UK Copyright Law

IAC General Discussions
Post Reply
User avatar
billyfromConsett
Posts: 489
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 3:27 pm
Location: Consett

UK Copyright Law

Post by billyfromConsett »

I was given an interesting article to look at (and is on the web - http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyr ... yright_law)
which seems to suggest that some of us amateurs may not be the rampant law breakers that some would have us believe. Like many of us, I subscribe to the IAC music licence, and I haven't read right through the whole website, but I was shown area P01 of their information centre - 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.
(Profit making organisations and individuals should obtain a license from PRS for Music.)"

So has anybody heard of the UK Copyright Service, and if so, do you feel that they have the correct interpretation that can apply to people who use copyrighted music for non profitable organisations?
Michael Slowe
Posts: 695
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 4:24 pm

Re: UK Copyright Law

Post by Michael Slowe »

Billy, that looks very comforting but I don't think it's correct. I'm sure that the very act of copying a recorded piece of music infringes copyright unless the music is by a composer whose work is out of copyright and played by an ensemble in your control. The recording is owned by the record company. To play a piece of music in public also requires a license from the Performing Rights people also but maybe it's OK if no entrance charge is made.

Your point about non profit is probably valid in the playing of the music but I'm pretty sure the copying and dubbing is not covered. Maybe the lawyers amongst us can chip in here. I've also always understood that the IAC scheme does not cover solo artists such as singers but I stand to be corrected here.

In practice of course an amateur film maker is unlikely to fall foul of the copyright laws in a club environment but in the larger festivals where prize winners may get cinema showings and wide publicity there is a definite need to take all the right steps to get clearance, paying for it if need be.

I remember years ago when the Ten Best always had a selection of films aired by ITV on their Clapperboard programme music used in the films had to be cleared by the broadcaster, I know because I had to provide details of music I had used.
User avatar
billyfromConsett
Posts: 489
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 3:27 pm
Location: Consett

Re: UK Copyright Law

Post by billyfromConsett »

If any copying of music or pictures always infringes copyright law, why is that we can all copy anything that's on TV with an array of devices that were made for no other reason than to copy TV programmes?
Surely devices that always break the law wouldn't be outlawed for sale in the UK?

Who gets summonsed to court charged with copying (onto DVD) TV programmes?

It's an interesting subject that IMO asks some questions.
User avatar
ADBest
Posts: 79
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 2:04 pm
Location: Sunderland

Re: UK Copyright Law

Post by ADBest »

Billy

The link you provided is to the home page of the UK Copyright Service.

They appear to be a company concerned with the protection of copyright rather than its infringement.

The information provided on their Fact Sheet P-01 sets out the situation as it is currently practiced throughout the world of non-commercial video making and is eminently fair. We all act this way but feel guilty about it. This summary looks to be a recognition of this situation.

For those interested the following link will take you to the UKCS Fact Sheet index.

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

Other sheets in the series are listed below.
Copyright fact sheets
Fact sheets
P-01: UK copyright law
P-02: Protecting copyright
P-03: Using copyright notices
P-04: Copyright registration
P-05: Copyright infringement
P-07: Music copyright
P-08: Copyright law - The Berne Convention
P-09: Understanding fair use
P-10: Duration of copyright
P-11: Website copyright
P-12: Writers copyright
P-13: Seeking permission
P-14: The Universal Copyright Convention
P-15: Designs and design rights
P-16: Photography copyright
P-17: Updating copyright registrations
P-18: Names, titles and copyright
P-19: Using registered notices
P-20: Copyleft
P-21: Protecting ideas
P-22: Derivative works
P-23: Registering websites

Arthur
Brian Saberton
Posts: 352
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 7:00 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: UK Copyright Law

Post by Brian Saberton »

As I understand it, the position with recording material off-air via a recording device is that this is allowable for time shift purposes only, i.e for purely personal use in your own home. Any other use would be an infringement of copyright.
Brian Saberton
User avatar
billyfromConsett
Posts: 489
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 3:27 pm
Location: Consett

Re: UK Copyright Law

Post by billyfromConsett »

Is that fact or an old wives tale though Brian? The quoted website who are protecting the artists don't seem to want to get round this fair use/non-commercial policy.
Brian Saberton
Posts: 352
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 7:00 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: UK Copyright Law

Post by Brian Saberton »

Billy, I know I've read about this somewhere in the press but it was some time ago. Funnily enough I've just been trawling through some back issues of SAM News and came across an item written in 1999 by Ken McRonald. He was reporting on the case of an Aberdeen Teacher whose subject was music. She was found to be copying sheet music (presumably for education purposes) and in the legal action which followed she lost her house.
Brian Saberton
Post Reply