surrounding the taking of the photo. There is no law which prevents the actual taking of a photo, with the exception of s.41 of the Criminal Justice Act which prohibits the taking of photos in and around court. However, you must respect people’s privacy: Article 8 of the Human Rights Act says that everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. Using a telephoto lens to snap someone through their bedroom window, for example, would violate their privacy right. It is not illegal or unlawful to take pictures of people in public, but crucially it is what you do with the photograph which is the real issue.
Publicity or image rights are not codified in UK law but are bound up in intellectual property and media law. Jane Coyle’s article in lawdit offers a concise exploration of the subject. When it comes to use in advertising, the Advertising Standards Authority states that:
Advertisers should seek written permission from those whose image will be used in any promotional campaign especially in respect of commercial activity and endorsement.
You must get consent from any individual whose photograph you want to use commercially (and this includes websites which are seen as advertising and marketing tools). Celebrities often have a strong sense of the rights to their own image (some even take it to the extreme). Using a photograph of a celebrity that you snapped at a red carpet event to endorse your latest brand will most likely land you a lawsuit (unless they had agreed to promote your brand). Photographers taking pictures of models will need signed written consent in order to licence the photos to stock image galleries.
The following situations do not require consent: taking photographs of people or individuals at public events for non-commercial purposes (including uploading the photos to social networks) or for the purposes of news reporting. A question from @grantreilly asked whether consent would be required when taking photographs of people playing sport on university fields and then uploading those photos to Facebook; the short answer is no.
Photographing things
In the UK, some photography could get you into trouble with the relevant applicable law. These are predominantly photographing sensitive locations (e.g. military bases), protected species of wildlife at their nesting places, bank notes, logos and trademarks, and artwork which is still in copyright and isn’t permanently situated in a public place.
In other circumstances, it is usually the purpose for which the photo is intended to be used which is the crucial element. If a copyright work is the main focus of the photo, you will need permission from the copyright holder to use the image commercially. Bear in mind that some iconic buildings may be brands in their own right and contain intellectual property rights (for example, the Sears Tower). @glynmoody pointed me towards a blog containing questions on photography; I’ll include a couple of them here:
* Can I take a picture of a model in a designer dress and sell or give away copies of the picture with only the model’s permission? – yes; there is some discrepancy over whether clothing attracts sufficient protection under copyright as a work of artistic craftsmanship. It would be wise not to use this photograph for any type of advertising purpose.
* Can I take a picture of a room papered with designer wallpaper and sell or give away copies of the picture? – as long as the wallpaper is not the focus of the photograph (i.e. a close up shot of the wallpaper), then yes this would be ok.
You don’t have to obtain specific permission to take photographs of copyright works and use them to accompany news reports, reviews and critiques, or to advertise their sale. Nor do you have to obtain permission where the protected item is not the focus of the picture or where the photograph is for your own private use. Logos are always tricky because they can often be covered by other intellectual property rights such as trade marks or design rights. @richardberryuk queried whether a logo appearing in an image should be blurred out; if the logo is incidentally included in the photograph, this would be unnecessary – deliberate inclusion, on the other hand, may be seen as infringement.
Wednesday, 18 May 2011
Hargreaves Review recommendations: impact on cultural and education sectors
After days of speculation, rumours and leaks, the results are finally in... but what impact, if any, will they have on the education and cultural sectors?
1. Format-shifting
Under current copyright law there is no provision to format shift for private use, meaning that when you purchase a CD, it is technically an infringement to copy it to your computer and then add the tracks to your iPod. For libraries and archives, however, there is a narrow provision in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act which permits the making of a replacement copy of a literary, dramatic or musical work in order to preserve it. The scope is narrow because it doesn’t extend to artistic works such as photographs, or to sound recordings or films, many of which are stored in archives unable to be used because the technology has moved on and the hardware on which to run them is obsolete. This recommendation will bring copyright law in line with the practices across the UK in terms of format-shifting between devices and give the Copyright Act more credibility in the eyes of consumers. More importantly though, it will allow cultural heritage institutions to convert their collections from an obsolete format to one which will run in the digital age. These will be of great benefit to researchers, particularly those involved in the Arts subjects.
2. Text and data mining
Text and data mining are processes which researchers can use to analyse information. Algorithms are programmed to look for relationships between certain facts across a wide range of data and information, which enables rapid delivery of research data and results. However, numerous contracts do not permit text and data mining, and there is also a question over whether the process infringes copyright and database rights, as it has to copy the information in order to analyse it. The Hargreaves Review is keen to promote the concept of text and data mining at EU level and is keen that copyright law should not hinder scientific research by blocking these processes, as they will be key to the development and growth of scientific research.
3. Legislation to prevent exceptions in copyright law being superseded by contract
Following on from the second point, this recommendation is extremely important to allow researchers as well as the education and cultural sectors to benefit from the exceptions which have been outlined in both the CDPA and the EU’s Information Society Directive. The Review proposes an adoption of all Article 5 exceptions, including parody. The education sector in particular has a lot of problems with contracts containing extremely narrow permissions to use licensed works in certain ways, and libraries have struggled for years with contracts which specifically restrict actions which are permitted under copyright law. This provision would allow these sectors to breathe easily once more, and not continue to live in fear of breaching a contract at the expense of doing a permitted act.
4. Orphan works
An incendiary subject for those with a vested interest, but with the likelihood of a Directive from the EU on orphan works, the Hargreaves Review had little choice but to recommend legislation. However, they have proposed an interesting solution: the creation of a cross-sector and cross-border Digital Copyright Exchange, involving rights holders and creators, to be the framework for cross-border copyright licensing and governed by IPO-approved codes of practice. Within this framework, orphan works must be tried and tested to see whether they are truly ‘orphans’. Legislation will also enable extended collective licensing similar to the Nordic model to support mass digitisation in specific areas, a proposal which will be welcomed by the cultural heritage sector. Institutions however must continue to carry out diligent searches to try to discover the rights owner. Should a rights owner come forward to claim an orphan, there will be no liability for past use of that orphan but future use would be subject to negotiation with the owner. Additionally, any materials which had never been created or intended for commercial purposes would be subject to a nominal licence fee for use.
Final thoughts...
Sadly, the recommendations do not solve the issue over the use of images for teaching purposes, but it’s not a bad start – the recommendation to implement all the provisions in Article 5 of the Information Society Directive which would allow for parody (about time) and format shifting for preservation purposes will be welcomed, particularly by archives and libraries. There is also a desire to make copyright law adaptable to new technologies, a very wise move in an age where digital technology is so rapidly changing. The recommendations are based on the evidence provided, but whether the Government chooses to implement them, and furthermore how they are implemented remains to be seen.
1. Format-shifting
Under current copyright law there is no provision to format shift for private use, meaning that when you purchase a CD, it is technically an infringement to copy it to your computer and then add the tracks to your iPod. For libraries and archives, however, there is a narrow provision in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act which permits the making of a replacement copy of a literary, dramatic or musical work in order to preserve it. The scope is narrow because it doesn’t extend to artistic works such as photographs, or to sound recordings or films, many of which are stored in archives unable to be used because the technology has moved on and the hardware on which to run them is obsolete. This recommendation will bring copyright law in line with the practices across the UK in terms of format-shifting between devices and give the Copyright Act more credibility in the eyes of consumers. More importantly though, it will allow cultural heritage institutions to convert their collections from an obsolete format to one which will run in the digital age. These will be of great benefit to researchers, particularly those involved in the Arts subjects.
2. Text and data mining
Text and data mining are processes which researchers can use to analyse information. Algorithms are programmed to look for relationships between certain facts across a wide range of data and information, which enables rapid delivery of research data and results. However, numerous contracts do not permit text and data mining, and there is also a question over whether the process infringes copyright and database rights, as it has to copy the information in order to analyse it. The Hargreaves Review is keen to promote the concept of text and data mining at EU level and is keen that copyright law should not hinder scientific research by blocking these processes, as they will be key to the development and growth of scientific research.
3. Legislation to prevent exceptions in copyright law being superseded by contract
Following on from the second point, this recommendation is extremely important to allow researchers as well as the education and cultural sectors to benefit from the exceptions which have been outlined in both the CDPA and the EU’s Information Society Directive. The Review proposes an adoption of all Article 5 exceptions, including parody. The education sector in particular has a lot of problems with contracts containing extremely narrow permissions to use licensed works in certain ways, and libraries have struggled for years with contracts which specifically restrict actions which are permitted under copyright law. This provision would allow these sectors to breathe easily once more, and not continue to live in fear of breaching a contract at the expense of doing a permitted act.
4. Orphan works
An incendiary subject for those with a vested interest, but with the likelihood of a Directive from the EU on orphan works, the Hargreaves Review had little choice but to recommend legislation. However, they have proposed an interesting solution: the creation of a cross-sector and cross-border Digital Copyright Exchange, involving rights holders and creators, to be the framework for cross-border copyright licensing and governed by IPO-approved codes of practice. Within this framework, orphan works must be tried and tested to see whether they are truly ‘orphans’. Legislation will also enable extended collective licensing similar to the Nordic model to support mass digitisation in specific areas, a proposal which will be welcomed by the cultural heritage sector. Institutions however must continue to carry out diligent searches to try to discover the rights owner. Should a rights owner come forward to claim an orphan, there will be no liability for past use of that orphan but future use would be subject to negotiation with the owner. Additionally, any materials which had never been created or intended for commercial purposes would be subject to a nominal licence fee for use.
Final thoughts...
Sadly, the recommendations do not solve the issue over the use of images for teaching purposes, but it’s not a bad start – the recommendation to implement all the provisions in Article 5 of the Information Society Directive which would allow for parody (about time) and format shifting for preservation purposes will be welcomed, particularly by archives and libraries. There is also a desire to make copyright law adaptable to new technologies, a very wise move in an age where digital technology is so rapidly changing. The recommendations are based on the evidence provided, but whether the Government chooses to implement them, and furthermore how they are implemented remains to be seen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)